Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Year's End

O Love beyond compare,
Thou art good when thou givest,
     when thou takest away,
     when the sun shines upon me,
     when night gathers over me.
Thou hast loved me before the foundation of the world,
     and in love didst redeem my soul;
Thou dost love me still,
     in spite of my hard heart, ingratitude, distrust.
Thy goodness has been with me during another year,
     leading me through a twisting wilderness,
     in retreat helping me to advance,
     when beaten back making sure headway.
Thy goodness will be with me in the year ahead;
I hoist sail and draw up anchor,
With thee as the blessed Pilot of my future
     as of my past.
I bless thee that thou hast veiled my eyes
     to the waters ahead.
If thou hast appointed storms of tribulation,
     thou wilt be with me in them;
If I have to pass through tempests of persecution and temptation,
     I shall not drown...
If a painful end is to be my lot,
     grant me grace that my faith fail not;
If I am to be cast aside from the service I love,
     I can make no stipulation;
Only glorify thyself in me whether in comfort or trial,
     as a chosen vessel meet always for thy use.


Thank you, Father, for the best year of my life.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Plan A: Glory and Grace (audio)

The audio for the advent message I taught two weeks ago is now up.  (I already posted the manuscript.)  Warning: it's really long!

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The best "Our First Christmas" ornament ever!


We picked up this ornament while on our honeymoon in Cannon Beach, OR.  It's awesome!  Notice the attention to detail, with cannon pointed at the enemy vessel, and even the explosions over the sails!

I think we bought it at Pig 'n' Pancake.

Mark Driscoll on Saint Nicholas

Here's a good article on the righteous (and unrighteous) origins of the Santa Claus myth: Saint Nicholas.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

My Day: LiveJournal Style

4 AM, Christina offered me cheese in bed.  I was like, "Are you crazy"?

The battery died in our 1999 Jetta.  It used to die when we hadn't used it over the weekend, but this week it died just overnight.  When I woke up this morning I realized that with the baby coming soon, having Christina drop me off at work and take the car home wouldn't be a good idea.  I need to be able to get home A.S.A.P. if she goes into labor!

Later on, I worked on baby laundry and my song list.  Our neice Moriah spent the night and has been helping Christina around the house.  I made raspberry mochas.  We ate breakfast and I said something stupid and got in trouble.

Worked on the song list for Sunday, picked four hymns and then remembered we're only doing two because it's a New Member's Sunday.  I charged the car battery all morning with the battery charger I borrowed from a coworker.  In the afternoon, I took it to Les Shwab, and they confirmed, it was a bad battery!  Got a new one put it for about the same it would have cost to buy it at Kragen.  And it's a heavy-duty one too.  I'm amazed at what a difference it makes!  The fuel injection and power steering actually work!  The car actually responds when I step on the gas!

Then we went Christmas shopping.  After we got home, the TV blew up.  Again!  I thought about taking advantage of Best Buy's deal-of-the-day and opening up a new credit account.  After all, they're turning off the analog signal this weekend in the North State, so Christina's old TV won't work anymore as a backup.  So I thought we could try a TV repair shop, but they're only open 10-5 on weekdays, and there's a $50 fee just to look at it.  I found something in the troubleshooting section of the owner's manual for our TV that said if the TV doesn't work, it could be because of static electricity or lightning.  It says, unplug the TV for 1 to 2 minutes and then it should work again.  Of course, the outlets in the living room aren't well-grounded, so unplugging it and then plugging it back in doesn't help at all, since the static electricity doesn't get discharged.

Providentially, I had an extension cord in the car that I was borrowing from Kevyn at work (to go with the battery charger), and I plugged into the outlets in the bathroom, which allowed the electricity to discharge.  The first sign I had that something was going right was that Christina didn't hear the high-pitched buzzing that usually occurs when you turn on the TV when it's broken (I can't hear it because the frequency is out of my hearing range... too many years in rock-n-roll).  After turning it back off and then on again, the display turned on!  So I think next time this happens, I'll be able to deal with it, as long as I get a well-grounded extension cord. 

Friday, December 19, 2008

Church Discipline called "extortion" by Fox News

There is a lot of commentary on deliberate-church/reformed blogs regarding the Fox News report about the woman who tried to resign her membership rather than suffer church discipline for her sins of fornication.  The media is aghast!

Of course, the church is supposed to be discreet about a member's sins, not making them public to the public, but only making them public to the church if necessary (the third step in the four steps of church discipline found in Matthew 18).  However, it was not the church that made it public, it was the sinful woman!  The most public thing the church did was to send a very heartfelt letter to the woman expressing their intention to "tell it to the church" four weeks later if she refuses to repent. Instead of repenting, the woman took it to the press.

My first thought was, wait, isn't this supposed to be religion-friendly Fox News?  (Note that Roman Catholic Fox News commentators Sean Hannity and Bill O'Rielly both believe people are "basically good".)  I guess the church really needs its media allies to turn on it, though.  I mean, how are we supposed to be counter-culture if we're not seen as counter-culture?

