"Never Forget" - to what end?

Ten years ago today the United States was attacked by Terrorists. The destruction of the two towers of the world trade center are vividly remembered. Today many had as their Facebook status and tweets "Never Forget". Why?

Before I jump into that, this morning's sermon was on the text of 2 Samuel 1. David has just learned that Saul, the king who had been pursuing him to death, and Jonathan, the king's son who was also David's great friend, have died in battle. How did he respond to the death of his rival?

"Your glory, O Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!" - 2 Samuel 1:19 (c.f. 27).

David mourns the fact that Saul, the anointed of the Lord and leader of His people Israel, has died. Why? Personally, Saul's death will be very advantageous to David. Why doesn't he rejoice?

This topic then leads the Christian to the following passages: Romans 12:15 and Matthew 5:4.

15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

David didn't rejoice because he mourned the loss to the people of Israel. His mourning with them put him closer to them. We, too, should mourn with those who mourn... not that we should be lost in a world without hope, but that like Christ we should bring the hope of Christ to a world that is lost.

So, back to "never forget". Is the desire to "never forget" an excuse to never forgive? Does our grief lead us to become mongers of hate against the Muslim extremists? If so, what will happen after years of dehumanizing a faceless enemy? We would likely become the terrorists.

If "never forget" is to remember the sacrifice of first responders who put themselves in harm's way to protect others, this is worthwhile to remember. The selfless acts of such men and women should draw our eyes to the One who put Himself in our place.

I think the part I hope to "never forget" is how the nation was humbled and turned to God in repentance and faith. Are we still humbled? Or have we grown proud once again? God brought Israel down from their pride by conquering them by a pagan king - Nebuchadnezzar. God then humbled Nebuchadnezzar, the height of human power of his day. God can and will humble us. Let us repent and turn to Him. As we remember the loss to this nation of 10 years ago, let us weep with those who still hurt. But let us bring them the hope of Jesus Christ.

Covenants Lesson 2: The Adamic Covenant

This is Lesson 2 of a series...
http://drytheology.blogspot.com/2011/03/covenants.html

Intro

Last lesson we talked about the nature of covenants in general. Recall that “covenant” is a biblical term referring to a relationship between two people. Covenants have promises, stipulations, relationship, representative headship, signs, and seals. Covenants can be between man and man, God and God (i.e. between persons of the Trinity), or between God and man. This lesson will focus on the aspect of covenant between God and man, particularly, the first covenant between God and man.

The First Covenant

When we think about a covenant between God and man, what do we think of? Recall that last lesson we talked about the distance between God and his creatures being so great that there’s nothing necessitating Him to enter into covenant with them. God could have created man and never offered anything higher than enjoyment of what God had made. In free grace God did enter into a covenant with man and he did so with the first man, Adam.

Adam’s First Nature

How was Adam different from us in the way he was created? There are many ways! Two ways in particular are critical to understanding the first covenant between God and Man. The shorter catechism helps identify them:

WSC Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.
Gen. 1:26-28; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24.

• Scripture teaches us that God made Adam (and all things) very good. Adam was sinless. He retained the fullness of God’s image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. Put it this way, if God commanded Adam, “Be righteous”, Adam had ability to do it. If God instructed Adam, “Be holy”, Adam would be able to; he was already both righteous and holy! Contrast that with us, if God told us, “be perfect”... can we? No!

WSC Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression.
Gen. 2:16-17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21-22.

• Adam was a representative head. Consider that if the King of Spain entered into a treaty with the Emperor of China, the King’s actions would have implications for all the subjects of Spain. In the same way, what Adam did in this covenant had implications for everyone who he represented.
  

Covenant Entered

So, we’ve established that Adam is able to do what God might command of him and that whatever he does he does for all of his natural descendants after him. So, does God in fact enter into covenant with Adam? Yes!

Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17
8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

What is the significance of God’s placing Adam in the garden with the two trees? What should we notice about the specific command God had given Adam?

