Why is the Timing of Christ's Return Important?

I was recently teaching a segment on eschatology (the doctrine of future events) in a New Member’s Class at my church. One of the men asked me, “How can you be sure that there is a ‘rapture’ of the church since the word ‘rapture’ is never used in Scripture?” He then added, “I’ve looked at the passages in 1 Thessalonians and I don’t think they present a strong case for such, so why do you hold to that position?”

I thought about that question later and wondered how many other Christians believe in the rapture of the church simply because (1) their pastor has taught that there is one, and (2) they like the idea that they won’t be here on earth to experience the evils of the Tribulation. At least that man was thinking and trying to understand the Scriptures and not simply accepting what he was taught at face value.

So I thought I would try to summarize why I hold to the pre-Tribulation rapture of the church and why I believe it is an important doctrine. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on this; in fact, one of my closest friends disagrees with me. So I will admit up front that good men of God differ on the timing of the rapture of the church. Some hold that it takes place after the Tribulation, others hold to a mid-Tribulation rapture. Still others spiritualize the whole thing and altogether deny any kind of rapture of the church.

My view is founded on the major premise that the best way to interpret the Scriptures is by using a literal-historical-grammatical approach. As a corollary to that premise, Israel and the church must be seen as two distinct groups. Even amillennialists will admit that if the literal method of interpretation of the Scriptures is the right method, premillennialism is the correct interpretation. But I believe we must adopt a literal approach to understanding Scripture or else everything is up for grabs. And when that happens, we can easily start down the slippery slope toward the error of the Emergent Church, in which nothing is certain.

Since, in my understanding of Scripture, Israel and the church are two distinct groups and Scripture teaches that the primary purposes of the Tribulation are (1) the judgment of the unbelieving world, and (2) the purification and salvation of the nation of Israel, it seems to me that there are good arguments for why the church will not be in the Tribulation.

God promised the church at Philadelphia in Rev. 3:10 that he would keep her from the “hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth,” so it seems that there is at least some biblical evidence that the church will not be present. And as you continue reading through Revelation 6-19, you never find the church mentioned as being present as God’s wrath is poured out on mankind.

In fact, in Rev. 6:16-17, as the judgments of the Tribulation are being poured out on the earth, men beg the mountains and rocks to fall on them and hide them “from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” In addition, six times in Revelation, the terrors of the Tribulation are referred to as God’s wrath (11:18; 14:10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19; 19:15). This seems to me to give additional insight into the passages in 1 Thessalonians (1:10; 5:9) to which the gentleman in the New Member’s class referred. 1 Thess. 1:10 tells us to “wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.” 1 Thess. 5:10 says, “For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Thus, when we put together the statement in Rev. 3:10 about being saved from the hour of testing that is coming on the whole world, plus the absence of any mention of the church in Revelation’s detailing of the Tribulation, and the designation of the Tribulation as the time of God’s wrath, Paul’s encouraging words to the Thessalonians seem quite clear—the true church will not be present during the Tribulation, but will be saved from having to go through that time.

Let me also add that the nature of the church itself argues against being present in the Tribulation. The church is the bride of Christ; His body of which He is the head. Thus, we have been brought into the closest of all relationships to Him. If the church is present in the Tribulation, God would be subjecting the people for whom His Son died, whose sins have been completely washed away, and who no longer abide under any condemnation or judgment (Rom. 8:1) to the harshest, most severe punishment and judgment that will ever take place on this earth. Since all of our sins have been forgiven in Christ, and His righteousness has been imputed to us, we are, in the Father’s eyes, as pure as His Son. Thus, it is unnecessary for the church to experience the judgment that will befall rebellious sinners.

Finally, the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ is at stake here. Scripture repeatedly tells us to be watching for Christ’s return (Acts 1:11; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; Titus 2:13; James 5:8). These passages do not tell us to look for the signs of the Tribulation that would precede His coming, but to look for Him. In fact, when the disciples asked Jesus what the sign of His coming would be (Matt. 24:3) and He began to instruct them about the signs of the Tribulation, he was speaking to them in the context of their Jewish understanding of who the people of God were; namely, the nation of Israel. So when He spoke of His coming, He was speaking of His Second Coming which takes place at the end of the Tribulation. At no time in Scripture, when the church is being addressed, are believers ever instructed to look for signs, but rather to look for Christ. So if we start looking for signs of the Tribulation, we denigrate the doctrine of Christ’s imminent return.

Many Christians feel these matters are unimportant and think, “So what? As long as I’m saved, that’s all that really matters.” Well, I will gladly admit that our view of Christ’s return does not determine whether or not we are genuinely saved. However, that does not mean we should ignore such issues in theology. A proper understanding of such issues will affect how we live. In his book, Maranatha, Renald Showers has succinctly stated the importance of this doctrine in these words:

The fact that the glorified, holy Son of God could step through the door of heaven at any moment is intended by God to be the most pressing, incessant motivation for holy living and aggressive ministry (including missions, evangelism, and Bible teaching) and the greatest cure for lethargy and apathy. It should make a major difference in every Christian’s values, actions, priorities, and goals.

Since all other views, to one degree or another, diminish the importance of Christ’s imminent return, I believe that holding to the pre-Tribulation view of the rapture really does matter.

That Hideous Doctrine

While teaching my adult Sunday School class, I referred to an article written by John Thomas on the doctrine of hell. It was originally published in Moody Magazine in September 1985. Because many in the class were interested in reading it, I have posted it here in its entirety.

That Hideous Doctrine

That hideous doctrine of hell is fading. How often have you thought of it in the past month for instance? Does it make a difference in your concern for others, in your witness? Is it a constant and proper burden?

Most believers would have to say no. But the individual isn’t the only one to blame. After all, the doctrine no longer gets its float in the church parade; it has become a museum piece at best, stored in the shadows of a far corner.

The reality of hell, however, demands we haul the monstrous thing out again and study it until it changes us. Ugly, garish, and familiar as it is, this doctrine will indeed have a daily, practical, and personal effect on every believer who comes to terms with its force.

Our Lord’s words on the subject are unnerving. In Luke 16, He tells us of a rich man who died and went to Hades (the abode of the unsaved between death and final judgment). From that story and a few other revelatory facts, we can infer several characteristics of hell.

First, it’s a place of great physical pain. The rich man’s initial remark concludes with his most pressing concern: “I am in agony in this flame” (Luke 16:24). We do not make enough of this.

We all have experienced pain to some degree. We know it can make a mockery of all life’s goals and beauties. Yet we do not seem to know pain as a hint of hell, a searing foretaste of what will befall those who do not know Christ, a grim reminder of what we will be spared from.

God does not leave us with simply the mute fact of hell’s physical pain. He tells us how real people will respond to that pain. Our Lord is not being macabre; He is simply telling us the truth.

First, there will be “weeping” (Luke 13:28). Weeping is not something we get a grip on; it is something that grips us. Recall how you were affected when you last heard someone weep. Remember how you were moved with compassion to want to protect and restore that person? The Lord wants us to know and consider what an upsetting experience it is for the person in hell.