Greg Gilbert says,
You need to make sure that your constitution or covenant---something your members have to understand and affirm---makes explicit the church's right to refuse a member's resignation in order to proceed with church discipline...That may not help much in the court of public opinion---like I said, we're going to get skewered in the media for church discipline no matter what---but it may very well help in a court of law.  The case law surrounding church discipline is still very much unsettled.  Traditionally, courts have been reluctant to step into such matters, but my guess is that as the courts become more activist and the culture more hostile to the church, that reluctance will wane.
Nine Marks commentary can be found here, here, and here.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Andi, Moriah has a message for you!

>

Friday, December 12, 2008

The Order of God's Eternal Elective Decrees, Part 2

As promised, here is another post on the Order of Decrees.

There are several different opinions regarding the meaning of the terms Sublapsarian and Infralapsarian. Some people use one to refer to the traditional reformed Infralapsarian view, and the other to refer to Amyraldism (which I will explain in a later post). But there is usually no distinction between the Infralapsarian and Sublapsarian views; they are considered synonyms.

The Latin infra- means below and the Latin sub- means under (as in directly). Technically, if you wanted, you could differentiate between the two by placing election directly after the fall in one order, but anywhere after the fall in the other (such is inserting the provision of salvation in between). This is the way Lewis Sperry Chafer uses the terms.

The founder of Dispensationalism, Lewis Sperry Chafer (who was a Presbyterian, although the renowned theologian B.B. Warfield has criticized him as having been influenced by the perfectionist Keswick doctrince, a.k.a “Higher Life”), makes a distinction between the two in his Systematic Theology.

He reports the Supralapsarian view as the following order:
  1. Decree to elect some to be saved and to reprobate all others.
  2. Decree to create men both elect and nonelect.
  3. Decree to permit the fall.
  4. Decree to provide salvation for the elect.
  5. Decree to apply salvation to the elect. (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 179)
According to Chafer, Infralapsarian differs from Supralapsarian because the decrees of election and retribution follow the fall:
  1. Decree to create all men.
  2. Decree to permit the fall.
  3. Decree to provide salvation for men.
  4. Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation all who do not believe.
  5. Decree to apply salvation to those who believe.
It should be noted that the Chafer does not make the distinction he should as to on what it means to “provide salvation for men”, since it should say “provide salvation for the elect,” in order to make a fair comparison. I think he is unaware of the controversy between Universal Atonement and Particular Redemption. If he truly means “provide salvation for all men”, then Chafer’s Infralapsarian is actually Amyraldian.

Chafer’s Sublapsarian order more closely resembles the traditional Reformed Infralapsarian view, except he is again uses the ambiguous phrase, “provide salvation for men”:
  1. Decree to create all men.
  2. Decree to permit the fall.
  3. Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation those who do not believe.
  4. Decree to provide salvation for men.
  5. Decree to apply salvation to those who believe. (Chafer, 181)
While the distinctions between the Reformed Infralapsarian order and the Supralapsarian order concern the state of man while God is pondering election, so the difference between Sublapsarian and Infralapsarian views in Chafer’s imagination seem to emphasize Christ as the means of salvation. The Sublapsarian view puts election as superlative to Christ’s atonement. But Chafer’s Infralapsarian view stresses that it is “in Christ” that we are elect (if he means that salvation is provided for the elect). In the same way that we cannot think of God contemplating the reprobation of men without contemplating them as fallen, we also cannot think of God contemplating the elect without contemplating them as having a means of atonement. But really they go together. You cannot have one without the other, and this is what the Five Points of Calvinism teach us: Christ died for the elect, in order to redeem them, and they cannot be redeemed apart from Christ’s particular atonement. God has provided for himself the Lamb (Genesis 22:8). Since Five-Point Calvinists consider election and the atonement as going hand-in-hand, the distinction between Infralapsarian and Sublapsarian is usually not made. The order is a logical order, in the mind of God, and not a chronological order, and the arguments are theoretical.

Some others seem to identify Sublapsarianism with Amyraldism, and others take offense and say this is incorrect. In Chafer’s scheme, Infralapsarianism is very close to Amyraldism, but anyone who is going to take a stand against Amyraldism is going to use classify himself as an Infralapsarian. To avoid confusion, we should probably deny Chafer’s categories and consider Infralapsarianism and Amyraldism in their separate respects (as we will do in a later post).

We are elect in Christ. We believe that Christ died for the elect. We do not believe that we were chosen without regard to the atonement of Christ. But we also believe in the Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption—that it was Christ dying for us, the elect. If the decree of Christ as the means of providing salvation is placed prior to the decree of election, it does not harm us, because his eternal purposes in redemption were aimed at his elect: he had us clearly in his sights.

We had an interesting discussion several months ago as part of our home fellowship series on our church’s Affirmation of Faith, when we were discussing the different views on the Lord’s Supper. Calvin believed Jesus was really present, though not in the elements either trans-substantially or con-substatiatially. So it is right and proper to think of Christ’s presence when you take communion. In the same way, as an act of worship, it is proper for us to visualize Christ on the cross as literally thinking of each and every one of his sheep, as the ones he died for, and each and every one of our sins, as the sins he was covering.