WCF 7.2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
Rom. 5:12-20; Gen. 2:17

WSC Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

What would be Adam’s reward if he kept the covenant? Life abundantly for himself and all mankind (Symbolized in the tree of life).
What would be Adam’s curse if he broke the covenant? Death for himself and all mankind.
The difference between the reward and curse was Adam’s work. That is why this first covenant is referred to as the covenant of works. Recall that Adam was fully capable (due to his pristine, unfallen nature) of keeping the command. Did he do so? What was the result? Read Genesis 3.

Covenant Broken

Adam broke the covenant God had made with him by eating the forbidden fruit. So doing he earned death for himself and all of his descendants. Paul tells us this in Romans 5.
Romans 5:12-14,17-19
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
...17 ... because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man...
18 ... one trespass led to condemnation for all men, ... 19 ...by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, ...

Recall also WSC Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression?

The situation following Genesis 3:6 is incredibly bleak. Because of what Adam had done he would die. Not only that but Eve would die, Seth, Cain, and Abel would die. This continues today: our parents will die or may have died already, each of us will someday die. Why do we all die? It is because we are descended from Adam - who broke the covenant! If Adam is our covenant head and he merited death, we too will die!

The problem is twofold. First, Adam’s sin alone was enough to condemn the whole human race. Furthermore, every natural descendant of Adam’s has inherited the inability to not sin. Man’s whole nature is no longer righteous and holy but corrupt (this is called original sin).

Hosea 6:7
But like Adam [or a man] they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

A Covenant Promised

Is that the end of the story? We’re all doomed to die; no hope in the world? No. NO! That’s not the end.

Genesis 3:15
14 The Lord God said to the serpent, ...
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [seed] and her offspring [seed]; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

In the middle of pronouncing judgment, God speaks of redemption. Note these 2 things:

• “I will put enmity...” God will change the disposition of the heart. He will change their affections from serving Satan to serving God.
• “he shall bruise your head...” The promised seed would strike Satan in the head... he would give Satan a mortal wound. This is the promise of a coming savior: Jesus Christ.

Look back at Romans 5:12-20. Adam’s role as representative head is typological of Christ. Adam merited death for himself and all his natural descendants. Christ, on the other hand, merited forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, adoption as sons, and eternal life for all his spiritual descendants.

The question that we all must ask ourselves: who is my representative head? Am I under Adam or under Christ? Is my representative before God the one who was disobedient or obedient? The difference is to be under the covenant of works (which was broken and cannot be kept by us) or the covenant of grace (which is fulfilled in Christ).

1 Corinthians 15:21-22
21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Cooperating 001

I'm applying for seminary. I'm incredibly excited at the prospect of learning more about God. At the same time I feel incredibly unprepared. I suppose I think of men in seminary as really smart, godly men. In my mind, they are people who can say in less than a minute all the names of the 12 tribes of Israel. They're probably people who have read through the bible 3 times, at least. Often, lately, I've felt that I'm not good enough for seminary.

Q. What makes me think that I could ever go, spend money, time, and effort to study God?

A. Jesus.

I'm reassuring myself, as did the apostle Paul, that...

Philippians 4:
13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

I can't do this on my own. It's even true that I don't deserve to go to seminary. I'm not super-pastor. I'll never be super-pastor. But Jesus is my savior... and I cannot be separated from Him.

Romans 8:
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be [8] against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ... 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Jesus is my strength. He is my salvation. He is my Lord. So, when I ponder the essay question on the entrance application to my seminary of choice:

Q. How can Christians of differing theological viewpoints cooperate?

A. Jesus.

What other answer do I have?

Just AND Justifier

"I'm just saying..." "I was just about to..." "Just to the left of that..."

The word "just" is used commonly. The word "justifier" is not. Both of these words are used in Romans 3:26, and understanding both terms is crucial to understanding Paul's argument.

26 It was to show his [God's] righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let me present two definitions:

Just - Rightly judging something and assigning the appropriate punishment or reward.

Justifier - A person who declares someone to be righteous.

