Should We Condemn Unbelievers for Their Own Good

We are to have faith that what God says about himself in Christ is true, what God says about us in Christ is true, and what God says about others in Christ is true. So whatever the appearances may be, we are to have faith that God is working in others to do what only God can do. This means that we must never condition our love and acceptance of people with judgment about how much or how little progress they are making in their relationship with God.

Conditioning our love and acceptance of people on the basis of our judgment reveals that we don’t believe what God says about them or that God is working in their lives. Since “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23), we should in this case be concerned with the tree trunk of sin in our own life rather than trying to fix the sin we think we perceive in others’ lives.

We should focus on what God commands us to do rather than speculating about the extent to which others are or are not doing what God has commanded them to do. When we try to detach ourselves and critically evaluate the progress of others, we act as though we are their masters, and we thereby disobey God (Matt 7:1-5, Rom 14:4).

This also applies to people who haven’t yet surrendered their lives to Christ. They, too, must be unconditionally embraced and invited into the celebration of the cessation of the banishment from communion with God. Indeed, our unconditional, loving embrace is the central way these people are to come to know we are disciples of Christ. They encounter the reality of Jesus Christ as they experience his love through us (Jn 17:20-26). Though they cannot see God, they experience his love as it is manifested through us (1 Jn 4:12). Our outrageous love becomes a puzzle to them for which Jesus Christ is the only adequate explanation.

But doesn’t such an unconditionally loving approach to sinners make light of sin? As Bonhoeffer asked, “Does not the evil in the other person make me condemn him just for his own good, for the sake of love?” The answer, according to Bonhoeffer, is a decisive no. Indeed, just the opposite is the case.

We radically trivialize sin when we make it a matter of more or less. We undermine its absolute seriousness when we allow for supposed “holier” people to love “less holy” people conditionally, based on “holier” people’s own judgment and according to their own standards. Sin is only taken seriously when we realize that, apart from Christ, we are all in the same septic tank of condemnation together. It is taken seriously only when we realize that sin has been irrevocably exposed, condemned, and overcome on the cross. And we repeat this condemnation of sin and confess our conviction about its absolute seriousness every time we love others as Christ has loved us—unconditionally, despite our sin.

Regardless of whether people are believers or not, and regardless of how things may appear, we are called to unconditionally embrace them with Christ’s love and trust that God is at work in their lives, despite their sin, just as he is in our own lives.

—Adapted from Repenting of Religion, pages 213-214
- Greg Boyd

The Lord is Good to All

This morning I read what is among my favorite psalms, Ps 145. It is a long and enthusiastic celebration of God's utter goodness and benevolence to every creature and every person. In it we find the following:

The LORD is gracious and merciful,
  slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
The LORD is good to all,
  and his compassion is over all that he has made (Ps 145.8-9).

I enjoy reading this very much because it resonates deeply with me; it is a fine embodiment of my understanding of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. I believe that the cross of Jesus Christ, an atonement for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2.2), is the definitive demonstration of God's goodwill and love for the whole of the creation. This psalm here is even more so plausible and full of truth when we see it through the demonstration of God's love in Jesus.

Yet our experience often calls it into question! Is the LORD really gracious and merciful? Is he really good and compassionate to all? Is it really true that The LORD is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings (Ps 145.17)? How many people have to suffer every day and never find resolution for their problems, despite all their prayers! How many people lift up the prayer, Give heed to my cry, for I am brought very low (Ps 142.6) and a response doesn't seem forthcoming!

Here we are brought face to face with God who acts and does things differently than we do. We want problems to be resolved here and now; God seems content to take his time in most cases. Rarely if ever are things hurried. Consider the story of Samuel searching for the new king of Israel. He wanted one of Jesse's older boys to be the king, since they were of age and strong and ready for the job. Instead God chose David, who was yet a boy and had to pass through many trials and tribulations first before becoming king. Samuel would have preferred a quick solution to the matter, but God chose the lengthier way.

Why things are like this, we may never know. The world isn't the way we would expect; God isn't like us in every respect, and here especially he seems strange and far off. What are we supposed to do? What else can we do, except what the Bible calls us to do from the very beginning to the very end: to trust God. This was Jesus' message: repent and believe in the good news that God's kingdom is near; trust that God is taking control of things and is leading them to a glorious restoration in the end.

This psalm is a good psalm to pray. Think of Christ on the cross for the sins of the whole world, think of the empty tomb and the power of God to bring resurrection out of crucifixion. Then you will say: The LORD is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings (Ps 145.17). 

Eye for Eye: Jesus refutes OT Teaching

One of the most surprising aspects of Jesus’ teaching is that, while he clearly shared his contemporaries’ view of the Old Testament as inspired by God, he was nevertheless not afraid of repudiating it when he felt led by his Father to do so (Jn. 8:28; 12:49-50; 14:31). For example, while the OT commands people to make oaths in God’s name (Deut 6:13), Jesus forbids it (Mt 5:33-37). And, much more importantly for our purposes, while the OT commands an “eye for eye” and a “tooth for a tooth,” Jesus commanded people to “not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek, also” (Mt 5:38-39).

Jesus’ repudiation of taking an “eye for an eye,” is explicitly commanded in the OT (e.g. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:19-20). Indeed, in Deuteronomy, the command is not merely about how much punishment is allowed; it’s about how much is required. “Show no pity,” the text states, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). It thus seems that Jesus “freely admitted that his ethical teachings contrasted sharply with some of the ethical teachings in the Mosaic law.”[1]
In this light, Eugene Boring must be judged to be on the mark when he argues that this “juxtaposition is not to be softened,” for in this passage “Jesus does more than give a better interpretation of the old authority; he relocates authority from the written text of Scripture to himself – i.e., to God’s presence in his life, teaching, death, and resurrection…”[2] With Donald Hagner, we must agree that this example of Jesus’ “authoritative ‘but I say to you,’ is shocking in its contrast with the principle of justice defended by the OT texts.”[3] Yet, while this contrast is indeed shocking, it’s important we note that Jesus’ new “teaching is not [a] transgression of the Law, but its transcendence,” as Boring puts it.[4] Jesus repudiated aspects of the OT law not by encouraging people to break any laws, but by teaching and embodying a way of life that reflected the wholeness (teleios) of the Father (Mt. 5:48, cf. 17-20).

Nevertheless, it can’t be denied that this replacement is “shocking.” What is even more shocking than this contrast, however, is the absolute importance Jesus’ placed on adhering to it. Jesus commanded followers to love and serve enemies rather than adhere to the OT law “that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Mt. 5:45, cf. Lk 6:35, emphasis added). For Jesus, embodying enemy-loving non-violence was the precondition for being considered a child of God. The stakes obviously could not be higher.

Yet, in replacing the “eye for an eye” command with his love command, Jesus is not merely repudiating three verses of the OT. He is, at least indirectly, undermining the inherent violence of all retributive laws in then OT. For the principle embodied in the “an eye for an eye” is not essentially different from the commandments to execute children who slander their parents, to cut off the hand of any woman who touches a man’s genitalia, and the like. His teaching, clearly, is quite at odds with a significant portion of the OT law.

One could go further, as does C. S. Cowles, and argue that Jesus’ teaching on enemy-loving non-violence “represents a total repudiation of Moses’ genocidal commands and stands in judgment on Joshua’s campaign of ethnic cleansing.”[5] Indeed, while it raises a host of interpretive issues which I am addressing in my forthcoming book The Crucifiction of the Warrior God, Jesus’ radical teaching on enemy-loving non-violence stands in tension with every OT narrative in which Yahweh is depicted as acting or sanctioning violence. For example, it’s significant that when James and John wanted to follow the precedent of Elijah and “call fire down from heaven to destroy” a Samaritan village, Jesus “rebuked” them and, according to many early manuscripts, told them; “You do not know what spirit you are of” (Lk. 9: 54-55; cf. 2 Kg 1:10, 12, 14). As shocking as it is, this episode clearly suggests that Jesus regarded Elijah’s enemy-destroying supernatural feat to be ungodly, if not demonic.


Whatever else we might say about all of this, if we take Jesus’ criteria for what qualifies one to be considered a child “of your Father in heaven” seriously, then it seems that anyone who acted in the violent way Moses, Joshua, Elijah and other OT heroes acted would be considered by Jesus to be disqualified from being considered a child of God. Obviously, in making this observation I’m not suggesting OT heroes weren’t “saved,” for Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. I make it rather to simply note the remarkable extent to which Jesus turned significant portions of the OT upside-down with his radical teaching on enemy-loving non-violence.

- Greg Boyd

An Insatiable Hunger

The only kind of life animals care about is biological. If their basic physical needs for food and shelter are met, they’re satisfied. Humans also want their basic physical needs met, of course, but that isn’t enough. We hunger for more. Not only do we want to be alive, we want to feel fully alive. We hunger for Life.

This craving for Life can be described in many ways. Among other things, it includes the profound desire to feel loved and the desire to be happy. But one of the most fundamental aspects of the Life we long for is our undeniable, universal need to experience worth and significance. Though we may be unaware of it, all of us are driven by a desperate need to feel like we matter. Even if all our basic physical needs are met and we enjoy all the comforts the world has to offer, still, on some level, we will feel empty unless we sense that our life serves an ultimate purpose.