The disciples did not get it because of Total Inability

This was posted today on Challies.com:
We look back at the disciples, and we wonder, "What in the world was wrong with them? How could they not get it?" The reality is quite the opposite. We should ask instead, "How could they get it?" It is impossible. It is beyond comprehension. The Old Covenant sacrifices, as powerful a pointer as they were, had a limited purpose. Their purpose was simply to show us how even the most rational and beautiful picture of grace--a blood sacrifice for sin--falls flat in front of what Jesus actually did.

Jesus trained men who, because of their background, should have been ready for the great blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. They weren't. They were still utterly incapable of "getting it" just from the facts. This is understandable. The ultimate fact is that it is absolutely impossible to come to an understanding of God's grace just from an assessment of the facts.  (from Richard Ganz, Take Charge of Your Life)
Next time you find your self saying, "Peter, how could you be such a bonehead?"-- remember, "There but for the grace of God go I."

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Mark Driscoll on the History and Doctrines of the Emergent Church Movement

I've been meaning to post on this for a while. Mark Driscoll spoke about the Emergent church at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2007. It's a very good message that describes the history of the Emergent church, his involvement with the Emergent movement and subsequent separation, and the movement's dangerous doctrines. The message brings a lot more insight into the issue than any other sources I've seen. The tone is very serious, and I actually think it's on the level of the D.A. Carson series that's available on Mongergism. It is a departure from his usual joviality, and it marks a new shift in Driscoll's stance, in my opinion.

One of the things I thought was especially helpful was the way he broke down different classifications, since some of the leaders in that camp are heretics and others actually fit within the realm mainstream Evangelicals, doctrinally speaking. I highly recommend that you download this message and equip yourself to speak out with words of warning and exhortation for any young people you might know who have shown openness or enthusiasm for the pastors and authors who are part of that movement.

(BTW, I have blogged a few times about the Emergent movement before, including here, here, and here.)

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Church Discipline Run Amok

An article in the Washington Post describes a wolf in sheeps clothing if ever there was one.  The church is so full of legalism--it makes me wonder how someone could read the Bible and have never heard of Jesus.  This is what happens when a church allows its pastor to claim "apostolic" authority.  This is also why it is so important to interpret Ephesians 4:11 properly, especially in light of Ephesians 2:20.
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.  Eph 2:19-21 (ESV)
The household of God has been (already) built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.  I believe the phrase "apostles and prophets" (or "prophets and apostles") was a first-century name for the whole of Scripture.  Just as the "Law and the Prophets" referred to the Old Testament, so "Prophets and Apostles" refer to the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures, with "Prophets" summarizing the Books of Moses (law) all the way through the prophetic writings of Malachi.  Basically, when Paul was writing, the churches had copies of the Gospels already in their possession.

Even if you do not subscribe to the view of "apostles and prophets" meaning Scripture, it still speaks of the foundation of the church, that was laid in the Book of Acts.  The Apostles were known.  Their names appeared on a list.  They laid the foundation, with Christ as the cornerstone, and now the Spirit is building us into a dwelling place for God.  Any pastor who claims apostolic authority is looking to control your life and build a cult like the sad, hellbound man in this story.

Monday, December 8, 2008

Every good gift is from the Father

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17, ESV).

We accept the good. But do we except the "evil"? (By "evil", I mean it looks like a disaster to us. I do not mean moral evil or sin. God does not sin.)

Job 2:9-10 (ESV) says,
Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” But he said to her, “... Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Everything that happens to us, happens because God wills it.  This is the best of all possible worlds. God created this universe because it will bring him more glory than any other possible universe he could have created.

I have quoted Edwards on this before:
What we mean, we completely express thus—That God decrees all things harmoniously, and in excellent order, one thing harmonizes with another, and there is such a relation between all the decrees, as makes the most excellent order.
Come what may.  This is still the best reality possible.

Al Mohler's got Newsweek's number

Al Mohler has an indepth condemnation of the abominable cover article in Newsweek.  After California's democratic victory passing Proposition 8 in November, the news media is out in full swing trying to change our Puritan-founded country's morals.  The author of the Newsweek article says, 
Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script? ... Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.
This is what happens to our culture when its churches water down Scripture with the "whatever it means to you" manner of textual interpretation.  It is strengthened when nominal "believers" go to work each day and behave like the world, while others look on from the next cubicle. Likely this author is convinced from the lifestyles of the so-called "Christians" she is acquainted with, that it is ludacris for anyone to consider the Bible a how-to script for their marriage.  Would that the Christians in her life had lived in a manner worthy of their calling.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Plan A: Glory and Grace

(The Sovereign Plan of God in the Incarnation)

This is the manuscript of the message I taught tonight at home fellowship as part of our annual Advent series. It's also the first time I've taught grown-ups since my Bible college Homiletics class. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Sermon Texts: 2 Tim. 1:8-10:
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel…
John 6:39: “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”
Ephesians 1:11-12: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.”