Another response will be “wailing” (Matt. 13:28). While weeping attracts our sympathy, wailing frightens and offends us. It is the pitiable bawl of a soul seeking escape, hurt beyond repair, eternally damaged. A wail is sound gone grotesque because of conclusions we can’t live with.

A third response will be “gnashing of teeth” (Luke 13:28). Why? Perhaps because of anger or frustration. It may be a defense against crying out or an intense pause when one is too weary to cry any longer.

Hell has two other aspects, rarely considered, which are both curious and frightening. On earth we take for granted two physical properties that help keep us physically, mentally, and emotionally stable. The first is light, the second is solid, fixed surfaces. Oddly, these two dependables will not accommodate those in hell.

Hell is a place of darkness (Mark 8:12). Imagine the person who has just entered hell—a neighbor, relative, co-worker, friend. After a roar of physical pain blasts him, he spends his first moments wailing and gnashing his teeth. But after a season, he grows accustomed to the pain, not that it’s become tolerable, but that his capacity for it has enlarged to comprehend it, yet not be consumed by it. Though he hurts, he is now able to think, and he instinctively looks about him. But as he looks, he sees only blackness.

In his past life he learned that if he looked long enough, a glow of light somewhere would yield definition to his surroundings. So he blinks and strains to focus his eyes, but his efforts yield only blackness. He turns and strains his eyes in another direction. He waits. He sees nothing but unyielding black ink. It clings to him, smothering and oppressing him.

Realizing that the darkness is not going to give way, he nervously begins to feel for something solid to get his bearings. He reaches for walls or rocks or trees or chairs; he stretches his legs to feel the ground and touches nothing.

Hell is a “bottomless pit” (Rev. 20:1,2 KJV); however, the new occupant is slow to learn. In growing panic, he kicks his feet and waves his arms. He stretches and lunges. But he finds nothing. After more feverish tries, he pauses from exhaustion, suspended in black. Suddenly, with a scream he kicks, twists, and lunges until he is again too exhausted to move.

He hangs there, alone with his pain. Unable to touch a solid object or see a solitary thing he begins to weep. His sobs choke through the darkness. They become weak, then lost in hell’s roar.

As time passes, he begins to do what the rich man did—he again starts to think. His first thoughts are of hope. You see, he still thinks as he did on earth, where he kept himself alive with hope. When things got bad, he always found a way out. If he felt pain, he took medicine. If he were hungry, he ate food. If he lost love, there was more love to be found. So he casts about in his mind for a plan to apply to the hope building in his chest.

Of course, he thinks, Jesus, the God of love, can get me out of this. He cries out with a surge, “Jesus! Jesus! You were right! Help me! Get me out of this!” He waits, breathing hard with desperation. The sound of his voice slips into the darkness and is lost. He tries again. “I believe, Jesus! I believe now! Save me from this! Again the darkness smothers his words. Our sinner is not unique. Everyone in hell believes.

When he wearies of his appeals, he does next what anyone would do – assesses his situation and attempts to adapt. But then it hits him – this is forever. Jesus made it very clear. He used the same words for “forever” to describe both heaven and hell. Forever, he thinks, and his mind labors through the blackness until he aches. “Forever!” he whispers in wonder. The idea deepens, widens, and towers over him. The awful truth spreads before him like endless, overlapping slats: "When I put in ten thousand centuries of time here, I will not have accomplished one thing. I will not have one second less to spend here."

As the rich man pleaded for a drop of water, so, to, our new occupant entertains a similar ambition. In life he learned that even bad things could be tolerated if one could find temporary relief. Perhaps, even hell, if one could rest from time to time, would be more tolerable.

He learns, though, that “the smoke of (his) torment goes up forever and ever; and (he has) no rest day and night” (Rev. 14:11 NASB). No rest day and night--think of that. Thoughts of this happening to people we know, people like us, are too terrifying to entertain for long. The idea of allowing someone to endure such torture for eternity violates the sensibilities of even the most severe judge among us. We simply cannot bear it.

But our thoughts of hell will never be as unmanageable as its reality. We must take this doctrine of hell, therefore, and make sure we are practically affected by it.

A hard look at this doctrine should first change our view of sin. Most believers do not take sin as seriously as God does. We need to realize that in God’s eyes, and in His actual plan, sin deserves eternal punishment in hell.

We can actually learn, by comparison, to hate sin as God hates it. As the reality of hell violates and offends us, for example, so sin violates and offends God. As we cannot bear to look upon the horrors of hell, so God cannot bear to look upon the horrors of sin. As hell revolts us to the point of hatred for it, so also God finds sin revolting. The comparison is not perfect, but it offers a start.

Second, the truth of hell should encourage our witness. Can we ever hear a sigh of weariness, see a moment of doubt, or feel pain without being reminded of that place? In all honesty, can we see any unbeliever, watch his petty human activities, realize what he has in store, and not be moved with compassion? It encourages us to witness in word and in deed.

That hideous doctrine may grip our souls in dark terror and make us weep, but let us be sure it also prompts us to holiness and compassion.

Non-negotiable Doctrines

If someone asked you which doctrines of the Christian faith you considered non-negotiable, which ones would you list? By that I mean, which doctrines do you believe are so important that you will not compromise on them, regardless of the cost to you in terms of continued fellowship with family or friends, which church you attend, or even your life?

I asked myself that question sometime back. I was involved with a Christian organization which was composed of members from many different evangelical denominations, some of which held certain beliefs with which I disagreed. I was asked to serve on the board of directors of that organization, so I decided that I had to determine exactly which foundational, core doctrines of the Christian faith were so important to me that I could not and would not compromise and affiliate myself with any organization which would allow people who held to other views to be a part of its leadership.

It may seem like such an exercise would be easy, but it was actually more difficult than I originally thought it would be. Certain doctrines were a “slam dunk”; that is, there wasn’t even a moment’s hesitation about whether they should be included. Issues such as the inerrancy and authority of Scripture and the complete divinity of Christ are not up for grabs, despite what the post-modernists who question everything about orthodox Christianity tell us.

Other doctrines were more difficult. For example, the continuation of certain sign gifts such as tongues and healings, or the timing and nature of future events, or baptism by immersion or by sprinkling are all doctrines on which genuine believers disagree as to what the Bible teaches. So I had to decide which doctrines were so important to me that I would never compromise, though it should cost me friendships with other Christians or even my life at the hands of evil authorities who should demand that I renounce my faith. In other words, the doctrines I would choose would be the foundational convictions upon which my Christian faith is built. In the end, I decided there were eight core doctrines which rose to that level of importance. They are:

1. The inerrancy and authority of the Bible.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. His complete divinity.
4. His substitutionary atonement.
5. His bodily resurrection.
6. His physical return for His church.
7. Man’s fallen, sinful condition and his inability to save himself.
8. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

There are other doctrines which others may argue should be added to this list, but these are what I believe are the absolute, fundamental, non-negotiable doctrines which all true Christians must believe. Other doctrines which are not specifically listed may “fit into” one of these doctrines; i.e., the doctrine of the humanity of Christ can be seen to be a part of our understanding of His virgin birth.