Many things can make us feel worthwhile and significant, but our deepest hunger is only satisfied when we’re rightly related to God. Only our Creator can give us the fullness of Life we crave. Jesus’ death on the cross is proof that we could not possibly have more worth and significance to God. Despite our sin, our Creator thinks we are worth experiencing a hellish death for. In fact, it was for the joy of spending eternity with us that Jesus endured the cross (Heb. 12:2). In other words, Calvary reveals our unsurpassable worth and significance. At the core of our being, this is what we long for.

Why did God create us with this hunger? Because he wants to share himself with us. He wants us to participate in his divine nature (1 Peter 1:4). As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he longs for us to join in his eternal dance of perfect, ecstatic love. Our insatiable hunger for a depth of Life that only he can give is a sort of built-in “homing device” intended to lead us to him. The Trinity is our home, and we are never fully satisfied or at peace until we rest in him.

Yet because God wants a loving relationship with us, he does not force us to accept his invitation. We have the ability to refuse it if we so choose. If we want, we can pretend we’re self-sufficient and able to meet our own needs. If fact, were it not for God’s grace working in our life, this is what all of us in our fallen condition would want and what all of us would choose. For apart from Christ, Scripture says, we are all dead in our sins (Eph 2:1,5).

When we push God away, our homing device doesn’t shut off. It simply gets redirected. Instead of leading us home to the Trinity, we try to satisfy our hunger for worth and significance by turning to other things.

- Greg Boyd

The Deepest Law of Acceptance

“In the cross God demonstrates the deepest law of acceptance. For to be convinced that I have been accepted, I must be convinced that I have been accepted at my worst. This is the greatest gift an intimate relationship can offer — to know that we have been accepted and forgiven in the full knowledge of who we are, an even greater knowledge than we have about ourselves. This is what the cross offers.”

— Rebecca Pippert

Trusting God for the Wrong Things

Chloe was a smart, personable, and devoted Christian student from South America whom I had the pleasure of teaching in several theology classes. In one meeting, Chloe confessed that, despite the confident appearance that she projected, she actually lived with a sense of guilt and had never felt like a good Christian. In fact, Chloe said she had never been confident she was “truly saved.” She knew that salvation is based on our faith, and she knew that the essence of faith is trust. But trusting God was something Chloe said she always struggled with. “Everyone else at this college seems to trust God for everything in their life,” she said, “but I just can’t!”

Chloe seemed baffled when I asked her what she felt she was supposed to trust God for. “You know,” she said, “I’m supposed to trust God to bring the right man into my life to be my husband, and I’m supposed to trust that he’ll lead us into the right ministry together and that he’ll bless and protect our family.”

“Protect?” I asked. “As in, protect your children?” We sat in silence for a moment before I continued. “You’re having trouble trusting God to protect your children… as in, protect them from things like child molesters?” Tears began to well up in Chloe’s eyes, as she had shared with me in previous meetings about personal experiences around this issue. I leaned forward, grabbed Chloe’s hand, and said, “Chloe, maybe it’s time to stop beating yourself up for not trusting God for something you already know he can’t be trusted for. If God didn’t protect you when you were nine, it’s little wonder you have trouble trusting him to protect you and your future children when you’re twenty.”

Chloe was stunned. I had broken an unacknowledged rule among Christians like Chloe who try to find security in the magical promise that, if they can just “trust and obey,” God will bless them and protect them and their children. The unspoken rule is, don’t notice the obvious. And the obvious reality no one is supposed to notice is that the magical formula contradicts the way the world actually is.

At one point in Job’s dispute with his “friends,” Eliphaz rhetorically asks Job, “Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright destroyed?” (Job 4:7). Only a person who wore magical glasses that deleted out innocent people perishing and upright people being destroyed could ever say something so absurd. Anyone looking at the world with any degree of objectivity sees that innocent and righteous people perish and are destroyed as routinely as guilty and unrighteous people.

This is a scary world to confront, however. We would all feel more secure if we could trust that the world is actually fair and that we will be spared its random nightmares if we just “trust and obey.”

Living under the illusion that trusting God about such matters ensures our safety allows some people to enjoy a false sense of security, but as Chloe’s story illustrates, it can also be a source of tremendous pain. Many struggle, as Chloe did, with guilt and doubt simply because their own experience refutes this magical worldview. Though they may not break “the rule” by admitting the obvious, they know, on some level, that there are a multitude of variables other than God’s will or our own faith that influence what happens to children, marriages, careers, finances, health, and every other aspect of our lives.

As much as we might wish it were otherwise, the truth is that in an unfathomably complex world in which every human and angelic decision ever made exercises an ongoing influence on what comes to pass, there is no magical formula that can guarantee things will turn out one way rather than another. 

To try to find security in anything outside God’s character is to reflect both a lack of understanding and a lack of trust. It is to treat God’s covenant promises as if they were contractual deals. 

—adapted from Benefit of the Doubt, pages 223-224, 230

Our Desire - Blessing or Christ

This is how Albert Benjamin Simpson (1843-1919) puts it.

I wish to speak to you about Jesus, and Jesus only. I often hear people say, "I wish I could get hold of Divine Healing, but I cannot." Sometimes they say, "I have got it." If I ask them, "What have you got?" the answer is sometimes, "I have got the blessing", sometimes it is, "I have got the theory"; sometimes it is, "I have got the healing"; sometimes, "I have got the sanctification." But I thank God we have been taught that it is not the blessing, it is not the healing, it is not the sanctification, it is not the thing, it is not the it that you want, but it is something better. It is "the Christ"; it is Himself. How often that comes out in His Word - "Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses", Himself "bare our sins in his own body on the tree"! It is the person of Jesus Christ we want. Plenty of people get the idea and do not get anything out of it. They get it into their head, and it into their conscience, and it into their will; but somehow they do not get Him into their life and spirit, because they have only that which is the outward expression and symbol of the spiritual reality. I once saw a picture of the Constitution of the United States, very skillfully engraved in copper plate, so that when you looked at it closely it was nothing more than a piece of writing, but when you looked at it at a distance, it was the face of George Washington. The face shone out in the shading of the letters at a little distance, and I saw the person, not the words, nor the ideas; and I thought, "'That is the way to look at the Scriptures and understand the thoughts of God, to see in them the face of love, shining through and through; not ideas, nor doctrines, but Jesus Himself as the Life and Source and sustaining Presence of all our life."

I prayed a long time to get sanctified, and sometimes I thought I had it. On one occasion I felt something, and I held on with a desperate grip for fear I should lose it, and kept awake the whole night fearing it would go, and, of course, it went with the next sensation and the next mood. Of course, I lost it because I did not hold on to Him. I had been taking a little water from the reservoir, when I might have all the time received from Him fullness through the open channels. I went to meetings and heard people speak of joy. I even thought I had the joy, but I did not keep it because I had not Himself as my joy. At last He said to me - Oh so tenderly - "My child, just take Me, and let Me be in you the constant supply of all this, Myself." And when at last I got my eyes off my sanctification, and my experience of it, and just placed them on the Christ in me, I found, instead of an experience, the Christ larger than the moment's need, the Christ that had all that I should ever need who was given to me at once, and for ever! And when I thus saw Him, it was such rest; it was all right, and right for ever. For I had not only what I could hold that little hour, but also in Him, all that I should need the next and the next and so on, until sometimes I get a glimpse of what it will be a million years afterwards, when we shall "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of our Father" (Matt. 13: 43), and have "all the fullness of God."

And so I thought the healing would be an it too, that the Lord would take me like the old run-down clock, wind me up, and set me going like a machine. It is not thus at all. I found it was Himself coming in instead and giving me what I needed at the moment. I wanted to have a great stock, so that I could feel rich; a great store laid up for many years, so that I would not be dependent upon Him the next day; but He never gave me such a store. I never had more holiness or healing at one time than I needed for that hour. He said: "My child, you must come to Me for the next breath because I love you so dearly I want you to come all the time. If I gave you a great supply, you would do without Me and would not come to Me so often; now you have to come to Me every second, and lie on My breast every moment." He gave me a great fortune, placed thousands and millions at credit, but He gave a cheque-book with this one condition, "You never can draw more than you need at the time." Every time a cheque was wanted, however, there was the name of Jesus upon it, and so it brought more glory to Him, kept His name before the heavenly world and God was glorified in His Son.

I had to learn to take from Him my spiritual life every second, to breathe Himself in as I breathed, and breathe myself out. So, moment by moment for the spirit, and moment by moment for the body, we must receive. You say, "Is not that a terrible bondage, to be always on the strain ?" What, on the strain with one you love, your dearest Friend ? Oh, no! It comes so naturally, so spontaneously, so like a fountain, without consciousness, without effort, for true life is always easy, and overflowing.

And now, thank God, I have Him, not only what I have room for, but that which I have not room for, but for which I shall have room, moment by moment, as I go on into the eternity before me. I am like the little bottle in the sea, as full as it will hold. The bottle is in the sea, and the sea is in the bottle; so I am in Christ, and Christ is in me. But, besides that bottleful in the sea, there is a whole ocean beyond; the difference is, that the bottle has to be filled over again, every day, evermore.