Introduction

If what I share reminds you at all of a father penguin regurgitating seafood to feed his baby chick, then that is a good sign. Our theology should never be innovative. The canon of Scripture is closed and until Jesus comes back; there will be no further revelation. Innovations in the church through major events such as the Reformation come about as a stripping away of the man-made heresies and dogmas in an effort to hold fast to the same gospel that was preached by the great theologians who went before us (standing on the shoulders of giants!). And so, I owe a great deal of this message to the work others have already put into studying these matters, though I’ll admit I was unable to address all the topics and quote all the sources I would have liked to.

Last week, Bryan Gumpy discussed the Person of the Sovereign Savior (3 offices of Prophet, Priest, and King). Tonight I will be discussing the Sovereign Plan, the salvation that was provided for us from all eternity. Next week, Patrick will discuss the Sovereign Purpose (why it had to be Christ and no other?). Finally, Paul will discuss the Sovereign Timing and Providences of Jesus’ birth.

Tonight we’re going to be looking at a few aspects of the Divine Decrees, that we believe were made before the foundations of the world. The doctrines of Grace that we hold so dear, and that we use to try to bring a theological framework to salvation, they are all working together to fulfill his Sovereign Plan for Creation, the center of which is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

In The End for Which God Created the World, Jonathan Edwards wrote,
[W]e may suppose that a disposition in God, as an original property of his nature, to an emanation of his own infinite fullness, was what excited him to create the world; and so that the emanation itself was aimed at by him as a last end of the creation.
As John H. Gerstner says,
This very desire is what necessitated the redemption of sinners following man’s creation and fall into sin, and to that end the covenant of redemption was made. The fall made man desperately needy of it, and the mercy involved revealed God in His greatest glory to man. (John H. Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, posted by Tim Challies on Ligonier Blog)
What do you think of when you think of the Fall of Adam and Eve? What do you think about it now, and what did you think about it earlier, in previous stages of biblical understanding that you might have had?

When we think of the Fall, we know the created order lost its place in the kingdom of God, because it was no longer in a state of perfection, it became corrupt. But would you say that it lost its “intended” place? Would you say that things were no longer the way God would have liked them to be?

Some of us were saved into a reformed understanding of the Bible. Others of us were “saved” as Arminians (Charles Spurgeon says every Christian really starts out as an Arminian). I used to be, although I never would have called it that. The “denomination” that I was in used to pride itself on being in “middle of the road”, not veering off into the ditch to the right or the left. Maybe some of you have had a similar experience. Have you ever thought of what happened in the Garden of Eden and gotten mad at Adam? (Women, when you feel discomfort during pregnancy, do you blame Eve?) Do you think of Jesus as the cosmic, “Plan B”? I did.

But no, this is Plan A.

He gave us grace in Christ Jesus before the ages began

Paul says in 2 Tim. 1 that God gave us grace in Christ before the ages began. This means in God’s eternal decree included the Fall, otherwise there would be no need for grace, or for Christ.
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel... (2 Tim. 1:8-10)
Some observations:
  1. Unconditional Election, not because of our works but because of his own purpose.
  2. This salvation is by Grace Alone, not because of our works.
  3. This Grace was given to us as a gift. It is not something we can earn.
  4. And therefore the recipient was known by the Giver.
  5. Christ is the means of this grace. There is no salvation apart from him.
  6. It was given to us before the ages began. This means before Creation, before the Fall, before God told Abraham that through him all the families of the earth would be blessed.
  7. It is manifested in the appearing of Jesus.
This gives a dual purpose to the incarnation as regards this passage. The incarnation enables the atonement (on the cross), which covers the sins of the elect, providing our salvation. It is in Christ that God gave us grace. But his incarnation is also an “appearing of our Savior.” Our sight of the gospel is the temporal means of our foreordained salvation. And not only that, but in the end, Philippians says every knee will bow, and the appearing of Christ justifies the judgment which will be due to unbelievers, because no one will be able to provide an argument on his own behalf.

The Implications of the Creator’s Foreknowledge

A couple weeks ago, Pastor Pat shared about how he teaches his daughters that before they were born, they existed “in the mind of God”, though they did not really exist at all. But God was thinking about them. In the same way, God was thinking about you and me before he ever said, “Let there be light.” And if he was thinking about you and me in the state that we are now, as fallen creatures, all sitting here together tonight as a church to do churchly things, and then he said, “Let there be light”, it is clear to us that he knew what was going to happen and in fact intended for things to work out this way.

We know that Scripture teaches us that God governs the world sovereignly. He is not just a watchmaker who built everything in its order and wound it up so it would continue in perpetual motion. But even the illustration of foreknowledge tells us that this is the way he meant it to be, otherwise, instead of “let there be light”, he could have said, “let there be music”, or something else. If God is omniscient (and he is) and he did not want things to turn out this way, he wouldn’t have started it all in the first place.