While believers may disagree on the details of certain doctrines, belief in the doctrines listed above is non-negotiable. If anyone claims to be a Christian, yet does not hold to these truths, there is solid reason to question the validity of his/her claim.

I do not mean that there will not, at times, be differences of opinion regarding certain details about the doctrines listed above (such as whether Christ’s atonement was limited in scope or unlimited in scope, or the timing of His return for the church), but anyone who denies any of these basic beliefs cannot legitimately claim to be a true believer and follower of Christ.

I think it is particularly important for Christians today to commit themselves to these foundational doctrines, because the Emergent Church with its complete lack of certainty about anything is attracting many to a false Christianity. It has, in the words of Phil Johnson, “canonized doubt.” As a consequence, many have been led to believe that it is arrogant to be certain about anything regarding the Christian faith. But Scripture calls us to stand firm in our faith (1 Corinthians 16:13). To do anything less is to risk shipwreck in regard to it (1 Timothy 1:19).

Ugly Guys

Recently I was trimming my bougainvillea in my side yard when two teenage girls walked by on the sidewalk. They were talking about what teenage girls talk about a lot---boys. They would probably have been very embarrassed to know that I could overhear their conversation, but I found it to be very amusing and, at the same time, thought-provoking.

One girl said to the other, “My mother always says, ‘It’s the ugly boys who treat you like you’re everything. The good-looking ones are just after you for what’s in it for them.’” When I heard that, I chuckled inside and thought that I should go ask my teenage son who was trimming around the bushes in the front yard how he treated his girlfriend. If he said, “Like she’s everything,” then he would be admitting he was ugly. I knew he wouldn’t want to think of himself as physically ugly and unattractive. But my second thought on her comment was, “We need more ugly guys.”

Why would I make such a statement? Because I believe many men—including evangelical Christians—live as if they are the center and focus of everything in their relationship to their wives or girlfriends. Many of them are only concerned about what interests them, rather than demonstrating love for those women and encouraging them in their spiritual walk with Christ. Ephesians 5:25 tells men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. God the Son was entitled to all possible adoration, worship, and praise, yet He voluntarily surrendered those privileges in order to give Himself up as a sacrifice for His chosen bride. There is no greater example of what it means to love than to willingly die for those who were, at the time of His death, His enemies. Yet that is what He did, and that is the example of how men are called to love their wives.

I am reminded of the story of a young seminary student who once went for counsel to Professor Howard Hendricks of Dallas Theological Seminary. He told Hendricks, “Prof, I think I love my wife too much. I’m so enamored with her that I’m neglecting my seminary studies.” Dr. Hendricks asked him, “Do you love your wife as much as Christ loved the church?” “Of course not,” the young student replied. “Well then,” said Hendricks, “You don’t love her enough! Get back to her and get at it!”

The apostle Peter expounded on how this sacrificial love for our wives is to take place. He tells us in 1 Peter 3:7 to “live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman.” Peter’s point is that husbands are to treat their wives like they would a delicate, fragile, porcelain statue that is very valuable. Even if a man’s wife is emotionally stronger than he is (and in some cases, perhaps even physically stronger), he is to protect her and cherish her like he would a highly valuable, yet delicate and breakable item of glass or china. With the same care and concern that he would show for such an item, so too, he is to show that care for his wife—especially if she is an unbeliever because that will attract her to the Lord even more.

Now, a single man may say, “But all those Bible passages are directed to married men. I’m not married, so why do I have to treat my girlfriend like that?” Because men need to see every woman whom they date as a potential spouse, and they need to demonstrate Christ’s love, leadership, and care for that woman.

Men, treat your wife or girlfriend like a precious, delicate, valuable porcelain vase which you would never intentionally harm. Show her a sacrificial love which gives up your rights and desires for what is of the greatest service to her. That’s the standard to which Scripture calls us. May God grant that we would be “ugly guys” for the sake of our wives and His glory!

Limited or Unlimited Atonement?

I want to write about the most difficult issue I have ever wrestled with in the development of my theology and doctrinal position. For many years I have made no apology for being a Calvinist in my understanding of Scripture. It is clearly the most biblically consistent and logical theological position. However, until a few years ago if you asked me to what degree I was a Calvinist, I would have told you that I was a “Four Point Calvinist.” The point on which I balked is what is known as “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption.” I couldn’t see how John Calvin arrived at such a conclusion when the Scriptures contained statements such as “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

But a few years ago, a close pastor friend informed me that he had become a “Five Point Calvinist.” I began studying the issue to try to prove to him that he had made a mistake. As I began to read and think about the issue, I upgraded my response to say that I was a “Four-and-a-half Point Calvinist.” By that, I didn’t mean that I only half-way believed in Particular Redemption; rather, what I meant was that I believed that the Scriptures taught both Limited and Unlimited Atonement, and so it was sort of a paradox. I thought both viewpoints were true, so I called it “Four-and-a-half Point Calvinism” to indicate my acceptance of both views.

Finally, my son-in-law, a pastor in Kansas, challenged me to study the issue in depth. I remember him telling me, “There simply is no other way logically that it can be anything but Limited Atonement.” I set out to read all I could from both sides of the issue in an attempt to settle, once and for all, what I believed about that issue. After spending about a year in study—sometimes very intense, sometimes superficial—I finally concluded that the correct understanding is that of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. So I would like to explain why I believe that this is the correct biblical position.

Now, I understand that it is somewhat dangerous to venture into this territory because it is quite controversial among evangelical Christians. In fact, some friends of mine left our church because we were just “too Calvinistic” for them. But studying this issue is necessitated by the many texts of Scripture that we read which cause us to wonder which is correct. I just finished studying 2 Peter 2:1, in which Peter comments that false teachers who secretly introduce destructive heresies into the church also deny “the Master who bought them.” For years, I understood that passage as many other people do. I took it to mean that Christ actually has purchased redemption in full for all people, even false teachers. It is commonly thought by many (if not most) people that Christ died to pay in full the penalty for everyone’s sins, whether they ever believe or not. The popular notion is that God loves everyone, wants everyone saved, so Christ died for everyone.

This means that His death was only a potential sacrifice or atonement that becomes an actual atonement when a sinner repents and believes the gospel. In this view, the believer’s role in evangelism is to convince sinners to receive what has already been done for them. All can believe and be saved if they will, since no one is excluded in the atonement.

However, if you take that viewpoint to its logical conclusion, it ends with hell being populated with people whose salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross. Thus, the lake of fire is filled with damned people whose sin Christ fully atoned for by bearing the punishment they deserved to receive under God’s wrath.

On the other hand, in the Unlimited Atonement view, heaven will be populated by people who had the same atonement provided for them, but they are there because they received it. In this view, Christ died on the cross for the damned in hell the same as He did for the redeemed in heaven. The only difference between the fate of the redeemed and that of the damned is the sinner’s choice.

This perspective says that the Lord Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible, but not actual. He did not absolutely purchase salvation for anyone. He only removed a barrier for everyone, which merely makes salvation potential. The sinner ultimately determines the nature of the atonement and its application by what he does. As once Bible teacher has stated, according to this perspective, when Jesus cried, “It is finished,” it really should be rendered, “It is stated.”