Now the question for each of us is not "What think you of Bethshan, and what think you of divine healing?" but "What think you of Christ?" There came a time when there was a little thing between me and Christ. I express it by a little conversation with a friend who said, "You were healed by faith." "Oh, no," I said, "I was healed by Christ." What is the difference? There is a great difference. There came a time when even faith seemed to come between me and Jesus. I thought I should have to work up the faith, so I labored to get the faith. At last I thought I had it; that if I put my whole weight upon it, it would hold. I said, when I thought I had got the faith, "Heal me." I was trusting in myself, in my own heart, in my own faith. I was asking the Lord to do something for me because of something in me, not because of something in Him. So the Lord allowed the devil to try my faith, and the devil devoured it like a roaring lion, and I found myself so broken down that I did not think I had any faith. God allowed it to be taken away until I felt I had none. And then God seemed to speak to me so sweetly, saying, "Never mind, my child, you have nothing. But I am perfect Power, I am perfect Love, I am Faith, I am your Life, I am the preparation for the blessing, and then I am the Blessing, too. I am all within and all without, and all for ever." It is just having "Faith in God" (Mark 11: 22). "And the life I now live in the flesh, I live," not by faith on the Son of God, but "by the faith of the Son of God" (Gal. 2 20). That is it. It is not your faith. You have no faith in you, any more than you have life or anything else in you. You have nothing but emptiness and vacuity, and you must be just openness and readiness to take Him to do all. You have to take His faith as well as His life and healing, and have simply to say, "I live by the faith of the Son of God." My faith is not worth anything. If I had to pray for anyone, I would not depend upon my faith at all. I would say, "Here, Lord, am I. If you want me to be the channel of blessing to this one just breathe into me all that I need." It is simply Christ, Christ alone.

Now, is your body yielded to Christ for Him thus to dwell and work in you? The Lord Jesus Christ has a body as well as you only it is perfect; it is the body, not of a man, but of the Son of man. Have you considered why He is called the Son of man? The Son of man means that Jesus Christ is the one typical, comprehensive, universal, all-inclusive Man. Jesus is the one man that contains in Himself all that man ought to be all that man needs to have. It is all in Christ. All the fullness of the Godhead and the fullness of a perfect manhood has been embodied in Christ, and He stands now as the summing-up of all that man needs. His spirit is all that your spirit needs, and He just gives us Himself. His body possesses all that your body needs. He has a heart beating with the strength that your heart needs. He has organs and functions redundant with life, not for Himself, but for humanity. He does not need strength for Himself. The energy which enabled Him to rise and ascend from the tomb, above all the forces of nature, was not for Himself. That marvellous body belongs to your body. You are a member of His body. Your heart has a right to draw from His heart all that it needs. Your physical life has a right to draw from His physical life its support and strength, and so it is not you, but it is just the precious life of the Son of God. Will you take Him thus today, and then you will not be merely healed, but you will have a new life for all you need, a flood of life that will sweep disease away, and then remain a fountain of life for all your future need. Oh, take Him in His fullness.

It seems to me as if I might just bring you a little talisman today, as if God had given me a little secret for every one here and said to me, "Go and tell them, if they will take it, it will be a talisman of power wherever they go, and it will carry them through difficulty, danger, fear, life, death, eternity." If I could stand on this platform and say, "I have received from heaven a secret of wealth and success which God will give freely, through my hand, to everybody who will take it," I am sure you would need a larger hall for the people who would come. But, dear friends, I show you in His Word a truth which is more precious. The Apostle Paul tells us that there is a secret, a great secret which was hidden from ages and from generations (Col. 1: 26), which the world was seeking after in vain, which wise men from the East hoped they might find, and God says it "is now made manifest to his saints"; and Paul went through the world just to tell it to those that were able to receive it; and that simple secret is just this "Christ in you the hope of glory."

The word "mystery" means secret; this is the great secret. And I tell you today, nay, I can give you, if you will take it from Him, not from me-I can give you a secret which has been to me, oh, so wonderful! Years ago I came to Him burdened with guilt and fear; I tried that simple secret, and it took away all my fear and sin. Years passed on, and I found sin overcoming me and my temptations too strong for me. I came to Him a second time, and He whispered to me, "Christ in you," and I had victory, rest and blessing.

Then the body broke away in every sort of way. I had always worked hard, and from the age of fourteen I studied and labored and spared no strength. I took charge of a large congregation at the age of twenty-one; I broke down utterly half a dozen times and at my last constitution was worn out. Many times I feared I should drop dead in my pulpit. I could not ascend any height without a sense of suffocation, because of a broken-down heart and exhausted nervous system. I heard of the Lord's healing, but I struggled against it. I was afraid of it. I had been taught in theological seminaries that the age of the supernatural was past, and I could not go back from my early training. My head was in my way, but at last when I was brought to attend "the funeral of my dogmatics," as Mr. Schrenck says, "the Lord whispered to me the little secret, 'Christ in you'; and from that hour I received Him for my body as I had done for my soul. I was made so strong and well that work has been a perfect delight. For years I have spent my summer holiday in the hot city of New York, preaching and working amongst the masses, as I never did before; besides the work of our Home and College and an immense mass of library work and much besides. But the Lord did not merely remove my sufferings. It was more than simple healing. He so gave me Himself that I lost the painful consciousness of physical organs. That is the best of the health He gives. I thank the Lord that He keeps me from all morbid, physical consciousness and a body that is the object of anxious care, and gives a simple life that is a delight and a service for the Master, that is a rest and joy.

Then, again, I had a poor sort of a mind, heavy and cumbrous, that did not think or work quickly. I wanted to write and speak for Christ and to have a ready memory, so as to have the little knowledge I had gained always under command. I went to Christ about it, and asked if He had anything for me in this way. He replied, "Yes, my child, I am made unto you Wisdom." I was always making mistakes, which I regretted, and then thinking I would not make them again; but when He said that He would be my wisdom, that we may have the mind of Christ, that He could cast down imaginations and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, that He could make the brain and head right, then I took Him for all that. And since then I have been kept free from this mental disability, and work has been rest. I used to write two sermons a week, and it took me three days to complete one. But now, in connection with my literary work, I have numberless pages of matter to write constantly besides the conduct of very many meetings a week, and all is delightfully easy to me. The Lord has helped me mentally, and I know He is the Saviour of our mind as well as our spirit.

Well, then, I had an irresolute will. I asked, ' Cannot you be a will to me?" He said, "Yes, my child, it is God who worketh in you to will and to do." Then He made me to learn how and when to be firm, and how and when to yield. Many people have a decided will, but they do not know how to hold on just at the proper moment. So, too, I came to Him for power for His work and all the resources for His service, and He has not failed me.

And so I would say, if this precious little secret of "Christ in you," will help you, you may have it. May you make better use of it than I! I feel I have only begun to learn how well it works. Take it and go on working it out, through time and eternity-Christ for all, grace for grace, from strength to strength, from glory to glory, from this time forth and even for evermore.

HIMSELF
     by A. B. Simpson
Once it was the blessing, Now it is the Lord;
Once it was the feeling, Now it is His Word.
Once His gifts I wanted, Now the Giver own;
Once I sought for healing, Now Himself alone.

Once 'twas painful trying, Now 'tis perfect trust;
Once a half salvation, Now the uttermost.
Once 'twas ceaseless holding, Now He holds me fast;
Once 'twas constant drifting, Now my anchor's cast.

Once 'twas busy planning, Now 'tis trustful prayer;
Once 'twas anxious caring, Now He has the care.
Once 'twas what I wanted, Now what Jesus says;
Once 'twas constant asking, Now 'tis ceaseless praise.

Once it was my working, His it hence shall be;
Once I tried to use Him, Now He uses me.
Once the power I wanted, Now the Mighty One;
Once for self I labored, Now for Him alone.

Once I hoped in Jesus, Now I know He's mine;
Once my lamps were dying, Now they brightly shine.
Once for death I waited, Now His coming hail;
And my hopes are anchored, Safe within the vail.

- Glenn Regular

The Most Subtle of Idolatries

In our fallen state, separated from our true source center, we live from the knowledge of good and evil regardless of the particular idols from which we try to get life.  Some people choose secular idols and thus adopt a corresponding set of criteria of what is good and what is evil. Money, prestige, security, pleasure, and so forth are good, while financial burdens, being overlooked, insecurity, discomfort, and so forth are evil. Religious people, on the other hand, choose religious idols and thus set up a different set of criteria for what is good and evil. Religious people’s beliefs, rituals, and behavior are good, while those other people, insofar as they are different from their own, are evil.

Jesus suggested that those who strive to get life from religious idols are actually further from the true source of life precisely because religious idols don’t appear to be idols to those who get life from them. Those who know they are sick are more likely to receive a physician, while those who mistakenly think they are healthy ignore him (Matt 9:12). How it must have shocked the religious establishment of his day to hear Jesus proclaim that the prostitutes and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of God before the Pharisees (Matt 21:31).

The real issue is not what kind of idols people embrace but whether they are trying to fill the void in their souls with an idol at all. So long as people strive to get life from an idol of any sort, they block themselves off from their true source of life.

Since the religious idol usually requires that their sense of worth is associated with their religious performance, they usually look good. Indeed, in all likelihood, they will look better than those who have a genuine relationship with God. Looking good is the religious idolater’s way of life. They are vigilant about their own beliefs and behavior as well as those of other people.

In fact, however, this hypervigilance is evidence not of genuine spiritual health but of an inner emptiness and sickness. It is evidence of a spiritual pathology. The very attempt to fill the emptiness of their lives by their beliefs and behaviors rather than God prevents them from ever getting their emptiness really filled.