Jonathan Edwards, in his marvelous work entitled, A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will, which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame, says that Divine Foreknowledge of the existence of a thing carries with it the same weight as after-knowledge, for to the eternal, sovereign Creator, he knows something beforehand with as much detail as if it were a memory of the past. If we have a true memory of a historical event, and we’re not lying or hallucinating, then we can know that the thing we saw actually happened. It is “necessary” that it happened.
  1. I observed before, in explaining the nature of Necessity, that in things which are past, their past existence is now necessary: having already made sure of existence, it is too late for any possibility of alteration in that respect; it is now impossible that it should be otherwise than true, that the thing has existed.
  2. If there be any such thing as a divine Foreknowledge of the volitions of free agents, that Foreknowledge, by the supposition, is a thing which already has, and long ago had existence; and so, now its existence is necessary; it is now utterly impossible to be otherwise, than that this Foreknowledge should be or should have been. (35)
It is … evident, that if there be a full, certain, and infallible Foreknowledge of the future existence of the volitions of moral agents, then there is a certain, infallible, and indissoluble connexion between those events and that Foreknowledge; and that therefore, by the preceding observations, those events are necessary events; being infallibly and indissolubly connected with that, whose existence already is, and so is now necessary, and cannot but have been. (36)

So that it is perfectly demonstrable, that if there be any infallible knowledge of future volitions, the event is necessary; or, in other words, that it is impossible but the event should come to pass. (36)
Edwards, (Miscellaneous) Remarks on Important Theological Controversies. Chapter 3, “Concerning the Divine Decrees in General, and Election in Particular”, p. 525, § 1:
Whether God has decreed all things that ever came to pass or not, all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. [Note that Edwards had no conception for the existence of an Open Theist.] Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them.
To sum up these two points, the fact that God has foreknowledge carries with it the same evidence to the existence of a thing as after-knowledge would. Secondly, the fact that God is the sovereign creator, and the fact that he knew all things before they happened—and still, he said the words: “Let there be light”—means that everything is happening according to his sovereign plan.

If it was God’s will to show Grace to us before the ages began, as we have already seen, why? Why did he plan it this way? What is the “End” (or ultimate reason behind) of Creation?

Election showcases the Glory of the Lord

As we have seen that everything God does, he does for his glory, and that everything is the way it is because God wills it that way, we also see that his sovereign work of Election has the same end: to bring him the most glory.

Ephesians 1:12, we are predestined that we “might be to the praise of his glory.” And again, with a refrain in verse 14, the Holy Spirit is our seal, “to the praise of his glory.”

Election is based on God’s freedom to love whom he will. Deuteronomy 10:14-15 says, "Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day."

He owns the whole earth, and all the peoples of the earth; he could have chosen everybody. There was nothing special about the Jews. Dt. 7:6-8a
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers…
John Piper, The Pleasures of God, p. 132:
…[T]he way God decided to make a name for his glorious grace in the Old Testament was to choose a people for himself from all the peoples of the earth and to make that people the showcase of his redeeming work. And so you read in Isaiah that God created Israel “for his glory” (43:7), and that he formed them “that they might declare [his] praise” (43:21). In other words, in order to extend the pleasure that God has in his own name he chooses a people to enjoy and praise and proclaim that name to all the peoples. And so God has pleasure in election.
Hab. 2:13-14:
Behold, is it not from the LORD of hosts
that peoples labor merely for fire,
and nations weary themselves for nothing?
For the earth will be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
“Is it not from the LORD of hosts” implies that everything that people do “in vain” has the Lord’s working underneath it. And the end to which everything is working towards is the filling of the earth with “the knowledge of the glory of the LORD.”

The glory of God, from the first Person:
I am the LORD; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them. (Is. 42:8-9)
I will say to the north, Give up,
And to the south, Do not withhold;
bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the end of the earth,
everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made. (Is. 43:6-7)
Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.

Listen to me, you stubborn of heart,
You who are far from righteousness:
I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay;
I will put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory.” (Is. 46:8-13)
“For my name’s sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off.
Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another. (Is. 48:9-11)
(Is God a “megalomaniac?” See "Why God Is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to Be Worshiped")

God does everything for his own glory.

The Psalmist appeals to God’s concern for his own glory when praying for salvation:
Help us, O God of our salvation,
for the glory of your name;
deliver us, and atone for our sins,
for your name’s sake! (Psa. 79:9)

God’s light shines forth in the darkness

Rom. 3:23 says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The Original Sin we inherited from Adam, as well as our own indwelling sin, causes us to fall short of the glory of God. Not only that, but there is an active work of Satan to keep our eyes blinded.

2 Cor. 4:4: "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Genesis 3:15 (it is one of the first clues of Christ):
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.
When Jesus calls the Pharisees a brood of vipers, he’s alluding to this. Calling someone the brood of vipers is the same as calling them the sons of the devil. (John Piper)
“We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. . . . Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:41-47)
Piper: “In other words, the most religious people of Jesus’ day were not children of God. That’s the condition of everyone if they don’t hear about Jesus, experience new birth, see the glory of Jesus, and believe.” (“From His Fullness We Have All Received, Grace Upon Grace”, sermon, 11/9/08)

Our nature as sons of Adam is one of unbelief, as the spawn of Satan. There would be enmity between the sons of the devil and the sons of the woman. But the spawn of the woman, alluding to Christ’s virgin birth, would bruise Satan’s head, in a fatal wound.