But the interpretational difficulties and fallacies arising from that view stem from the misunderstanding of two very important biblical teachings: the doctrine of total depravity (perhaps absolute inability would be a better term) and the doctrine of the atonement itself.

Correctly understood, the doctrine of total depravity says that all people are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), separated and alienated from the life of God (Rom. 1:21-22), doing only evil from desperately wicked, deceitful hearts (Jer. 17:9), completely incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14), blinded by the love of sin and by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), doing only the will of their father the devil, unable to seek God, and unwilling to repent (Rom. 3:10-23). So, since that is the condition of mankind, answer me this: How is the sinner going to make the right choice to activate the atonement on his behalf?

Clearly, salvation comes wholly and only from God. He must give light, life, understanding, repentance, and faith. Salvation comes to the sinner from God by His will and power. Since that is true, when coupled with the doctrine of sovereign election, the conclusion must be that God determined the extent of the atonement.

So then, for whom did Christ die? He died for all who would believe because they were chosen, called, justified, and granted repentance and faith by the Father. The atonement is limited to those who believe, who are the elect of God. Unless an individual believes in universal salvation, he must believe that Christ’s atonement is limited to some degree—either limited by the sinner who is sovereign, or by God who is sovereign.

Those who hold to an unlimited atonement position are simply mistaken. If one asserts that sinners have the power to limit the application of the atonement, then the atonement by its nature is limited in actual power and effectiveness. With that understanding, it is less than a real atonement and is, in fact, merely potential and restricted by the choice of fallen human beings. But in truth, only God can set the atonement’s limits, and He extends the atonement to all who will believe because they have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Those who hold to the unlimited view must affirm that Christ actually atoned for no one in particular but potentially for everyone without exception. Whatever He did on the cross was not a full and complete payment for sin, because sinners for whom He died are still damned. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for by Christ—sin paid for, yet punished forever.

Of course, such thinking is completely unacceptable. God limits the atonement to the elect, for whom it was not a potential atonement, but an actual and real satisfaction for sin. God provided the sacrifice of His Son, which actually paid for the sins for all who would ever believe, who are those chosen by Him for salvation.

It was that issue that finally convinced me of the necessity of a limited atonement. This question kept going through my mind: “To what degree do you believe Christ’s death was propitiatory?” The conclusion that I came to was, if I believe that Christ’s death was satisfactory and sufficient to propitiate God’s holy demand for the punishment of sin, then either all men will be saved because God’s wrath against their sin has been satisfied, or else Christ must have died only for the elect. I could not get around that conclusion with any other satisfactory answer, and thus I came to believe in Particular Redemption.

David Clotfelter has written a wonderful book titled Sinners in the Hands of a Good God. He makes these observations:

From the Calvinist point of view, it is Arminianism that presents logical impossibilities. Arminianism tells us that Jesus died for multitudes that will never be saved, including millions who never so much as heard of Him. It tells us that in the case of those who are lost, the death of Jesus, represented in Scripture as an act whereby He took upon Himself the punishment that should have been ours (Isa. 53:5), was ineffective. Christ has suffered once for their sins, but they will now have to suffer for those same sins in hell.

The Arminian atonement has the initial appearance of being very generous, but the more closely we look at it, the less we are impressed. Does it guarantee the salvation of any person? No. Does it guarantee that those for whom Christ died will have the opportunity to hear of Him and respond to Him? No. Does it in any way remove or even lessen the sufferings of the lost? No. In reality, the Arminian atonement does not atone. It merely clears the way for God to accept those who are able to lift themselves by their own bootstraps. The Calvinist does not believe that any fallen person has such power and so he views the Arminian atonement as unsuited to the salvation of sinners and insulting to Christ.

So how do we deal with the matter of the many passages in Scripture (such as John 3:16) which speak of God’s love for the world? First of all, we must understand that words such as “all” and “world” are not always used in their comprehensive sense. We don’t even use them that way in our speech, so why do we expect such in the Bible? Rather, they often refer to a particular class of people rather than to people universally. Several verses in Scripture use the words “all” and “world” in that sense; specifically, John 1:29, John 12:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and Romans 5:18. And every other verse which does use the word “world” in regard to Christ’s atonement has a reasonable explanation for how it does not necessarily carry the universal sense of the term. If you are interested in further reading on this specific issue, I recommend James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken’s book, The Doctrines of Grace. They give a wonderful explanation of this issue, relating it to specific verses.

Now, I do not believe, as some Calvinists seem to imply, that God hates sinners. Rather, the Scriptures tell us that God does love all men, but that He has set His affection on some, electing them before the foundation of the world for salvation. But His wrath does abide on those who reject Him. Just as one of my children’s disobedience may have incurred my wrath, at the same time, their rebellious actions did not remove or diminish my love for them. I still had to punish their sin, but I still loved them. So too, while God’s wrath abides on unbelievers and those who reject His Son will be eternally punished in hell for their sin, He demonstrates His love toward mankind through His wonderful gifts of health, food, sunshine and rain, and countless other blessings. A god who hated unrighteous man would not be so benevolent, kind, and gracious as is our loving heavenly Father.

Now some people’s objection to limited atonement comes at the point of the presentation of the Gospel. This was the point of concern of one of the couples who left our church. They objected to the Calvinist positions on election and particular redemption and said, “But how do you present the Gospel to someone if you can’t tell them that ‘Christ died for your sins’?”

I believe J. I. Packer has given the best response to that issue. He points out that the phrase “Christ died for you,” which has become so common in today’s presentations of the Gospel, simply cannot be found in any of the sermons recorded in the Bible. In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, he writes these words:

The fact is that the New Testament never calls on any man to repent on the ground that Christ died specifically and particularly for him. The basis on which the New Testament invites sinners to put faith in Christ is simply that they need Him, and that He offers Himself to them, and that those who receive Him are promised all the benefits that His death secured for His people. What is universal and all-inclusive in the New Testament is the invitation to faith, and the promise of salvation to all who believe…. The gospel is not “believe that Christ died for everybody’s sins, and therefore for yours,” any more than it is, “believe that Christ died only for certain people’s sins, and so perhaps not for yours.” The gospel is, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for sins, and now offers you Himself as your Saviour.” This is the message which we are to take to the world. We have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement; our job is to point them to the living Christ and summon them to trust in Him.

Well said. We only need to present the Gospel and then allow God, in His sovereignty, to draw to Himself “as many as [have] been appointed to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). Calvinists have often been accused (and sometimes justifiably) of showing little concern for the lost. But it should never be that way. We have no idea who the elect are, and Christ has left us with the responsibility to share the Gospel and then trust Him to call those to Himself whomever He chooses to call. We must be obedient in doing so.

Also, we must be gracious and kind to our Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on these matters. Truth divides, but we must not be harsh, unfriendly, or unloving, even though we disagree with them. We should pray for them to study the Word, think seriously about such matters, and hopefully they will gain greater understanding of the truth; just as happened in my own situation.