The word "just" is, perhaps, easier to understand by examples of what it is not. Consider a judge in a courtroom. A thief is on trial who stole $10,000 from a poor elderly lady. After hearing the extensive evidence which proves the thief committed the crime, the judge prepares to pronounce the verdict. The defendant, lawyers, witnesses, and clerks wait with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant not guilty, he is innocent; a free man". (!) Imagine the thoughts going through peoples heads if such a thing happened. "Was the judge paid off?" "Did he hear all the evidence?". The prosecuting attourney gains approval to approach the bench and upon arriving asks, "Your honor, this man is guilty, why did you pronounce him not guilty?" The judge responds, "Oh, I know he's guilty. I just wanted to be merciful, so I pronounced him not guilty."

In the above example, the judge is certainly merciful to the thief... but is in no way just. He is an unjust judge. In the example above, this same judge is the justifier in that he does declare someone (the guilty thief) righteous. This is an example of someone who is unjust and justifier. In the next example, I'd like to demonstrate the inverse...

We'll start with a similar scenario... a judge in a courtroom... A thief is on trial. He stole $10,000. After hearing conclusive evidence, the judge prepares to issue his verdict. The courtroom waits with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant guilty of all charges. He must repay the $10,000 and any other penalties the law requires". This time no one is surprised. I doubt anyone reading this would be surprised. This is because the judge's ruling was just. A just judge issues the correct ruling according to the law. Notice also that in this scenario that the judge's ruling was that the defendant was guilty. This judge is just but is not a justifier.

I think these two scenarios prepare us for reading Romans 3:26. Putting it in context shows that Paul has just underscored that no one is righteous. In verses 9-19, Paul declares that all people have sinned. We are all like the thief in the above scenarios... only worse. The thief's crime was theft, and his penalty was relatively small. Our crime is punishable by death. Our crime deserves death. So the question of whether our judge is just and whether our judge is justifier is terribly important.

Romans 3:

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We see in this passage:

• All have sinned.
• God is a just judge.

If these were the whole of the story we would have to conclude that God justly condemns all because all sinned. If these were all the facts, the judge would already be able to give His sentence, and He would not be a justifier. Indeed, this is the way God could have left it... there is nothing which forces God to be merciful... and yet He has been merciful. God is a justifier. He has declared those who have faith in Jesus to be just. The crucial point:

• The righteousness of God has been manifested in Christ Jesus to be received by faith.

God declares faithful men to be righteous (he justifies them) because through faith they are 'clothed in Christ's righteousness'. God is not like the judge in the first scenario... he doesn't simply render a verdict which is false. God retains His justice. He also justifies men - through Christ. He justifies sinful men... even someone as sinful as I am. I know I am guilty of the charges against me. Even so, God has, through Christ, paid the penalty for my sins and accounted me righteous.

I recall a professor in college had a sign posted on his office door which read something like "Justice is eye for an eye. Anything less than justice is mercy." (I'll note that while I never had a class with this professor I knew from others that he was not known for his mercy.) I think the statement definitely made me think. I think it is definitely true that where there is no definition of justice that there is no possibility of mercy. I don't think, though, that mercy always has to come at the expense of justice. As I've discussed above, God is just. He has shown His people mercy in the purest sense of the word. This is a marvelous thing. For this, I praise Him.

on the label "Calvinist"

A Calvinist is someone who agrees with John Calvin. Often, when someone speaks of being a Calvinist, they are speaking of someone who agrees with the "5 points of Calvinism". These points aren't actually written by John Calvin himself but are a summary of his views on salvation and the sovereignty of God. In this article, I'll introduce these points. I rely heavily on the book "The 5 points of Calvinism documented, defined, defended".

I'll start with a point which is foundational to all of the five: God saves sinners.

Psalm 118:

14 The Lord is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.

Matthew 1:

21 ... and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

From this premise all the five points of Calvinism find their meaning. These five points are easily remembered using the acrostic: TULIP.

Five Points - like amazon.com ratings... only not.