This passage links the first book of the Bible with the Last. Christ dealt a fatal wound when he accomplished his work and rose on the third day, and in the book of Revelation, we see that Satan will be put away forever.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 6, says, “Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.” One of the Scriptures quoted in the footnote in my edition of the WCF is Romans 11:32:
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. (Rom. 11:29-32, ESV)
The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: “Though not the author of sin (Ps. 5:4; Hab. 1:13; James 1:13), God allowed man to pursue his sinful inclinations so that He could receive glory by demonstrating His grace and mercy to disobedient sinners (cf. Eph. 2:2; 5:6).”

Jonathan Edwards says that evil makes good shine all the brighter. From Remarks on Important Theological Controversies. ch. III, “Concerning the Divine Decrees in General, and Election in Particular.” (Works Banner of Truth edition, vol. 2, p. 528):
§ 10. It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all; for then the effulgence would not answer the reality. For the same reason it is not proper that one should be manifested exceedingly, and another but very little. It is highly proper that the effulgent glory of God should answer his real excellency; that the splendour should be answerable to the real and essential glory, for the same reason that it is proper and excellent for God to glorify himself at all. Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great, as we have elsewhere shown. We little consider how much the sense of good is heightened by the sense of evil, both moral and natural. And as it is necessary that there should be evil, because the display of the glory of God could not but be imperfect and incomplete without it, so evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect; and the happiness of the creature would be imperfect upon another account also; for, as we have said, the sense of good is comparatively dull and flat, without the knowledge of evil.
Rom. 5:20 says, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,” and so we see God is glorified by the presence of evil.

The means are ordained in order to give God glory

Romans, the epistle of Sovereign Grace, after nine chapters of laying out the plan of salvation, Paul declares how God works with human means.
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Rom 10:13-17)
Here we are speaking of human means that we believe are no less decreed by God than anything else.

Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees, &c.", p. 527:
§ 4. … nobody, I believe, will deny but that God decrees many things that he would not have decreed, if he had not foreknown and foredetermined such and such other things. What we mean, we completely express thus—That God decrees all things harmoniously, and in excellent order, one thing harmonizes with another, and there is such a relation between all the decrees, as makes the most excellent order. [Here is support for Piper’s “The Best of All Possible Worlds” proposition, his “Seventh Point of Calvinism”.] Thus God decrees rain in drought, because he decrees the earnest prayers of his people; or thus, he decrees the prayers of his people, because he decrees rain…and thereby there is harmony between these two decrees, of rain and the prayers of God's people. Thus also, when he decrees diligence and industry, he decrees riches and prosperity; when he decrees prudence, he often decrees success; when he decrees striving, then he often decrees the obtaining the kingdom of heaven; when he decrees the preaching of the gospel, then he decrees the bringing home of souls to Christ; when he decrees good natural faculties, diligence, and good advantages, then he decrees learning; when he decrees summer, then he decrees the growing of plants; when he decrees conformity to his Son, then he decrees calling; when he decrees calling, then he decrees justification; and when he decrees justification, then he decrees everlasting glory. Thus, all the decrees of God are harmonious...

The Substitutionary Atonment in the death of Christ is the crux of the whole Divine Decrees

As God ordains human means, so he has ordained the divine means of our salvation in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. And that is really what we are celebrating this advent season, for there would be no hope for any of us without it.

We spoke already of the appearing of Christ as a manifestation of Grace. Jesus is also the manifestation of the glory of God. On his last night with the disciples, before his, arrest, trial and excecution, Jesus prayed:

John 17:24 “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.”

This is the meaning of what Jesus came for, that a proper display of God’s glory might be made manifest.

I have mentioned parenthetically the idea that everything is now as it should be, for God’s glory. God is sovereign even over the bad things. In Genesis 50, Joseph says to his brothers, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” It does not say God “used” it for good. It says he meant it, which means, God purposed it to happen, for his glory. So we see that God, though not the author of sin, purposed it. Selling sweet, innocent, little Joseph, Daddy’s boy, into slavery, was a heinous crime, but there was one much greater.

Edwards says (§ 6, p. 527),
If God is infinitely happy now, then every thing is now as God would have it to be now; if every thing, then those things that are contrary to his commands… For example, let the thing be this, that Judas should be faithful to his Lord…
Judas’ betrayal, which is the worst sin ever committed. Acts 2:23 (ESV) says Jesus was delivered up “according to the definite plan…of God”. Acts 4:27-28 says that everyone who took part in the conspiracy to crucify God was doing “whatever [God’s] hand and [his] plan had predestined to take place.” God truly willed that Judas should be unfaithful to his Lord, even though unfaithfulness is contrary to the commands of the Word. If God desired, he could have delivered Jesus up by other means, but the fact that God chose to have Judas betray Jesus means that he would be glorified more because of it. God wills (truly) things that are sinful (contrary to his commands) in order to more glory being bestowed upon him in the end.

This is the reason for the existence of our world: that he gets more glory in the end than if it were otherwise.