Not that the emptiness cannot be placated for periods of time; it can. If people’s idolatrous religious strategies for getting life are successful, as they were with the Pharisees, these people will derive some surrogate life by believing they do all the right things, embrace all the right interpretations of Scripture, hold to all the right doctrines, engage in all the right rituals, and display the right spirituality. They will get even more surrogate life by looking down on those who don’t do and believe all the right things as they do. Indeed, they may experience even more surrogate life by entertaining a “holy anger” toward those who do not conform to their way of thinking and behaving. But the positive feelings offered by religious idols are fleeting. The emptiness returns, driving religious idolaters to further futile attempts to get life by their religion.

What Covenant Was Jesus Born Under? Part Two

The demand of the Law is perfection...how perfect? “Be ye perfect has your Father in heaven is perfect.” The Law could not produce that kind of perfect man. So, how is such perfection attained.

Jesus’ purpose was to provide salvation for the people of the world. Before we are ready to trust Christ for salvation, we need to know we are in need of salvation. Thus, the reason for the Old Covenant.

Paul writes: The law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith, now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian (Gal. 3:24-25).

Lets look at the sermon on the Mount...as it is called... to find the answer.

This teaching of Christ is the ultimate example as to the meaning of God’s Law, it shows that the only standard that God accepts to be in relationship with Him is perfection. Jesus taught this teaching to a nation that diluted that standard and had become fixated on experiencing political deliverance.

Now I can hear the religionists ask; “didn’t Jesus say that He didn’t come to abolish the Law?” He sure did. “Therefore it is still in effect and we have to strive to keep it in order to be accepted by God.

Well, what does the scripture say regarding that? “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (Matt. 5:17-18).

The religionists are noted for quoting, “not one jot or tittle will disappear from the Law as long as there is a heaven and earth.” Yes...that would be the case as long as there was something in the law that was not accomplished! But, if everything is accomplished then the Law is completed and no longer invoked!

Yes, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. BUT! He did come to fulfill it and fulfill it He did! He accomplished for us something we could not do in and of ourselves. Paul put it this way: Christ is the CULMINATION of the Law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes (Romans 10:4). Hey...that is how we become perfect...it His through His righteousness.

Jesus' life and ministry took place under the Old Covenant therefore, they must be interpreted in light of that fact. Yes, sometimes His words ANTICIPATED the New Covenant, such as His teaching regarding the Holy Spirit, who would come after His death and resurrection. But it is critical to understand “Who said it to whom...and Under what covenant it was said when reading the scripture. Then and only then can you go on to find its correct meaning and its proper application for life living.

As believers living under the New Covenant we have the advantage of hindsight and able to view the law through the eyes of Jesus, in doing so we see its reality. We are not a people under the Old Covenant hearing the demands of the Law of perfect performance to avoid its curse. We approach Jesus’ teaching as believers who are indwelt by Christ. Jesus red words may teach God’s will for our attitudes and actions, but His acceptance is no longer tied to our do’s and dont’s. Christ now lives in us and empowers us to do His will.

That is the power of God’s love and grace.

The scripture leaves not doubt as to the answer to this question.

“When the set time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, BORN UNDER THE LAW, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship (Gal. 4: 4-5).

So Jesus was born under the law, grew up under the law, lived under the law, ministered under the law, and died under the the Old Covenant.

In some Bibles the words of Jesus are printed in red, and most people are taught that they are for New Covenant people and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are New Covenant books. But, is that the case? Many people get upset with such a suggestion, They maintain that “we have not seen Jesus with our own eyes, not heard His voice with our own ears, not felt his touch, but we have His words in red and now you are saying that it was more for Old Covenant people.”

The fact that Jesus words were more for Old Covenant people does not mean that New Covenant people should not read and heed them by applying them to their life in living...assuming that they have studied them diligently and accurately, in their historical and contextual setting. It is established that Jesus' teaching was under the Old Covenant therefore, His words must be interpreted with respect to that truth before they are applied to the lives of people under the New Covenant context.

Probably one of the most recognized teaching of Jesus is what is known as the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew chapters 5 and 7. Many post-cross people take the teaching to be for them, but are they right, what is happening here?

John the Baptist was preaching “Repent for the kingdom of God has come near” (Matthew 3:2). What would the average Jewish person listening to this teaching hear and understand? He/she would have danced for joy. God was about to fulfill His promises. “Repent” do an about face “turn around” be faithful to the Old Covenant. The curse will be removed.

After centuries of oppression wars, revolutions, and domination by foreign people, the phrase “the kingdom” was taken to mean primarily a political meaning. The kingdom would be ushered in when God sent His messiah, a political leader,a freedom fighter to set the Jewish people   their oppressors. He would lead a national war to gain them from independence from Roman control and set himself up as their king.

With that kind of Jewish thinking, Jesus took up the message that John the Baptist started preaching, “repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near (Matthew 4:17). The Sermon on the Mount was Jesus’ teaching to correct the misconceptions attached to the kingdom of heaven and redefining it according to the truth as to what the kingdom of heave was. Jesus knowing that He was moving towards the cross, he prepared the people to receive that message of salvation by grace through Him.

This teaching of Christ, when compared to what they though it was, confused and frustrated the people as to the meaning of the kingdom. On the other hand, it showed the real reason for the Law of Moses. Early in His teaching Jesus proclaims the key point: “I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20).

If that confused them, He goes on to add to their confusion by saying that being angry with your brother in your heart is as bad as murder...lusting in your heart after a woman is as bad as adultery...Give up the eye for an eye and instead love your enemies. He then says something that is mind blowing, Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (5:48). Wow, now that is something to live up to!

In order to understand the red letter words of Jesus, we have to ask, What do the red letter words mean? What was Jesus’ purpose in saying them? If you were to read them in their historical and contextual setting, I believe the answer is clear: Jesus, though focusing on the Law...goes far beyond its literal surface meaning. He is revealing the spirit of the law.

This perfection that He called for was not attainable through the keeping of the law, Jesus was beginning to tell them a way in which its perfection was attainable.

What Covenant Was Jesus Born Under? Part One

The scripture leaves not doubt as to the answer to this question.

“When the set time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, BORN UNDER THE LAW, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship (Gal. 4: 4-5).

So Jesus was born under the law, grew up under the law, lived under the law, ministered under the law, and died under the the Old Covenant.

In some Bibles the words of Jesus are printed in red, and most people are taught that they are for New Covenant people and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are New Covenant books. But, is that the case? Many people get upset with such a suggestion, They maintain that “we have not seen Jesus with our own eyes, not heard His voice with our own ears, not felt his touch, but we have His words in red and now you are saying that it was more for Old Covenant people.”

The fact that Jesus words were more for Old Covenant people does not mean that New Covenant people should not read and heed them by applying them to their life in living...assuming that they have studied them diligently and accurately, in their historical and contextual setting. It is established that Jesus' teaching was under the Old Covenant therefore, His words must be interpreted with respect to that truth before they are applied to the lives of people under the New Covenant context.

Probably one of the most recognized teaching of Jesus is what is known as the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew chapters 5 and 7. Many post-cross people take the teaching to be for them, but are they right, what is happening here?

John the Baptist was preaching “Repent for the kingdom of God has come near” (Matthew 3:2). What would the average Jewish person listening to this teaching hear and understand? He/she would have danced for joy. God was about to fulfill His promises. “Repent” do an about face “turn around” be faithful to the Old Covenant. The curse will be removed.

After centuries of oppression wars, revolutions, and domination by foreign people, the phrase “the kingdom” was taken to mean primarily a political meaning. The kingdom would be ushered in when God sent His messiah, a political leader,a freedom fighter to set the Jewish people   their oppressors. He would lead a national war to gain them from independence from Roman control and set himself up as their king.

With that kind of Jewish thinking, Jesus took up the message that John the Baptist started preaching, “repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near (Matthew 4:17). The Sermon on the Mount was Jesus’ teaching to correct the misconceptions attached to the kingdom of heaven and redefining it according to the truth as to what the kingdom of heave was. Jesus knowing that He was moving towards the cross, he prepared the people to receive that message of salvation by grace through Him.

This teaching of Christ, when compared to what they though it was, confused and frustrated the people as to the meaning of the kingdom. On the other hand, it showed the real reason for the Law of Moses. Early in His teaching Jesus proclaims the key point: “I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20).

If that confused them, He goes on to add to their confusion by saying that being angry with your brother in your heart is as bad as murder...lusting in your heart after a woman is as bad as adultery...Give up the eye for an eye and instead love your enemies. He then says something that is mind blowing, Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (5:48). Wow, now that is something to live up to!

In order to understand the red letter words of Jesus, we have to ask, What do the red letter words mean? What was Jesus’ purpose in saying them? If you were to read them in their historical and contextual setting, I believe the answer is clear: Jesus, though focusing on the Law...goes far beyond its literal surface meaning. He is revealing the spirit of the law.

This perfection that He called for was not attainable through the keeping of the law, Jesus was beginning to tell them a way in which its perfection was attainable.

What Went Wrong in the Garden of Eden

When Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they imposed their will into the center of Paradise, and this was the act that destroyed Paradise. They invaded the proper domain of God. Instead of recognizing that they were supposed to derive life from the center, they placed themselves in the center. They tried to become “like God.”