Total Depravity - All humankind are fallen because Adam sinned and they are descendants of Adam. Mankind will not choose God of his own power. This point proves that sinners cannot save themselves.

Unconditional Election - Because it is God who saves sinners, the decision of who He will save is entirely His. He doesn't save anyone based on anything in the person (neither inherent in them nor forseen response to His grace).

Limited (or Definite) Atonement - God chose who He would save. He sent Jesus to die for those people. This is a note about the intended scope/efficaciousness of Jesus' death, not it's value. If God had chosen to save everyone in the world, Jesus' death would have been entirely sufficient.

Irresistible (or Efficacious) Grace - Because God is the one who saves sinners, he acts in a way that the sinner cannot resist. He changes the depraved will to a regenerated will. Because God is sovereign, when he wants to change a person's will, their will is changed.

Perseverance of the Saints - Those whom God has chosen to save He will save. God's plan cannot be thwarted by the schemes of the devil nor the old flesh of a sinner whom He has chosen.

What the 5 points do not mean:

Some men have read the 5 points and concluded "If God saves men, He can do it without my help. I don't need to evangelize... in fact I don't need to do anything. If God is going to save me, he'll save me." This line of thinking expresses the thoughts of those that are known as hyper-Calvinists. This is somewhat of a mis-nomer, however, as this line of thinking is not only non-Calvinist, it is non-Christian. Recall that a Christian has Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If a person believes that their responsibility to evangelize (or even have Jesus as Lord of their life) is nullified, that person is not a Christian.

Some people take Calvinism to mean that they are robots and that people aren't able to do what they want to. I've heard that the expression "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" was first said by someone who disagreed with Calvinists for this reason. A common scenario is theorized where someone might really want to please God, but because they are not part of God's elect they will be eternally condemned. I can understand that this would be a very bleak picture of God. God, though, has not left us without light on this particular theorized scenario.

Romans 3:

10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Fitting with the idea of Total Depravity, God tells us that no one seeks after Him. Apart from God regenerating a person's will to enable them to, "no one seeks after God." So, this hypothetical objection to Calvinism is proven to be invalid. I'll note that this may not match what we see. There are often many people who appear to want to please God, but for one reason or another, seem to fall away. I believe these people have these appearances but not true faith. Remember that men can see fruit and judge by appearances, but God judges the heart.

Unity in Mission in the Godhead

I am a Calvinist and I believe in the Trinity. I believe the 5 points demonstrate a unity among the 3 persons of God. Unconditional Election means that God the Father chose a people to love whom He would redeem unto Himself. Limited (or Definite) Atonement means that God the Son loved, lived for, and died for those same people. Efficacious Grace means that God the Holy Spirit draws these same ones to repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus Christ. There is profound unity in the Trinity. God is indeed the God who saves.

Imagine the alternative: If God chose men based on what he foresaw, or worse, did not choose men at all, he basically set out a way for men to come to Him and waited for them to do so. He would only love men when they first love Him. This seems quite the inverse of 1 John 4:19.

1 John 4:
19 We love because he first loved us.

Furthermore, if Jesus' death is for everyone, then what truly decides if they are saved is not what He has done, but whether they accept it or not. Instead of "Jesus saving His people from their sins" it would best be described as "Jesus enabling people who chose Him to save themselves from their sins".

Perhaps worst of all, if the Holy Spirit's job is to draw men to God, and He equally distributes grace to all men toward repentance and faith, then He is a failure. If God is trying to save all men, then either all men will be saved or God is failing. Now, God does tell us His revealed will that we are to evangelize to all men:

1 Timothy 2:
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God's revealed will is that all men should be saved. This is the goal that we as men should shoot for because we don't know whom He has chosen. His secret will is to save those whom He has chosen.