Isaiah 53 (ESV):
Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Especially verse 10: “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;”

There are many heretics in our day who are saying Jesus did not come to die, but he came to show us a new way of living. The proponents of this view think Jesus’ death was a catastrophic accident!

Jesus’ death provides for us the way of salvation, verse 11, he will “make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” This is a clear reference to the Atonement Sacrifice, and even Ciaphas the high priest seemed to make this connection.
“If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:48-52)
John the Baptist said, when he saw Jesus by the Jordan River, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” He was a Lamb, and lambs are for killing.

I don’t want to step on Patrick’s toes because I’m sure he’s going to develop this point much further next week, but the Jews in Jesus’ time would have understood the language of the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” to be in reference to the Day of Atonement.

To quote John Piper’s message at Bethlehem three weeks ago:
But every serious believer knew that the blood of animals could not really take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). That whole system was pointing forward to what would happen someday in a final sacrifice for sin. And John is saying: It’s happening now. God is sending his own Lamb into the world to take away sin, once and for all.
The end of it all is this. In Revelation 5:9-10, we have a glimpse of the throne room in heaven, where all glory is given to God and to the Lamb.
And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”
This is a new song, but it’s been sung for millennia. Jesus “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Continuing the rest of the chapter:
Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.
This is the glory that Jesus had with the Father before the foundation of the world. But it is all with the aim of glorifying the Father. Those whom he ransomed, were those whose names were written in the Book of Life. And their names were written in it from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8 say that the names of the elect were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 in the NIV says, “all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.” (This is the translation I grew up reading.) The emphasis with this word order is that the Lamb was slain from the creation of the world, so well before the fall, Jesus’ purpose was already laid out for him.

Application

What it should mean for us when we get a more biblical understanding of the eternal sovereign decrees of our sovereign Lord is that we should learn to trust him instead of freaking out. The fact that God ordains everything should help us to cope with our daily lives, in whatever situation we find ourselves in—whether it be stuck in line at the fast food place, or getting hit with a larger-than-expected tax bill.

As we see that God ordains not only the ends, but also the means, in “perfect harmony,” from this we should be encouraged to never stop praying. We should not stop striving. Jesus said (in Luke 13:24, ESV), “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” And Philippians 2:12 says, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Our striving and prayers should continue. But because God is sovereign, it should carry a great deal of optimism with it.

Jonathan Edwards says the fact that our strivings are as much decreed by God as the ends we’re working for, should take away all vanity.
§ 7. They say, to what purpose are praying, and striving, and attending on means, if all was irreversibly determined by God before? But, to say that all was determined before these prayers and strivings, is a very wrong way of speaking, and begets those ideas in the mind, which correspond with no realities with respect to God. The decrees of our everlasting state were not before our prayers and strivings; for these are as much present with God from all eternity, as they are the moment they are present with us. They are present as part of his decrees, or rather as the same; and they did as really exist in eternity, with respect to God, as they exist in time, and as much at one time as another. Therefore, we can no more fairly argue , that these will be in vain, because God has foredetermined all things, than we can, that they would be in vain if they existed as soon as the decree, for so they do, inasmuch as they are a part of it [the decree].
We should have confidence in Persevering Grace. If we do not believe that God had the whole thing planned out, if we do not believe that everything is happening exactly as he means it to, how can we have any assurance? How do we know that we will truly persevere?
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:37-39)

Our First Family Christmas Tree

Saturday, December 6, 2008

The most spectactular sin ever committed

I heard this the other day on the "Ask Pastor John" podcast and just discovered they put the transcript online. Here's the link. I recommend you download and listen to the full version, though.

B.B. Warfield on the Supralapsarian Controversy

Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield wrote the following in The Plan of Salvation, Part I:
The two parties here are known in the history of thought by the contrasting names of Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians or Infralapsarians. The point of difference between them is whether God, in his dealing with men with reference to their destiny, divides them into two classes merely as men, or as sinners. That is to say, whether God's decree of election and preterition concerns men contemplated merely as men, or contemplated as already sinful men, a massa corrupta.

The mere putting of the question seems to carry its answer with it. For the actual dealing with men which is in question, is, with respect to both classes alike, those who are elected and those who are passed by, conditioned on sin: we cannot speak of salvation any more than of reprobation without positing sin. Sin is necessarily precedent in thought, not indeed to the abstract idea of discrimination, but to the concrete instance of discrimination which is in question, a discrimination with regard to a destiny which involves either salvation or punishment. There must be sin in contemplation to ground a decree of salvation, as truly a decree of punishment. We cannot speak of a decree discriminating between men with reference to salvation and punishment, therefore, without positing the contemplation of men as sinners as its logical prius.