The beauty of creation depends on the integrity of the distinction between the complementary centers and the source of the center. The “No Trespassing” sign placed at the center of the garden represents the warning to preserve this boundary and thus the order, beauty, and life of creation. Everything depends on humans remaining humans and not trying to be God—not trying to be their own source center.



Adam and Eve violated this boundary. They thrust themselves into the center of the garden to try to make themselves “wise like God.” They tried to design their own space, as it were, with themselves as the center. And we do the same. We try to make creation—and God—revolve around us. Instead of remaining content being complementary centers, we try to make everything complement us. We attempt to use things and people to derive our worth, meet our needs and expectations, or improve our lives in some way. And we “know good and evil” in the process, for we invariably judge things as “good” or “evil” on the basis of how well they play the idolatrous role we assign them.

Living as the source center means living as judge. But we were not created to function as the source center. We were created to function as complementary centers. We have no life in ourselves to dispense to other centers. Consequently, our center is not one of fullness but of emptiness. Without God as our center, we are not a source of life but a vacuum that sucks life. We can’t radiate life in other centers; we can only try to draw life from them. The world and God revolve around us, and we become a virtual black hole, as depicted by the diagram below.



It is out of the depravity of this black hole that we function as a center, playing God, judging good and evil.

This is life “in the flesh” or life “in Adam.” It is life lived under the serpent’s lie and thus life lived as though we were the center. This way of life is diametrically opposed to God, for it makes it impossible for the fullness of God’s love to flow into us and through us.


In this fallen way of life, people and things have worth only to the extent that they fill us. Instead of ascribing unsurpassable worth to others because the Creator does, we ascribe limited worth to people depending on our judgment of them. Do these people love me? Do they please me? Do they benefit me? Do they affirm me? Do they agree with my opinions? We are the ones who declare that someone or something is good or evil, for we have set ourselves up as the center around which everything revolves and, therefore, the standard against which everything is measured.

Does God Have a Dualistic Nature?

Because of misunderstanding between and misapplication of the pre-cross and post-cross covenants, many people have a wrong idea concerning the Bible, thus it is misused and abused in religious "churches" all across the world. Also, people's view of God is warped and perverted. God is viewed as a two natured being, having a nature of wrath evidenced by His revenge-fulness, his judgement and killing of people, including innocent women and children, in the Old Covenant. He is viewed has a God of mercy, compassion, grace and love in the New Covenant. The idea that God is love...BUT...He is also a God of wrath is far from the truth of who God is. There is only one God and He is the "same yesterday, today and forever." "In Him there is no shadow of turning." "I am God and I change not." "God is not man, therefore he does not lie." God never "was" or never "will be" different from time to eternity. God is today what He is in the past, and He is in the future what He is today! God has no past or future...because He IS!

People who derived at God as being dualistic in nature from the bible are deceived by the religious teaching they have received, failing to listen to the voice of the Spirit, and they fail to understand both the Old and New Covenants. The thundering of the fear-mongering bible-thumpers fires up people's misunderstanding and misapplication of the bible and God.

There is only one God, and his character is exactly the same from Genesis to Revelation. People who derive that erroneous conclusion from their Bibles are either reading selectively, or they are failing to understand what they are reading. The God you see revealed and dealing with man in the Old Testament is a God full of grace, compassion, forgiveness, and patience. He bore with Israel’s persistent sins and unfaithfulness for many generations. He announced his grief over their cold hearts and  evil behavior. He plead with them through the prophets. He warned them of the judgment that must come because the old covenant (that they verbally signed off on) demanded it. He restrained His judgment time after time, but ultimately He had to deal with His people according to the "if" covenant that He also signed off on. The judgment had to fall. The God of the Old Testament is no different from the God of the New Testament. No, God moved according to the different covenants. 

While God has not changed...His nature and character being eternal and unchangeable...His way of dealing with mankind have changed. Previously, Israel was under Law, and the Gentiles were left to their own devices (the Law was only meant for the Jews, it never ever applied to Gentiles). Of all the changes, none is more striking than the shift between the pre- and post cross covenants. Remember, the Old Covenant between God and Israel was conditional and bilateral. It was dependent upon the people’s faithfulness and obedience, as Jeremiah reminded them: This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: “Listen to the terms of this covenant and tell them to the people of Judah and to those who live in Jerusalem. Tell them that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘ Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant the terms I commanded your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron - smelting furnace.’ I said, ‘Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God’ ” (Jeremiah 11:1- 4). 

Israel was unable to keep their side of the bargain, so the prophet announced the covenant’s end: “From the time I brought your ancestors up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, ‘Obey me.’ But they did not listen or pay attention ;instead, they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts. So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep” (verses 7- 8). Israel failed. The covenant was broken. The relationship was broken. Now comes the good news: The Lord promises the coming of a New Covenant in which he declares, “I will be their God, and they will be my people.” What is most striking and glorious about this promise is what isn’t there: There is no “if”! If our relationship with God depended upon our doing, we would have fail as miserably as Israel did. None of us is religious enough, good enough, faithful enough, or pure enough to to gain or maintain a relationship with the God. 

The New Covenant is not about we can do, it is about what God has already done. What God said He would do He has done, why, because we could never attain on our own. It is not “if we obey Him fully and keep His covenant, then He will be our God and we will be His people.” He takes upon Himself the responsibility for our relationship . He will create and maintain our relationship with Him, based on His own faithfulness to His promise. That dear believer is the foundation of any sense of real security we can have. Our relationship does not depend on our faithfulness to Him, but on His faithfulness to us! 

God's Grace is the power believers need to keep the commandment that enables us to be true in our relationship with Him. His commandment to LOVE!

God's nature is not dualistic, one of wrath and one of love...The bible does not declare that "God is wrath"...It  declares that "GOD IS LOVE".

No Condemnation

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1

Now.  Not five years from now when you are a better Christian.  Right now.  At this instant.

No.  None at all.  Not even a little.  Zero.  Gone.  Poof.

For those in Christ Jesus.  And only because we are in him.  We provide everything that deserves condemnation.  He provides everything that deserves acceptance.

This is the plain message of the Bible, because God not only does not condemn us, he also doesn’t want us feeling condemned.  He wants us feeling freed.  Nothing like no-condemnation to get us riled up for his glory!"



— Ray Ortlund

Describe Sunday-Event-Driven-Meetings

Denominated preachers preaching denominated sermons to denominated people who are looking at the back of people's heads and whose mindless stare befuddles the denominated preacher.

A place where the Bible is elevated above Jesus and believed to be a rule book with frightening consequences and a damming document that points out people's sins and consigns people to hell while saying the Gospel is "good news".

A place where the voice of the True Shepherd is is unheard amid the bleating of fleeced sheep because of all the religious noise.

A place where the pressure to be perfect creates an atmosphere of guilt, blame and shame  followed by judgment and condemnation.

A place where the written word is misused, abused and confused.

A place of dead rituals rather than actually living out the gospel.

A social club that lacks socializing.

A place of division rather than a place of unity.

A place of showmanship and theatrical performances.

A community of like indoctrinated people imprisoned by deception rather than the freedom of the grace minded Community of the Redeemed.

A place where you sit up, put up and shut up because questioning is frowned upon, and don't ask because you’d be slapped over the head with a Bible and have various verses spewed at you.

A place that prides itself on being welcoming, accepting, and real. When the tagline on so many denominations is “come as you are” we will make you into who you should be, and who you should be is is based on who we want you to be.

An institution whose man-made doctrine and tradition has rendered the Gospel to be of "none effect".

A place where religious living trumps relational living.

An agenda driven place rather than Spirit lead place.

A place where people are welcomed as they are but not received as they are.

A place where we are told to follow Jesus but directed how to follow religion.

Absolute Truth and Violence

A common argument today against Christianity is that believing that Jesus (or any other religious figure or religion) is the only way to God (See yesterday’s post) is “dangerous.” This claim actually has some justification, for it is undeniable that most of the butchery carried out throughout history has been done in the name of defending a god, a religion, a nation or an idea as an unquestionable absolute ideal. Religious absolutism has killed millions, no doubt. The admirable desire to bring an end to this insanity has led many academics to claim that, for the sake of the future of humanity, we must categorically reject all absolutistic claims, especially on religious matters.
I empathize deeply with this sentiment. At the same time, the reasoning behind it is flawed, on at least two accounts.

First, this kind of reasoning confuses the truth or falsity of a belief with its positive or negative consequences. Because a belief has tended to have certain negative consequences does not in and of itself tell us whether the belief is true or false. This point is especially relevant in light of the fact that people often act in ways that are inconsistent with the truths they proclaim, and nowhere is this more clearly the case than with Christianity.

This leads directly to a second point. I maintain that the Gospel message is the one and only absolute truth claim that could never result in bloodshed, if it was actually followed. If Christians followed Jesus’ teaching that his followers are to love and serve their enemies rather than kill them, no one in the whole of history would have ever been killed in Jesus’ name.

Every other religious or political or philosophical ideal one could ever hold as an absolute can (and probably will at some point) result in violence toward others. Sooner or later a person or tribe may deem it justifiable to kill others in order to advance, or defend, their absolute ideal. But the ideal of self-sacrificial love can never result in violence, for this absolute stipulates that its defenders must be willing to die rather than kill for the sake of the absolute.

If one’s religion is their highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance their religion will seem justified.

If one’s nation is the highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance their nation will feel justified.