Sufficient Grace for Weak Believers

I attended our monthly elders meeting at church this past Thursday evening. During our meeting, we received report after report on individuals and couples within our church who are hurting and suffering due to medical and financial situations. It wasn’t simply one or two cases, but multiple cases of people fighting horrible (perhaps terminal) disease, and people who, through no fault of their own, face tremendous financial burdens which threaten the loss of all they have. We concluded our meeting with prayer for each of those individuals and couples, asking the Lord to grant healing and give grace to them as they undergo those trials.

I drove away with a sense of gratitude that the Lord has not burdened me or my family at this point in time with one of those situations. I wondered if I would be able to face those kinds of situations with as much grace as many of them are demonstrating in the midst of their pain.

As I had those thoughts, I was reminded of what our Lord told Paul when he was going through God’s refining fire. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 12:9 that when he begged the Lord to remove his “thorn in the flesh,” the Lord’s reply was, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Paul’s response was to rely on the Lord’s sovereign purposes for him and glory in his weakness in order that he would experience Christ’s indwelling power.

Many American Christians have been deceived into thinking that if they live lives of obedience to the Lord and His Word, He will honor them with good health, prosperity, and wealth. In fact, there is a group within American evangelicalism that proclaims what is known as the “health and wealth gospel” or the “prosperity gospel.” They will tell you that you should give your tithes and offerings to the Lord and if you have enough faith, He will return to you an abundance like you have never experienced. In their theology, that abundance is always physical blessing—never spiritual blessing.

In the end, the health and wealth “Word of Faith” proponents do nothing but enrich their own pockets with the donations of their followers and leave them with broken dreams of better health and full wallets. It is a man-centered message which focuses on “what’s in it for me?” rather than a God-centered message which says, “How can I bring greater glory to God in the midst of the pain He is bringing into my life?”

God’s Word never promises us a life that is free from pain. If that was God’s intention, He would have refused Satan’s request to test Job and allowed that righteous man to continue living his life which was filled with abundance of wealth and good things. But instead, God calls Satan’s attention to Job and then permits him to rip everything away from Job except his life and his wife who didn’t understand how Job could continue to praise God in the midst of all he was going through. He lost his health, his children, and his wealth, and never once did God explain to him why it happened.

What we need to learn that God is willing to jeopardize everything we have in order to bring greater praise and honor to His name. We may never know why He causes such things to take place, but we can know that He has our good and His glory in mind. We will never fully understand on this side of heaven, but according to His Word, it is for our good (Romans 8:28).

Our walk with Him is not about fulfilling our dreams for a bigger house, a new car, a full bank account, and a healthy diagnosis. Rather, it is about living in such a way that regardless of what difficulty and pain He brings into our lives—whether physical, emotional, or financial—He receives all the glory for His abundant grace to us. He has promised to give us sufficient grace for those trials; but not so that we might receive praise, but so that His power would be demonstrated in our weakness. May we endure with Paul’s mindset: “Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corintians 12:9b-10).

Thanking Your Teachers

I just returned from a wonderful trip to northern California. I spoke at a Police Couples Conference at Hume Lake Christian Camp in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, about an hour-and-a-half east of Fresno. For the four days we were there, we had no cell phone signal and no email—and we survived! At the conclusion, some dear friends of ours picked us up and drove us across the state to the San Jose-Santa Cruz area where they have a home at the Mt. Hermon Christian Retreat Center. We spent three days with them, touring San Francisco, Monterey, Carmel, and Santa Cruz. We saw everything of significance there is to see in that area. We had a wonderful time of fellowship, friendship, and LOTS and LOTS of food.

But I want to discuss my experience at Hume Lake. It must be one of the most beautiful places God has created, and I found the camp staff to be very gracious hosts. But I was bothered by one thing that took place. It had nothing at all to do with Hume Lake as an organization, but rather with the couples who attended the conference.

I gave a series of messages on our speech and controlling the tongue. I gave the series at my church several years ago, and recently re-preached the first message of that series. It was very well received. Now, I must say that our church is, overall, very biblically astute. Our congregation is generally concerned about such issues in their spiritual walk, and so the response to the message was very positive.

Because I have spent many years in ministry to and among law enforcement officers, I know what problems they (as well as all of us) have controlling their tongue. So I purposely selected this series in order to challenge them to think about the importance of this issue in their spiritual life. The messages were not filled with law enforcement-related illustrations or “war stories” as they are known among police officers, because as I have said many times before, believers don’t grow spiritually on war stories; they grow on the Word of God. My experience at such conferences has often been that cops are looking for sermons that are light on sound teaching and heavy on war stories. Even Christian cops don’t often hunger for the meat of the Word, but rather for that which meets their “felt needs.” Unfortunately, my experience this time was no different.

My first message focused on how we often speak with anger, accusation, manipulation, and blame shifting in our daily lives and relationships. The illustrations were to-the-point and even received some understanding laughter from the conference attendees. But when it was over, no one even commented on the subject. It was so obvious that my wife mentioned it to me. I assured her that knowing cops as I do, I know that they are a very hard audience and don’t often express their feelings to another. But that didn’t assuage my own feelings of disappointment that no one seemed interested or affected by the message. Eventually the wife of one of the attendees came to me and said, “That was good; I hope my husband was listening.” I thought, “What about you? Were you listening? None of us is exempt from doing such things in our speech, and you’re focusing on your husband instead of yourself.”

I continued on through the weekend, speaking five times. There were 130 attendees at the conference. It was clear from their response in each session that they were listening. There was laughter at the appropriate places, and nods of agreement at others. I even saw some taking notes. And after a seminar that I taught on dealing with problems at work, one couple asked me to spend some time with them counseling them on how to deal with an irresponsible adult son. The situation they related was so horrible that my heart just broke for them. I gave them the best advice I could give and prayed with them.

But by the time the weekend was finished, there had been only a handful who came and commended me for my efforts. Those who did had some very gracious comments and I appreciated them greatly. One fellow, a police officer from California who is clearly a spiritually mature believer, came to me on the last day and told me how wonderful the messages were. He particularly liked my last one and said, “Please just keep teaching the Word without apology or compromise.” Interestingly, the lady who hoped her husband was listening thanked my wife and me for being available and participating in the various social events that took place. She said, “So many of our speakers in past years never participated in anything. They were sort of distant and untouchable. But you were right here with us. Thank you so much.”

Based on my experience that weekend, let me make a couple of suggestions for your consideration. First of all, take the time to commend those who teach you the Word of God. Look beyond what your sinful flesh would like to hear and listen to what the Holy Spirit is teaching you. I recognize that they may not be the best speakers (I certainly am not) and you may, at times, struggle to keep your mind from wandering, but if those who teach you are true and faithful to the Word, commend them. It will encourage their hearts. You don’t need to gush all over them and feed their pride, but let them know that you appreciate what God taught you through them.

Second, if you are a person who ministers in some way to others, be available, be down-to-earth, be touchable. They don’t need a spiritual leader who acts as though he is without sin and has achieved some high level of sanctification that they can never achieve. Rather, let them know that you struggle with the same things they are struggling with and that you are real, just like them. It will open doors to reach people at their point of deepest need.

And if you are ever in California, I highly recommend the Hume Lake Christian Camp as a place to visit or attend a conference.