The fault of the division of opinion now in question is that it seeks to lift the question of the discrimination on God's part between men, by which they are divided into two classes, the one the recipients of his undeserved favor, and the other the objects of his just displeasure, out of the region of reality; and thus loses itself in mere abstractions. When we bring it back to earth we find that the question which is raised amounts to this: whether God discriminates between men in order that he may save some; or whether he saves some in order that he may discriminate between men. Is the proximate motive that moves him an abstract desire for discrimination, a wish that he may have some variety in his dealings with men; and he therefore determines to make some of the objects of his ineffable favor and to deal with others in strict accordance with their personal deserts, in order that he may thus exercise all his faculties? Or is it the proximate motive that moves him an unwillingness that all mankind should perish in their sins; and, therefore, in order to gratify the promptings of his compassion, he intervenes to rescue from their ruin and misery an innumerable multitude which no man can number—as many as under the pressure of his sense of right he can obtain the consent of his whole nature to relieve from the just penalties of their sin—by an expedient in which his justice and mercy meet and kiss each other? Whatever we may say of the former question, it surely is the latter which is oriented aright with respect to the tremendous realities of human existence.

One of the leading motives in the framing of the supralapsarian scheme, is the desire to preserve the particularistic principle throughout the whole of God's dealings with men; not with respect to man's salvation only, but throughout the entire course of the divine action with respect to men. God from creation itself, it is therefore said, deals with men conceived as divided into two classes, the recipients respectively of his undeserved favor and of his well-merited reprobation. Accordingly, some supralapsarians place the decree of discrimination first in the order of thought, precedent even to the decree of creation. All of them place it in the order of thought precedent to the decree of the fall. It is in place therefore to point out that this attempt to particularize the whole dealing of God with men is not really carried out, and indeed cannot in the nature of the case be carried out. The decree to create man, and more particularly the decree to permit the man whose creation is contemplated to fall into sin, are of necessity universalistic. Not some men only are created, nor some men created differently from others; but all mankind is created in its first head, and all mankind alike. Not some men only are permitted to fall; but all men and all men alike. The attempt to push particularism out of the sphere of the plan of salvation, where the issue is diverse (because confessedly only some men are saved), into the sphere of creation or of the fall, where the issue is common (for all men are created and all men are fallen), fails of the very necessity of the case. Particularism can come into question only where the diverse issues call for the postulation of diverse dealings looking toward the differing issues. It cannot then be pushed into the region of the divine dealings with man prior to man's need of salvation and God's dealings with him with reference to a salvation which is not common to all. Supralapsarianism errs therefore as seriously on the one side as universalism does on the other. Infralapsarianism offers the only scheme which is either self-consistent or consistent with the facts.
This work doesn't appear in the 10-volume Works, but you can find the text online on Monergism.com.

Friday, December 5, 2008

First Mommy, Mommy First

Al Mohler posted a great article the other day about how feminists are all bent out of shape by Michelle Obama's plans to devote her attention to raising her children while they are living in the White House.  She has said she will be, first and foremost, the wife of her husband and the mother of her children.  Feminists don't like this kind of talk.  As Dr. Mohler says,
Many of us have had, now have, and will almost surely in the future have significant disagreements with Michelle Obama over issues of public policy and our basic vision for the nation. Nevertheless, with respect to her elevation of motherhood and the priority of children as an honored choice, she deserves our appreciation and support -- and our prayers.
A democratic first lady as a role model for millions of women, and she's not trying to make a name for herself the way Hilary Clinton tried.  Imagine that.

Monday, December 1, 2008

Nativitatis Sola Christos

Tim Challies recently posted an excerpt from Sinclair Ferguson's book In Christ Alone on the Ligonier Ministries blog. It is rather awesome and I highly recommend that you read it.

I identified with the story he told of taking his son shopping and disturbing all the patrons when his young son pointed and asked, "Daddy, who is that funny-looking man?" I wonder if my dad has similar stories to tell.

Ferguson's article illustrates that people have taken the attributes of Santa Claus and tried to apply them to Christ:
...we may denigrate our Lord with a Santa Claus Christology. How sadly common it is for the church to manufacture a Jesus who is a mirror refection of Santa Claus. He becomes Santa Christ.

Santa Christ is sometimes a Pelagian Jesus. Like Santa, he simply asks us whether we have been good. More exactly, since the assumption is that we are all naturally good, Santa Christ asks us whether we have been "good enough." So just as Christmas dinner is simply the better dinner we really deserve, Jesus becomes a kind of added bonus who makes a good life even better. He is not seen as the Savior of helpless sinners...

Then again, Santa Christ may be a mystical Jesus, who, like Santa Claus, is important because of the good experiences we have when we think about him, irrespective of his historical reality. It doesn't really matter whether the story is true or not; the important thing is the spirit of Santa Christ. For that matter, while it would spoil things to tell the children this, everyone can make up his or her own Santa Christ. As long as we have the right spirit of Santa Christ, all is well.
One thing that particularly struck me was the fact that early Christians were actually killed for their radically counter-culture commemoration of Christ's birth.
In fact, such was the malice evoked by their other-worldly devotion to Christ that during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian, some believers were murdered as they gathered to celebrate Christmas. What was their gross offense? Worship of the true Christ -- incarnate, crucified, risen, glorified, and returning. They celebrated Him that day for giving His all for them, and as they did so, they gave their all for Him.
Is your celebration of Christmas counter-cultural? What steps do you take to make sure that Christmas is Christ-centered in your family?