If democracy is one’s highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance democracy will be justified.

If the American way of life is one’s highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance the American way of life will feel justified.

Even if one’s own definition of truth and justice is held as the highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend and advance this version of truth and justice will feel justified.
The only ideal that cannot result in violence is the ideal of self-sacrificial love. And since Jesus incarnated this ideal and told us to follow his example, I would argue that, far from being dangerous, holding to the absolute truth of Jesus is the only truly safe candidate for an absolute truth on the table.

The problem with those Christians throughout history who have supposedly “defended Jesus” with the sword is not that they believed Jesus was the only way. The problem is that they didn’t believe it enough.

Do All Roads Lead to God?

First, if it’s really true that Jesus is the way to Father and that no one comes to the Father except through him, (Jn 14:6) then it seems that no other religious leader or religious doctrine can bring us to the Father. “The” is a definite article, and it implies singularity. “A dog” could refer to one of any number of dogs. But “the dog” can only refer to one particular dog. If Jesus is the Lord and Savior and the way to the Father, he’s the only one there is.

This isn’t what most people in our relativistic, post-modern age want to hear. I, on occasion, give talks or participate in debates on secular university campuses around the country on issues related to the historical Jesus. Whenever I stand by the claim that Jesus is the only way to God I am confronted with a certain amount of hostility. To think there’s only one way to God, I am often told, is arrogant, ignorant, intolerant and dangerous. Everyone knows these days that there are many ways to God, at least for people who are sincere in what they believe.

What’s odd is that no one has ever been able to provide me with cogent arguments defending this position. When I’ve asked for some, as often as not people have simply stared at me in disbelief, offended at the suggestion that truths this obvious would need supporting arguments.
Always beware when any of your beliefs are so “obviously true” you think they don’t   need supporting evidence or arguments. This the way brainwashed people think!

Another thing that’s odd about the prevailing relativistic attitude today is that it’s not clear why believing many roads lead to God is any more open minded than believing only one does. The prevailing attitude seems to confuse the content of what someone believes with the way they believe it.

Think about it. A belief is true if it reflects the way reality is, false if it doesn’t. On all questions of truth, therefore, there is ultimately only one right answer, for there is ultimately only one reality. Conversely, there are an infinite number of possible wrong answers. If someone insists that there isn’t “one reality,” arguing instead that there are as many different realities as there are people, I would simply respond by pointing out that they just made a truth claim about ultimate reality (not just their reality). What’s ultimately real, in their view, is that there are as many different realities as there are people. And this view is either true (if it corresponds with the way reality is) or false (if it doesn’t).

As a matter of fact, this claim can’t possibly correspond with reality, for the claim is actually self-contradictory. It makes a claim about ultimate reality while denying there is an ultimate reality.
The bottom line is that there is only one way the world is, and the set of true statements are those – and only those — that reflect this one way. So the content of what one believes about reality will always necessarily be narrow. Even the truth claim that all roads lead to God is actually a very narrow claim. Either this claim reflects reality or it doesn’t. Either it’s true or it’s false. This has to be decided on the basis of available evidence and relevant arguments. But the claim itself is no less narrow than the claim that there’s only one way to God, or three, or seven, etc…. In other words, the claim that all roads lead to God rules out an infinite number of alternative claims, just as every other truth claim does.

What makes a person open or closed-minded is not the content of what they believe, but how they arrive at and hold to the (always narrow and exclusive) content of what they believe. Do they arrive at and defend their beliefs with an open or closed mind?

A person who arrived at their beliefs through thoughtful and critical reflection and who is willing to subject their truth claims to the critical scrutiny of others is an open-minded person – regardless of the content of what they believe. On the other hand, a person who simply appropriates and defends a belief – like, “All roads lead to God” – simply because it’s part of the cultural atmosphere they breath is a narrow-minded person, despite the apparent (but illusory) openness of what they believe.
The fact that the “all-roads-lead-to-God” believer may be quick to label dissenters of the cultural mantra “arrogant, intolerant, ignorant and dangerous” instead of calmly reasoning with them simply confirms their narrowness.


My belief that Jesus is the only way to God is admittedly narrow, though no more so than the person who claims there are innumerable ways to God. But I can give evidence and argumentation to defend my truth claim, and I’m perfectly willing to adjust my belief if and when the evidence and/or argumentation call for it. I wish all those who espoused the “all-roads-lead-to-God” mantra shared this attitude.

- Greg Boyd

Dead in Sin (Ephesians 2:1)

The passage that is used most frequently to defend the idea of Total Depravity is Ephesians 2:1-3 where Paul writes about people being dead in sin.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others (Ephesians 2:1-3).

How Calvinists Understand “Dead in Sin” (Ephesians 2:1)

Due to the popularity of this passage among Calvinists, it would be possible to produce scores of quotes from various authors and writers who quote this text as proof for their doctrine of Total Depravity and total inability. I have already listed several of these quotes in an earlier post about how Calvinists understand the phrase “dead in sin,” so let me provide just a few additional quotations here which are fairly typical of how Ephesians 2:1-3 is understood.

The Calvinist often equates Paul’s image of being dead in sins for total inability (Palmer, Five Points of Calvinism, 16-19; Spencer, TULIP, 35).
To be dead in sin is to be in a state of moral and spiritual bondage. By nature we are slaves to sin (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 130).
Now it will surely be admitted that to be dead, and to be dead in sin, is clear and positive evidence that there is neither aptitude nor power remaining for the performance of any spiritual action (Boettner, Predestination, 65-66).

Boice writes approvingly of John Gerstner’s idea that unregenerate humans are like zombies:

John Gerstner … compared Paul’s description of our sinful state to what horror stories call a zombie. A zombie is a person who has died but who is still up on his feet walking around. It is a gruesome concept, which is why it appears in horror stories. But it gets worse. This upright, walking human corpse is putrefying. It is rotting away, which is probably the most disgusting thing most people can imagine. But this is a fair description of what Paul is saying about human nature in its lost condition. Apart from Jesus Christ, these sinning human corpses are “the living dead” (Boice, Doctrines of Grace, 74).

The basic approach to explaining Ephesians 2:1-3 is to focus on the phrase “dead in trespasses and sins” and then draw an analogy from this that just as physically dead people cannot do anything, so also, those who are “dead in sin” cannot do anything spiritually.
Those who are dead in sin are incapable of doing anything good, of comprehending the things of God, or of believing in Jesus for eternal life. In order to do these things, the Calvinist contends that the person who is dead in sin must first be regenerated by God, and only then can they believe in Jesus or obey God in any way.
Since Calvinists focus on the word “dead” in their quotes, the best way to approach Ephesians 2:1-3 is to similarly focus on this word to see what it means. Rather than make this post too long, I refer you to yesterday’s post where we looked at the word “dead” in the Bible, and saw that the best definition and synonym for the word “dead” is “separated.”

What is Paul Saying in Ephesians 2:1-3?

This helps us better understand what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2:1-3. In Ephesians 2:1, where Paul says that as non-Christians, we were “dead in trespasses and sins,” he is not saying that we are unable to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life, or that the capacity for faith is non-existent.
Rather, Paul is simply (and clearly) saying in Ephesians 2:1 that as non-Christians we were separated spiritually from God. As we saw in the discussion on Romans 7:15-20, those who are spiritually dead are separated from God and cannot interact with Him as they were meant to. But this says nothing about their ability or lack of ability to do anything good, let alone their ability or lack of ability to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

Quite to the contrary, in the immediately following verses, Paul writes that when we were dead in our trespasses and sins, God made us alive in Jesus Christ.

How did this happen?

It was not by regenerating us prior to us believing in Jesus for eternal life, but the other way around.
After stating that God made us alive in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:5), Paul explains that this life is given to those who believe (Ephesians 2:8).
Yes, the offer of eternal life by grace through faith originated with God (we will look at the so-called “gift of faith” of Ephesians 2:8-9 in the next post), but the fact remains that the way to be transferred from death to life is not by waiting for God to regenerate us, but rather by believing in Jesus for eternal life.

Rise Up, You Dead People!

We know that is what Paul means because he later calls on people to wake up and rise from the dead so that Christ may give them light (Ephesians 5:14).
If Paul really meant that the dead cannot wake from their sleep, cannot see the truth, and cannot hear the Gospel, how then could he call on the dead to wake up and respond to the offer of eternal life in Jesus Christ? He could not logically do so.
For Paul, those are dead in trespasses and sins can remedy their situation by responding to the call of the Gospel and believing in Jesus for eternal life. When this happens, God sends light and life into their heart and mind, so that they can respond further, and live in the way God desires for them.

Dead in Trespasses and Sins

So the one who is “dead in trespasses and sins,” is not unable to respond to the Gospel or believe in Jesus, for “dead” does not mean “non-existent” or “unable,” but refers instead to the separation from God that the unregenerate person experiences.

Paul himself described their condition earlier, when he said they were “strangers … without God … far off … alienated from the life of God” (Ephesians 2:12-19; 4:18). These sorts of synonyms reveal that being “dead in sins” is not inability but separation. Nor is their situation is hopeless, for Paul invites those who are dead to awake, arise, and believe (Ephesians 5:14; 2:8-9).

Seven Uses of the Word "Dead" in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the word “dead” (Gk., nekros) means “lifeless, useless, or separated.” Never does it mean “nonexistent” (Vance, Other Side of Calvinism, 220).