Which Bible Version Should I Use?

As I begin this post, I want others to understand that I’m not sure there is another issue in American evangelical Protestantism which is as controversial and divisive as this issue. At the same time, I'm not sure there is another issue as unimportant as this one about which Christians are divided. But it is the source of continual argument among some believers.

Quite often our church secretaries get phone calls from new people or vacationers in our area who are interested in attending our church, and sometimes the conversation goes somewhat like this: “What Bible version does your pastor teach from? Does he use the Authorized Version?”

Now by that statement, the caller is trying to find out if our church is a King James Only church or not. And the simple answer is, we are not. There is a multiplicity of Bible versions used in our church. Our pastor, associate pastor, and other elders all teach from the New American Standard Bible, but there are many who come who use other versions.

Now that doesn’t mean we have anything against the King James Version (KJV). In fact, I grew up using that version of the Bible, because it was overwhelmingly the most common version available at that time. And many people, particularly our older saints in the congregation, still use it because of their familiarity with it. But the KJV’s solitary status among translations has diminished drastically over time.

Step into any Christian bookstore today and you are immediately confronted with an abundance of English Bible translations. The King James Version is still there, but now we have the New International Version (NIV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV), the New English Translation (NET), the Contemporary English Version (CEV) and many more. In fact, I understand that at the present time, in the English language, there are 25 different versions of the entire Bible and 40 different versions of just the New Testament.

Among those twenty-five different English translations of the Bible that are available, many are revisions of existing translations. Others are new translations that are attempts to make the Bible more readable, by making the language simpler. Here is a listing of the grade reading level of the various Bible versions:

• KJV – 12^th grade
• NASB – 11^th grade
• NKJV – 8^th grade
• NRSV – 8^th grade
• ESV – 8^th grade
• NIV – 7^th grade
• HCSV – 7^th grade
• NLT – 6^th grade
• CEV – 4^th grade

Now, I am all for having versions of the Scriptures that are more understandable to the reader. However, one of the problems with making Bibles easier and simpler to read is that the publishers have missed the point that understanding a Bible is not just a matter of grade reading level. There is also the issue of the Holy Spirit guiding the reader into truth, and the student applying himself to study and read for understanding.

In other words, if an individual is a college graduate, but still can’t understand his NIV, the problem is not the reading level of the Bible; the problem is either that he isn’t really a true believer whom the Holy Spirit is indwelling and leading to an understanding of the truth; or if he is a believer, he isn’t applying his heart and mind with diligence to study and understand it.

The question naturally arises, why does this situation of having so many versions exist? There are a couple of reasons. First, there are different texts that are used in the translations.

First, there are Bibles which are based on what is known as the Majority Text. The translators of those versions followed the principle that whatever the majority of manuscripts say is the correct translation. Thus, those versions are based on many manuscripts, but many of them were copied over 1,000 years after the originals. Most of those manuscripts were simply copies of a copy, rather than being a copy of the original. The Bible versions which follow the Majority Text view include the KJV and the NKJV.

Second, there are Bibles which are based on what is known as the Critical Text. The translators of those Bible versions followed the principle that whatever the older manuscripts say is more reliable because there is less chance for scribal error or revisions because it is closer to the original manuscript. Thus, those versions are based on fewer, but older manuscripts; many written within the first four centuries after Christ. The Bible versions which follow the Critical Text view include the NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSV, NET, NRSV, and CEV.

Another reason for the plethora of translations is that there are different translation philosophies at work. One view holds to what is known as formal or literal equivalence; that is, the translators attempted to translate from the original language into another while retaining as much as possible the exact, original forms of the first language. The Bible versions which use that methodology include the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and the NRSV.

Another translation philosophy is known as dynamic equivalence. This philosophy attempts to translate the text from the original language into another with a goal of translating the intention or meaning of the original without regard to the exact forms of the first language. The Bible versions which use that methodology include the NIV, NLT, CEV, and the NET.

Perhaps it would help to give an example of the difference between functional and dynamic equivalence. There is an idiomatic expression in the Spanish language which says, “Otro gallo nos cantará.” It literally is translated as: “Another (or different) rooster will sing for us.” We have an English language idiomatic expression which is the functional equivalent, which is: “That’s a horse of a different color.” However, the dynamic equivalent would be: “That’s another matter all together.”

So, dynamic equivalence does not literally translate the original language, but it does give you a translation that hopefully conveys the same meaning. However, it does require that the translator interpret for the reader what the original writer meant by what he wrote rather than simply translating it literally and then letting the reader interpret for himself what the writer meant.

There is a very heated battle about whether literal equivalence or dynamic equivalence is more appropriate for Bible translation. However, I believe there is a place for both, and their advantages and disadvantages should be carefully understood.

The English language is changing as all languages do. All languages are in a continuous state of flux. For example, the KJV uses a word which I’m sure every reader in 1611 understood: “concupiscence.” However, that word is no longer commonly used in the English language today, so virtually every modern translation, including the NKJV translates the word as “desire” or “lust.”Because of changing language, all translations will eventually be out of date. The advent of the internet and all its related applications has created a greater state of flux than in the past. So English languag Bible translations need to change as well.

However, there is a tendency among evangelicals is to exalt one translation over another. I completely understand that everyone has their favorite version. I have my own. I use the NASB in teaching, but I often read and consult with the ESV and the NET when I’m studying. In fact, I use an electronic organizer (PDA) to keep track of my schedule and in it, I have those three English text Bibles, as well as the New Testament Greek text.

But some people go too far and insist that one version is the only version anyone should use, and the version they invariably choose is the KJV. In fact, there is a whole movement within evangelicalism—particularly in the South—known as the King James Only movement.

Those folks basically teach that God only honors and accepts the KJV, as if He re-inspired the English Bible in 1611. They have vast conspiracy theories and have written countless articles and books trying to prove their point. Perhaps the best known such book is titled New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger. Ms. Riplinger was a major in Industrial and Environmental Design in college. As such, she did not study Greek or Hebrew or the principles of translation.

There are a couple of points the KJV conspiracy theorists miss. First, William Tyndale gave us the English Bible about 90 years before the KJV was published, so why isn’t it considered the real true and genuine English Bible and not the KJV?

Second, the KJV was never authorized by King James. His name was put on it by the translators because they knew it would bring his favor to them. But he never officially authorized it, so it is not actually the “Authorized” Version.

Third, no sound seminary professor of the original languages holds their view. They understand that for each word in the Hebrew or Greek text, there are often many choices of how to translate that word. For example, instead of translating the word “hate” in that way every time, we might also use synonyms such as “despise” or “abhor” or “dislike.”

Fourth, language is not so precise that it must be translated exactly as it was in 1611. We don’t even speak in that type of language today. Jesus told us to go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them to observe all things. As one writer has said, “If the KJV is the only inspired Bible, Jesus should have said, ‘Go into all the world, make disciples, and teach them to read 17^th century English so they can read the official Bible version.’”

It is incredibly sad that we evangelicals will fight over which one of our English text versions is the “correct” Bible to use, while there is a world going to hell without any portion of the Bible in their own language.