Applying the Label

I am a five-point Calvinist. As a summary of reasons why and how predestination makes sense, and how to understand that God saves sinners, I think the five points are incredibly helpful. At the very core, Calvinism lets God be God. It elevates God in His supremacy. It also puts man in his place. It reminds me that I am ever a debtor to God and His grace shown to me. If I was once a child of wrath but now am a son of God, then I cannot point to myself and say, "look what a great person I am." God is the one who has made me who I am, and if he saved a wretch like me, then I can and will proclaim the gospel boldly to all men regardless of how clean or wretched they look on the outside. It will be for them what it has been for me: the grace of God alone that saves men from their sins.

on the label "Creationist"

The label, "creationist", is usually used to denote opposition to another label, "evolutionist". The first believes that God created the world and sustains it. The latter believes that the world came to exist through millions of years of random chance occurances. There are also numerous hybrid views (i.e. that God started the world millions of years ago and has guided random chance). What I will describe in this post is a very conservative view of a "creationist" (as I happen to be).

The book of Genesis gives the bible's account for how the world came to be in its first few chapters. It says clearly that God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:
1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

If God created it, then the question comes, did it take millions of years? The bible talks about it taking God 6 days to create the world and all that is in it, and that he rested on the 7th.

[G 1:5b]...And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[G 1:8b]...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
[G 1:13]And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
[G 1:19]And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
[G 1:23]And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
[G 1:31b]...And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
[G 2:2]And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.

Some take these days to be figurative... that they refer to longer periods of time than 1 day (like thousands or millions of years each). They might even cite the bible for this claim, using 2 Peter:

2 Peter 3:
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

My objection to such a claim is a logical argument as follows. I'll demonstrate by having a conversation between a young earth model creationist (YEM, who believes that God created the world about about 6000 years ago) and an old earth model creationist (OEM, who agrees that God created the world, yet believes the world is millions of years old).

YEM: Hey, how's it goin'?
OEM: Great!
YEM: So, what are the wages of sin?
OEM: That's an odd question to jump right into...
YEM: Well, I'm trying to prove a point for a blog post.
OEM: So this is a made up conversation? Why don't you just get to the point?
YEM: OK, answer my question, what are the wages of sin?
OEM: The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord - Romans 6:23.
YEM: So, death is a result of sin, correct?
OEM: Yes. That would make sense with the command of God to Adam in Eden. He commanded Adam to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because "in the day that you [Adam] eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17.
YEM: So, what was the first sin committed?
OEM: The very thing God commanded Adam not to do: he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He disobeyed God.
YEM: So, if the first sin committed was committed by Adam, and death is a result of sin, how could there be millions of years of organisms living, dying, and reproducing, if Adam had not yet sinned?
OEM: hmmm...

My objection to millions of years of evolution (even if guided by God) is that it assumes millions of years of organisms evolving into higher life forms. A basic premise of evolution is survival of the fittest... the weak/old organisms die off. If death was in the world before Adam sinned, then we have to really consider the justice of God. How could he kill millions of organisms if nothing had yet been done wrong in the world? After all, God looked at all that he had created and said that it was very good (Genesis 1:31).

I know that this biblical view of creation doesn't quite fit with all the claims of scientists. They point to the fossil record. I see the fossil record and point to a universal flood in which God saved Noah and his family and 2 of every species which would repopulate the earth. I'd much rather believe what God has written (even if it sounds crazy) than to follow the whim of smart guys in lab coats. In the end, I cling to:

1 Corinthians 1:
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Applying the Label
I am a Creationist. I believe that God created the world as he tells us. I believe that God didn't have to use death to create life.

If I just dogmatically believed this, it would be a dry theology.

It means something because it tells me that God created Earth without death. I can look forward to heaven without death because death is not the natural way of things, it is a consequence of sin. I believe that God has done things the way He says He has done them because it gives me assurance that He will do things which are to come in the way that He tells us.

on the label "Evangelical"

Evangelical refers to the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, which means "good message" or "gospel". Basically, Evangelicals are Christians who believe and proclaim the gospel. Jesus Himself proclaimed the gospel during His life:

Mark 1:14-15
14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

So, what is the gospel? As Jesus directed above, it is clear that the gospel is something to be believed. As context for why people should believe the gospel (and repent, or "turn away from their sin") is that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. These words would sound like, "You're out of time, Judgement awaits!". Belief in the gospel is associated to salvation from such a judgement as Paul notes in Romans:

Justified by Faith
Romans 1:16-17
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

Here Paul identifies the key of the salvation is faith. Faith is basically knowledge of a thing, assent that it is true, and trust/assurance that it is true for one's self. So, what is the thing which we must have knowledge of? What is the object of faith? What is it that Christians have faith in?