Very rarely does it refer to something that is completely unable to act.

Examples of “Dead” in Scripture

So, for example, the prodigal son was “dead” to his father while he was separated from him (Luke 15:24, 32). While the prodigal son was in the far country, he certainly existed and was certainly active, but was not functioning properly in his role as a son.
In James 2, faith is described as “useless” and “unprofitable” when it is separated from works. Dead faith is not a nonexistent faith, but a separated or useless faith. This means that even Christians can have dead faith.

This idea is brought out by the Apostle John as well in the last book of the Bible, when he records the Letters to the Seven Churches. In Revelation 3, even living Christians can be described as “dead.”  In the Letter to the Church of Sardis, the Christians are described as having life, but being dead, because there was a problem with their works (Rev 3:2-3).

In all these examples, the word “dead” can be best understood as “separated,” or “ineffective and useless at its intended purpose.”

7 Different Kinds of Death in the Bible

Once we begin to see that this is the definition of “dead” in Scripture, we can discern at least seven different kinds of death (or separations) in the Bible.

1. There is spiritual death, where the spirit is separated or cut off from God, and so is ineffective or useless in helping the person connect with God and live as they should (cf. Gen 2:17).
2. There is physical death, which is where the body is separated from the soul and the spirit (Heb 9:27; John 11:11-17). It is physical death that most people think of when they refer to “death.”
3. Thirdly, there is eternal death, which is when a person is separated eternally from God (Rev 20:14; Matt 25:46).
4. There is positional death, which occurs when believers die to sin as a result of undergoing death and resurrection through Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3-6; Gal 2:2).
5. There is relational death, which occurs when we are separated from friendships and relationships as a result of sin (Luke 15:24; 1 Tim 5:6; Rev 3:2-3).
6. Sixth, there is an operational death, which is when we are unable to function and operate for our intended purposes because we rely upon works of the flesh or refuse to act upon what we believe (Jas 2:14-26; Heb 6:1; 9:14).
7. Finally, there is sexual death, which occurs when a person’s sexual organs are no longer able to function as they were intended (Rom 4:17-19).

“Dead” Means “Separated”

As can be seen, in every single case, good synonyms for “death” might be “separation” or “uselessness.”

1. Spiritual death is separation from God, or uselessness for God.
2. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, and when this happens, the body become useless.
3. Eternal death is separation of the body, soul and spirit from God forever.
4. Positional death is separation of the believer from what he used to be in the old man, so that in our new man, are no longer useful for sin, death, and the devil.
5. Relational death is the separation of fellowship from friends, family members, and even from God.
6. Operational death is separation from right living, and a right testimony toward others.
7. Finally, sexual death is a separation from the ability to physically reproduce.

Dead Does not Mean “Total Inability”

Obviously, none of these uses of the word “dead” in Scripture imply “total inability.”
Quite to the contrary, we often find that after people are described as being “dead” in one of the ways listed above, they are then invited in the following context to turn from death and practice life.
So in passages like James 2:14-26 and Revelation 3:1-6, people are called to reverse their state of death by energizing their faith or repenting and returning to the way they used to live.


At the same time, when Paul writes that in Christ we are “dead to sin” (Rom 6:3-6; Gal 2:2) this does not mean that Christians have a “total inability” to sin, or that there is no sin in the Christian’s life. Far from it! We all sin every day. What Paul means is that the Christian is separated from sin. We are no longer ruled by sin. We are no longer in bondage to sin. But we do still sin, as every Christian knows.

God's Regrets and Divine Foreknowledge

One aspect of the portrait of God in Scripture that suggests the future is partly open is the fact that God sometimes regrets how things turn out, even prior decisions that he himself made. For example, in the light of the depravity that characterized humanity prior to the flood, the Bible says that “The Lord was sorry that he made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (Gen 6:6). The genuineness of his regret is evidenced by the fact that the Lord immediately took measures to destroy humanity and start over.

Now, if everything about world history were exhaustively settled and known by God as such before he created the world, God would have known with absolute certainty that humans would come to this wicked state, at just this time, before he created them. But how, then could he authentically regret having made humankind? Doesn’t the fact that God regretted the way things turned out—to the point of starting over—suggest that it wasn’t a foregone conclusion at the time God created human beings that they would fall into this state of wickedness?

Another fascinating example of the Lord’s regret concerns his decision to make Saul king of Israel. Saul had gotten so wicked that the Lord said, “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me” (1 Sam 15:10).

We must wonder if the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did. Could God genuinely confess, “I regret …” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was certain of what Saul would do when I made him king”? I do not see how. Could I genuinely regret, say, purchasing a car because it turned out to run poorly if in fact the car was running exactly as I knew it would when I purchased it? Common sense tells us that we can only regret a decision we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.

Some may object that if God regretted a decision he made, he must not be perfectly wise. Wouldn’t God be admitting to making a mistake? Two considerations lead me to answer this question in the negative.

First, it is better to allow Scripture to inform us regarding the nature of divine wisdom than to reinterpret an entire motif in order to square it with our preconceptions of divine wisdom. If God says he regretted a decision, and if Scripture elsewhere tells us that God is perfectly wise, then we should simply conclude that one can be perfectly wise and still regret a decision. Even if this is a mystery to us, it is better to allow the mystery to stand than to assume that we know what God’s wisdom is like and conclude on this basis that God can’t mean what he clearly says.

My second point, however is that in the open view there is little mystery involved in accepting that God can regret his own previous decisions. Once we understand that the future is partly open and that humans are genuinely free, the paradox of how God could experience genuine regret over a decision he made disappears. God made a wise decision because it had the greatest possibility of yielding the best results. God’s decision wasn’t the only variable in this matter, however, there was also the variable of Saul’s will. Saul freely strayed from God’s plan, but that is not God’s fault, nor does it make God’s decision unwise.


—Adapted from God of the Possible, pages 55-57

Why is the Mixing of Law and Grace Not the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Why is the mixing of Law and Grace not the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Because the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are INCOMPATIBLE. Therefore the mixing of the two results the truth and reality of both being compromised and thus conceals the reason for both and also results in misunderstanding the written word of God and produces theological hog-wash. A correct understand of both Covenants and keeping each in its distinct rightful place is necessary to live in the freedom and reality of what Christ has DONE for us...it has nothing to do with what we can DO for Him.

The scriptures declare that the New Covenant is BETTER and DIFFERENT than the Old Covenant. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD . “ I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD ,’ because they will all know me, from the least to the greatest,” declares the LORD . “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:33- 34

What is missing from the New that is in the Old? A little two-letter word is missing, one word that makes all the difference in the world between the two: There is no “if.” Concerning the promises and provisions of this New Covenant, God says, “I will…I will…I will…I will.” The responsibility rests completely on His shoulders. There is not a single responsibility placed on man's doing. NONE! Therefore, we can already identify the New Covenant as unconditional, because of the lack of an “if,” and unilateral, because all the responsibility is assumed by God. Man is not a part of the equation. Knowing that if these things are true, we can be confident that this New Covenant is also perpetual, eternal and unending...Why? Because without the possibility of human failure ending it, we can be confident the Lord’s promises will never fail because He never fails, He is eternal and unending. WOW! That my friend is what makes the Old incompatible with the New and any attempt to mix the two renders people from experiencing the POWER of the New.

The Old Covenant was continual, bilateral, temporal (until the coming of Christ) and two sided because it was based on man's performance, "If you do...I will do". However the New Covenant is unconditional, unilateral and eternal, in regard to all its clauses God says "I Will" (one sided) which makes it unconditional as far as man is concerned.

How can the Old, a conditional, bilateral, and temporal covenant ever be mixed and blended with the New, a unconditional, unilateral, and eternal Covenant? That’s why those who claim to be Law-keeping "Bible Knowers", picking verses from all over the Bible without taking into account the different covenants, end up creating an indigestible theological hog-wash. That's why so many believers are living in confusion instead of in peace, confidence,contentment and the power of New Covenant living. 

These two covenants have never been invoked at the same time. And in the pure gospel of Christ they never will be...because religion does mix them lends to the proof that they are not preaching the gospel of Christ. 

Grace = Rest

Grace means that we can breathe a sigh of relief, get off the endless merry-go-round of seeking, works and struggle...and rest!

We don't have to do anything..don't have to get anything..don't have to become anything...
We already ARE!

We already are who we have always wanted to be, where we always wanted to be, one with the One who is everything..everything!

We can rest..rest!  Nothing is required of us, nothing is asked of us, nothing is expected of us.  We are perfect just as we are, and our life is perfect just as it is..with any inconsistencies, confusions, lapses, or contradictions..

Just as we are right now, just as it is right now, in this very moment, without changes a thing or ever needing to do so, we are PERFECT!  Perfect to Him, perfect for Him, perfectly with Him!

We don't have to wait for tomorrow to have that special relationship with God we've been longing for and looking for..we don't have to wait for some super spiritual state to come before we can have that deep bonded closeness with Him..we don't have to wait till we've solved all our issues and made our life work perfectly before we can REALLY have the good life with God..the good life with God is NOW!  And we are already all we seek to be, already at the place we long to be - IN HIM!

Our Destiny is to Say These Small Words

“I have often wondered, perhaps in part simply because the term is so rarely used today, what it might mean to ‘glorify’ God forever. It will undoubtedbly mean a great many things, but one of them surely must be that we will continually thank him.