My position is that we should recognize the incredible privilege we have in the English speaking world to have so many Bible versions and we should use those privileges accordingly. While I personally prefer a version that follows the formal or literal equivalence approach, my feeling is that you should use the Bible you have. Read it, study it, learn it.

Use a Bible you can understand. If your reading ability is poor, use a dynamic equivalence translation; if your vocabulary is more comprehensive and your reading ability is better, use a formal equivalence translation.

Dynamic equivalence translations are good for those who know little or nothing about the Gospel or the Bible. Formal equivalence translations are good for those who understand biblical concepts and want to focus more carefully and on the exact details and wording of the text.

Recognize that the multiplicity of translations can increase our confidence in the Scriptures. Use this bounty of wealth to your advantage. There is a sense in which every translation falls short of perfectly communicating the original text underneath it. More importantly, there is a sense in which every translation is the Word of God and accurately communicates its sense. Be aware of what is out there and how the translations differ, but more than that, trust the one you have and listen for God’s Word to speak to you from its pages.

The Word of God and False Teachers

I am teaching through the book of 2 Peter in my Sunday School class. Today I started on 1:19-21 and I was reminded once again of the significance and importance of the Word of God being the solitary basis for all that we believe. In verses 16-18, Peter has just given a great explanation of his personal eyewitness account of Jesus' revelation of His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. In verse 16 he says, "We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

But then Peter comes to verse 19 and he says, "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place..." In the Greek text, that first phrase can be read, "And we have the more sure prophetic word." I believe that is what Peter is saying; that the Word of God is even more sure than his own eyewitness testimony. Even though Peter's eyewitness account was true and accurate, he wanted his readers to cling to the surety of God's Word. It is the revelation of God Himself, given by His Holy Spirit, and so it is perfectly accurate, perfectly reliable, and perfectly sufficient for everything pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

It was important for Peter to write those words, because he knew that false teachers were already attempting to undermine the message of God's Word. And one way they would do that would be to come in with so-called "new revelation" and additional information. In their teaching, they would seek to move people away from a firm confidence in God’s Word. And the frightening thing is that they would be effective at doing such.

At the beginning of chapter two, Peter warns them in verse 1 that there will be false teachers among them just like there were false prophets in the Old Testament. And in verse 2, he says: “Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.” The frightening thing about false teachers is that they are effective, and often they confuse believers and discredit the word of God. Peter says, “You do well to pay attention to the Scriptures”—to the Word that God has given them.

We are to be a people of the light in this darkened world. My concern is not that the world is in darkness; my concern is that the world is trying to dim the light. And one way that Satan dims the light for people is by using the world to convince us that things other than the Bible are just as important to study or are as equally valuable as the Scriptures. And the result is that pastors all over our nation feel compelled to teach those things rather than the unadulterated milk of the Word. And so we have less and less focus on the serious study of the Word of God in our pulpits today.

Consequently, people are not giving attention to the lamp that shines in the midst of darkness. If you talk with those in those churches, you will hear statements such as, “Oh, we are doing good things. We have life-oriented preaching. We have practical sermons. You know, the Bible is a hard book to understand, so we just give people simple things that they can understand.” My response to that is, that approach is just the approach used by the false teacher and believers must be very careful or they can be easily deceived.

If you think I’m too harsh toward them, let me quote for you just a little bit of the transcript from Joel Osteen’s appearance on 60 Minutes this past Sunday night (10/14/07). He was interviewed by NBC Senior Correspondent Byron Pitts. Here is a portion of the transcript as obtained from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/.

Byron Pitts: “You said ‘I like to see myself as a life coach, a motivator to help them experience the life of God that God has for them. People don’t like to be beat down and told ‘You’ve done wrong.’ What do you mean?”

Joel Osteen: “Well, I think that most people already know what they’re doing wrong. And for me to get in here and just beat ‘em down and talk down to ‘em, I just don’t think that inspires anybody to rise higher. But I want to motivate. I wanna motivate every person to leave here to be a better father, a better husband, to break addictions to come up higher in their walk with the Lord.”

Byron Pitts: “I mean is that being a pastor or is that being Dr. Phil or Oprah?”

Joel Osteen: “No, I think we use God’s Word. I think the principles that you hear Dr. Phil and some of those others talk about many times are right out of the Bible.”

Voice Over: His latest book, “Become A Better You,” for which he reportedly got a $13 million advance, goes on sale Oct. 15. They read more like self-help than religion. In his new book, Osteen lays out seven principles he believes will improve our lives.

Byron Pitts: “To become a better you, you must be positive towards yourself, develop better relationships, embrace the place where you are. Not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of Jesus Christ in that.”

Joel Osteen: “That’s just my message. There is Scripture in there that backs it all up. But I feel like, Byron, I’m called to help people…how do we walk out the Christian life? How do we live it? And these are principles that can help you. I mean, there’s a lot better people qualified to say, ‘Here’s a book that going to explain the Scriptures to you.’ I don’t think that’s my gifting.”

Byron Pitts: “Hear what some others have said about you: he’s diluting and dumbing down the Christian message.”

Joel Osteen: “Sometimes you have to keep it simple and not make it so complicated that people don’t understand. But I know what I’m called to do is say ‘I want to help you learn how to forgive today. I want to help you to have the right thoughts today.’ Just simple things.”

I hope you understand that what this man, who draws 42,000 people to his so-called church every week, is saying is that the psycho-babble and drivel that Dr. Phil and Oprah pass out comes from the Bible; that it is unnecessary to mention Jesus Christ when writing to help people deal with their problems (which, by the way, he never calls sin); and that even though he calls himself a pastor, he doesn’t think it is his role or calling to explain the Scriptures to people. Instead of bringing the light of the Word to bear on the problems that people face, he just wants to give them “simple things” to help them overcome the issues they face in life.

Please don't misunderstand me: I believe in teaching the Word of God so that people can understand it. As Chuck Swindoll has said concerning teaching the Bible, "Put the cookies on the lower shelf so that everyone can get some." But that does not mean that we take out the Word, add in the world's wisdom, and think that what remains is what people need to hear. What people actually need to hear is the clear instruction of the Word, taught in such a way that they can apply it to their lives, and then be instructed that they need to obey what it says.

But people need to avoid the false message of men like Joel Osteen. It is a man-centered gospel of self-help that avoids telling people what their true problem is, which is sin, and does nothing but dim the light. But those who pay attention to the Word and commit their lives to knowing and understanding it will find that such men who teach a false gospel will have no impact on them because the light of the Word will illuminate their path so that they can see clearly how to walk the walk of faith.

Halloween: A Satanic Trick...or a Harmless Treat?

Much has been said and expressed among Christians today regarding participation in the activities normally associated with Halloween in the American culture. Many believers are confused by all the arguments which go both ways and wonder what the Bible has to say about such activities as children dressing up in costume and going out “trick or treating”, or even adults disguising themselves as ghoulish creatures and participating in the office Halloween party. Because of this confusion, the purpose of this article is to set forth some of the issues in this discussion, and to express what is hopefully a biblical viewpoint on this controversial issue.