Faith in God
John 17:
17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Jesus, as he prays to God the Father, reveals that eternal life is through knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. Do you "know" Jesus Christ? The question implies relationship. I have already asserted that Christians know Jesus to be their Savior and Lord. Through knowing Jesus, they come to know God as their father, too. (See Matthew 11:27). But how can this happen? How can a sinful person come to be a child of God, who is just?

The Great Exchange
2 Corinthians 5:
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

In this sentence the key of the gospel is expressed. Jesus was not a sinner (he knew no sin). God the father made him to be sin (imputed the sins of believers on him) so that we might become the righteousness of God (Christ's own righteousness imputed to those who believe). Through faith, all our sins are paid for by Jesus's death. Through faith, God sees us as if we were as righteous as Christ himself. Thus God is perfectly just to accept us, because in His sight, we are His son, thus he accepts us as adopted sons. When we are judged after death, we will be judged righteous and given eternal life through faith.

Evangelicals are very sensitive about the gospel and for good reason. Not only is it the only way to God (Jesus said, no one comes to the Father except through me John 14:6), but great punishment awaits those who would preach a false gospel:

Galatians 1:9
9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Applying the Label
I am an evangelical. I love the gospel. I can have hope because of what Christ has done. This is the good news. There is hope. It reminds me of the bumper sticker. It has the phrase: "Know Jesus, Know Peace. No Jesus, No Peace." I think it would also apply to the idea of hope: "Know Jesus, Know Hope. No Jesus, No Hope." Jesus said firmly, "No one comes to the father except through me". It is not a mere dry theology to talk about the gospel. It is the only way to peace with God.

Why Dry?

Recently I gave a presentation to a broad audience at work. On the invitation, several questions I had answered were displayed, to familiarize those invited with me as a person. One of the questions was "What is your favorite book genre?". My response was "dry and boring theology". I like, and even love, theology. Not everyone shares my sentiment. I did a google search of "dry theology" and found from the context shown for the results that most people hold "dry theology" in contempt. In general there were two assessments of "dry theology".

The first was that "dry theology" which was only in one's head and did not lead to action in one's hands is a useless theology. I agree wholeheartedly with rejection of such "dry theology". James writes in his epistle of 'faith which does not result in works' (James 2:14-26). He assesses that such a faith is a dead faith. In the same way, "dry theology" which is a mere assent to some theological deductions or dogmas and does not lead to a changed life and a reaffirmed love for God is not useful. It profits none. It is worthless. I do not intend for readers of this blog to read and have all that they've read remain only in their head. If what I say is true to what God has revealed, it should result in fruit in my life.

The second assessment of "dry theology" is that it is useless all together. Indeed, many people hold a distain for all theology because they find it all useless. I was reminded of "dry bones" from Ezekiel 37 (Ezekiel 37:1-14). In the valley, there were dead bones. These bones were dead, cold, and dry. Bones in this state are useless. Nevertheless, anyone who considers the state of these bones has underneath their skin and flesh bones of their own. Bones give structure. Bones give support. Bones are rigid. They do require flesh to keep them moist. They do require muscle to make them move. No person has distain for the bones within themselves. In the same way, I feel that we must not have distain for theology. It gives structure, support, and rigidity to the flesh of our lives.

In a blog, I do not expect that I can bring "dry theology" to be anything other than words on a screen. I do not have the power to bring dry bones to life. But God does. Faith comes from hearing (Romans 10:14-17). God has the ability to make my fallible words useful for those whom He has chosen for himself. I intend to write of what I know of the God I serve. I pray that God will use it to serve Himself well.