We will thank him for his graciousness and goodness to us, and for inviting us into conversation. Along this line, I would think that we anticipate our ‘chief and highest end’ every time we behold something beautiful and find that after we have exclaimed, ‘Ah, how wonderful!’ we are almost compelled to say ‘Thank you!’

Our destiny is to say these small words forever and so experience the gratitude that is the perfection of happiness."

— Craig M. Gay

Did Jesus Treat the Scriptures the Way the Literalists Treats the Bible

Literalists  claim the Bible is their supreme authority for the way they believe and act. They claim that their actions are parallel with the way Jesus acted in the Bible.

Though there was no such thing as the Bible in Jesus day, there was the the books that Moses wrote. The way Jesus treated the scripture is a far cry from the way the literalists do today. The way Jesus treated the scripture was in a way that literalist religionists are taught not to treat the Bible.

Literalists are taught to stick to what the Bible says and not to go beyond it...Jesus did the opposite.

For instance, unlike literalists, Jesus felt He could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which were not.

Religionists are taught in no uncertain terms that the Bible is a package deal. Believing what the Bible says isn't like being on a buffet line where you "pick and choose" what you like. Yet, that's what Jesus did.

For example, in the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew, Jesus is on a mountain speaking to people around him. Several times He quotes something from the Law of Moses and then contrasts what the Law says ("you have heard it said) with a teaching of his own ("but I say to you").

Don't be blinded to what is happening here: Jesus is acting like Moses. He is on a mountain declaring to the people the Word of God. Really the "Sermon on the Mount" isn't a sermon, it is a public declaration that, now that He was here, changes were going to be made.

At some points in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus simply expands on what the scripture said...like murder being more than not just physical but also emotional (anger) and verbal (insults). But Jesus also claims that some parts of the Bible over and done and it's time to head in a new direction.

God told Moses that Israelites were to make solemn oaths to one another as a sort of a binding contract, but Jesus said the true people of God shouldn't make any oaths. "Let your 'Yes, be Yes and your 'No, be no'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."

God told Moses that crimes were punishable by an "eye for an eye" so as to insure the punishment fit the crime but Jesus said to turn the other cheek rather than seek restitution. In doing so, they would be truly following the will of God.

Jesus taught that some of what God said in the Old Testament was inadequate, and real obedience to God mean it was time to move on. If denominational preachers, or teachers taught this about the canonized Bible they would be out of a job.

Jesus read the scripture as a Jew would, not an evangelical or fundamentalist christian does.

As much as this might not need to be said, it does. From observation of the way Jesus read scripture, we conclude that it was Jewish man reading. His creative flare and even his "debating" with scripture and going in a different direction were part of what it meant to read the Holy Writ in Jesus' Jewish world.

That doesn't mean Jesus didn't respect scripture. He did. But He respected it in Jewish ways, not religious ways.

And that may be the hardest lesson for the religious literalists to understand...Jesus did not agree with things in scripture that religious literalists take for granted and considers non-negotiable and stick to what the text means...or should I say, what they believe the text says.

By doing so religion has deafened the ears of believers and they are unable to hear from God for themselves.

What is Christianity?

My church is going to be having a baptism soon, so the last time I preached, I touched upon the subject of baptism as it is developed in Romans 6. There I saw that the reality of baptism includes a mysterious, mystical union with Christ, a union by virtue of which the baptized person dies to sin and comes alive to God in Jesus Christ. Just as Christ had incarnated and taken upon himself a human nature such as ours, and yet through his death and resurrection the power of sin within that nature was destroyed and defeated, so also we are united to Christ in baptism and experience to some extent that same victory over sin within us.

Now certainly there is the mystical element of baptism that Paul discusses in Rom 6. There is further the changes in identity which come along with baptism as it is discussed briefly in Gal 3.24-9. But perhaps for those to be baptized it is important to ask a more basic question: what is Christianity? If we are going to be baptizing persons to become Christians, we ought to have some kind of answer to the question of what this Christianity is into which they are being initiated through baptism.

If you listen to some persons talk, you might get the impression that Christianity is a set of rules to be obeyed until death so that you can win for yourself a favorable afterlife. You don't drink, you don't smoke, you don't chew, you don't go with girls that do, and you keep these and a number of other rules as best as you can. Then, when you die, if you were good enough, you will be allowed to enter into heaven and enjoy the rest of eternity in bliss and happiness.

Other persons talk about Christianity as if it were a system of beliefs and doctrines to be affirmed with rigid, immutable fidelity. If you are a Christian, you believe x, y, and z, and you reject as dangerously heretical everyone who denies these things. There is no room for discussion, no room for disagreement -- either you believe and you are saved, or you are not. Moreover, you cannot put too great an emphasis on what people do in order to be saved, because people can't be good anyway; the point is to believe.

I think both of these groups -- caricatures, I admit -- are mistaken. I think Christianity ought to be understood differently. I myself have a different understanding of Christianity. Furthermore I think all persons who are seeking baptism should be careful to understand Christianity properly, since the baptismal step they are taking is an important one. They are, by their own admittance, renouncing their former life and the deceits of the devil; they had better be doing this out of sincerity, less the event of their public baptism have been done in vain and become a spectacle. How do I understand Christianity, then?

Now I have been in seminary for a year now, and I have really been enjoying it. One of the things I've particularly enjoyed about my seminary education is the connection that I have with the other students. I did my undergraduate degree at Arizona State University studying philosophy, and one of the difficulties of that was the very arid, secular environment of the philosophy department. I was among the very few who were Christians, and most of the time I found I had very little in common with my fellow students. There was little to talk about with them, since we disagreed on more or less everything I thought was important. Our worldviews were wildly divergent. At Fuller, however, I am surrounded by persons who love Jesus Christ and who want to serve him, and this has proven to be a refreshment for my weary soul. I can talk about the important things with my fellow students, I can become real friends with them, we can pray for each other, and so on.

As I listen to the other students in the seminary tell about their lives and the course they took to arrive at Fuller, I find an important common denominator among many of them. They might have lived their entire lives as Christians, or else they might have been raised in thoroughly secular households only to become Christians later in life. Some of them went through periods of deep worldliness, promiscuity, drug abuse, generally irresponsible living, alcoholism, and the rest. Nevertheless they determined to go to seminary and wish to serve Jesus because they had a moment in which they realized: God loves me! Even me! They came to the realization that in spite of their past, in spite of the mistakes they had made when they were younger, in spite of troubling events which had previously disposed them to atheism (e.g., the early death of parents), and even in spite of their present failings, God loves them more than they can imagine, more than they love themselves.

To my mind this is precisely Christianity: the realization that God loves you, in spite of everything which has happened to you and everything you've done, and that this love finds its most complete expression in what God accomplished in Jesus Christ. There is no Christianity apart from the message -- both its expression and its acceptance on the part of the believer -- that God loves you, and that Jesus Christ shows you what this love looks like.

The Bible describes this love of Christ in many different ways. Consider the example of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost: he tells his listeners that they put Jesus Christ to death (Acts 2.22-3), but they may repent and be baptized and receive the promised Holy Spirit (vv. 36-9). Now imagine what that means! God loves these persons so much: they kill Christ, the Son of God, and Peter nevertheless informs them that the promise of the Holy Spirit was for them; they, the deicidal who looked God square in the face in Jesus Christ and decided to kill him, they are promised the Holy Spirit of God who lives in their heart and deifies them! God takes the deicidal and deifies them even through their act of deicide -- that is the deep love of God!

This is a point that Christians have appreciated throughout the long history of Christianity. It has made its way into their literature. Consider Shusaku Endo's novel Silence, in which a Portugese priest under persecution XVII century Japan is forced to make a difficult choice: Japanese peasants will undergo extreme torture unto death unless he agrees to renounce his priestly work and 'apostatize' by placing his foot upon a wooden icon of the crucified Christ. He is not asked to renounce any beliefs, only to go through the motion of placing his foot on the icon and to cease his work as a priest. The struggles and tortures of the peasants audible, he lifts his foot over the icon and just at that moment, Christ speaks to him from the icon: "Trample! Trample! That's what I came into the world for, to be trampled upon by men."

This is the deep love of God in Jesus Christ. It is willing to be trampled and put to death so that you, a miserable sinner, can enjoy eternal life and fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Apart from this act of intervention and vicarious suffering, there would be no hope for you or for anyone; but because Christ has died for our sins, we can have life with God and escape the destruction of death. This is all because God loves us, as T.F. Torrance said, he loves us more than he loves himself, and he is willing to undergo loss for himself in order that we can gain everything.

Becoming a Christian is realizing that God loves you, and that this love is most completely expressed in what Jesus Christ accomplished for us. But if God loves us like this, what can be expected of us in return except to love God and other people with the same love? If God loved you so dearly, how can you be baptized apart from loving God so dearly as to be willing to die and be trampled upon for him? And if God loves the person next to you so dearly, how can you love God and hate the person whom God has made your brother or your sister?

Christianity, to my mind, is about love and love alone -- the love that God has for us, the love that transforms us and makes us love God and everyone else. When you are baptized, you are uniting yourself to that Jesus Christ who loved you so dearly, and you are simultaneously announcing to the world that you intend to love others in the same way. It means dying; it means being trampled; but it is what God demands, because that is what his nature is, to love.