First of all, is all the hoopla really much ado about nothing? Is there really any harm in what goes on at Halloween? To understand the answer to that question, we must first under­stand how Halloween originated, what it means to certain groups, and how it has developed over the past several years.

Originally, the Celts, the barbaric peoples of ancient Britain, celebrated a holiday called Samhain on October 31st, which held tremendous religious significance for them. They believed that on that night the barrier between the physical world and the spirit world was at its weakest and that the spirits of the dead were free to roam the earth. The Celts’ religious caste, the Druids, would hold ceremonies designed to protect the crops and herds from these demonic forces and would offer both animal and human sacrifices to appease the gods or spirits. The Celts’ celebration also had its lighter side which included young people roasting nuts in the Samhain bonfire in an effort to determine who they would marry and bobbing for apples in a tub of water with the belief that success at this activity would bring a year of good luck. At one point in the Samhain celebration, the people would dress up as evil spirits in an effort to confuse the “real” spirits who may have been sent to plague them.

As time progressed, this celebration became such an integral part of the culture that by the time the Roman Catholic Church became the dominant religious force in the European society, it was faced with the problem of how to deal with this obviously pagan holiday. In an effort to combat the influence of Samhain, the Catholic Church designated the day after October 31st as “All Saints Day,” a day to honor all of the departed saints of the Church. The evening before All Saints Day was the evening before the hallowed day; therefore, “Hallowed Evening” or “Hallowed E’en.” Over the years, the words were put together into the one word we have today—Halloween. Even to this day, the Satanist Church recognizes Halloween as one of their most sacred days; a day to worship Satan and offer sacrifices in his honor. The Satanist Bible states that “after one’s own birthday, the two major Satanic holidays are Walpurgisnacht (April 30) and Hallow­een...”

Over the past few decades, Halloween has changed dramatically in the United States. Forty years ago, Halloween was a day when children dressed up as some type of character—most of the time the character represented some harmless persona; i.e., cowboys, hobos, angels, clowns, animals, etc.—and went door-to-door to collect candy from all the neighbors. Occasionally one of the neighborhood children dressed up as a witch or a ghost, but that was the exception rather than the rule.

As time passed, a very subtle change took place. More and more older children and adults began to participate and the costumes became increasingly grotesque and horrifying in appearance, concentrating on such characters as zombies, chain saw murderers, and bloody disembow­eled corpses. The whole perspective became focused on death and occultic, hellish behavior. In effect, what was once a relative­ly minor “holiday” of sorts for children became a major “dark” entertainment experience for their parents. Children still go out “trick or treating,” but because of safety concerns in our society, that aspect of the day has greatly diminished.

What does the Bible teach about the activities which are represented in the Halloween celebration? Moses, writing the law to the Hebrews in Deuteronomy 18:10-12, stated, “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.” Obviously God did not take as tolerant a view about such people among His chosen people as does the American society about such people within it. If God views such types of occultic practices with such disdain and hatred, should Christians participate in a celebration that glorifies such matters, if only in a humorous manner? Is it really harm­less? Perhaps we need to realize that we may be sending a subtle message to our children that there really isn’t all that much wrong with the occult and its satanic forces, as represented by mutilated, bleeding bodies, vicious killers, vampires, witches, and demonic beings.

What about the issue of “trick or treating”? While there may be no harm in children going from house to house requesting candy be tossed into their open sacks, what explanation for the term itself—”trick or treat”—is a Christian parent supposed to give his or her child which will be in accordance with bibli­cal principles? Nowhere in Scripture can one find a passage or verse which says that it is okay to threaten someone with some type of mean or nasty trick if they don’t give in to a demand for a treat. I realize that for most children that phrase is just a harmless group of words which they have been told to say when they go to the door, and they would never perform such actions if faced with someone who did not give them candy, but I am also a realist who has many times seen the damage done by those individ­uals who do. It is certainly difficult for children to rational­ize in their young, developing minds why their parents who always teach them respect for others property and proper Christian behavior have no qualms about explaining what is meant by “trick or treat.”

So, what should Christians who are concerned about such issues do each October 31st when their children’s friends are out collecting all their sugar-filled loot? Should they develop a monastic, ascetic attitude that says, “My kids will never participate in anything on such a pagan day!”? Or is some alternative acceptable? Some would tell us that Christians should totally ignore Halloween as if it didn’t exist and that by participating in some alternative activity, we are really acqui­escing to the world’s actions. While such a position is certain­ly within a believer’s prerogative and may be the most appropri­ate response for certain individuals, the faultiness of that argument is that many of those same believers would never dream of not having a “Christian” wedding for their daughter, not realizing that such wedding ceremony activities as exchanging rings, wearing veils, eating cake, and speaking vows are directly related to ancient pagan Roman wedding ceremonies. Most of these people also celebrate Christmas with its traditional tree and gift giving, not realizing that it also originally started as an alternative activity for Christians to a pagan worship day. The point is that the issue is internal, not external. What the significance of a specific day is to any of us is a matter of the heart, not what some man has determined it to be. Paul told the Colossians, “do not let anyone judge you…with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16).

However, those believers who do choose to celebrate Halloween must recognize that Scripture also gives some guidelines about participating in such activities. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, addressed the issue of eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols, and he said that while they had the “right” to do so, they needed to be careful about exercising their “rights” so as not to become a stumbling block to a weaker Christian. When we consider many of the activities associated with Halloween, we are in exactly the same situation. Bobbing for apples, dressing up as evil creatures, witches, and spirits, and other similar activities have their origins in the practice of sorcery and witchcraft, and although we rightly recognize that these are harmless to us because “an idol is nothing at all in the world and…there is no God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4), we must also recognize that as an example to those in the occult and out of concern for our weaker Christian brothers and sisters, we must be very careful about what Halloween activi­ties we participate in so as to avoid becoming a stumbling block. While “all things are lawful…not all things are profitable…” (1 Corinthians 6:12, NASB), either for others or our­selves.

Is there some other position that can be acceptable for Christians in regard to this issue? I believe there is. If believers wish to provide alternative activities for their children on Halloween so that the young people have something to do other than participate in the glorification of evil behavior, spirits, and people, there is no biblical prohibition against it. Many churches and Christian schools sponsor “Harvest Time” parties or “Fall Festival” activities for the chil­dren, where the kids are provided an opportunity to get together with others to play games, watch Christian videos, dress up as animals on Noah’s ark or Bible characters, and share candy. Such activi­ties can become an opportunity to share the Gospel with unsaved friends, as they can observe a very tangible difference between the Christians and themselves. Christians should not attempt to “whitewash” pagan rituals into some kind of “Chris­tian” activity, but legitimate efforts to provide Christ-centered alternatives can minister to both believers and unbelievers alike.

Believers need to recognize that Christianity is, and has always been, a matter of the heart and not external conformity to a list of rules and regulations. We are to be separate and different from the world in our behavior and love for one another (1 John 3:14, 17-18), and we are not to participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather to expose them (Ephe­sians 5:11). But that does not mean that we cannot provide alternative activities for our children when they are confronted with a society-wide activity in which we find it unacceptable for them to participate.