Discerning What is Truth, Pt 1

Documenting the events of the last hours of His earthly life, Scripture records the conversation Jesus Christ had with Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who would soon turn Him over to be crucified.

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him (John 18:33-38)

What is Truth? (Jesus Claimed to be the Truth)
Pilate's now famous question, "What is truth?" was asked by a man who seemed skeptical that such a thing as truth might be knowable. Two thousand years later people are still asking the same question, and often with the same skepticism. And yet, a foundational assumption of the Christian faith is that yes, truth exists, and that by the grace of God, it can be known by mere human beings.

Jesus came to "bear witness to the truth" and in another well-known quote, proclaimed to His closest disciples, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him (John 14:6-7)."

We see from the words of Jesus to Pilate and to His disciples that Jesus spoke about truth in a way different than all other men speak of truth. Jesus did not describe truth in term of "principles" that if followed would lead His hearers into a happy, successful life. Though following the teachings of Jesus certainly does lead to real fulfillment, both in this life and in the next (John 10:10), the truth Jesus spoke about is much more than this-- for it is intimately connected with who He is. Jesus said that His words and life bore witness to the truth, and moreover, that He Himself was the living embodiment of that Truth. Thus Jesus spoke like no ordinary man. What mere human tells others that what He has to say is the Truth, with a capital "T", and proclaims Himself the living Truth? Listen again to Jesus:

“Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me (John 12:44-50)”

In this amazing statement, Jesus claimed people would be judged "on the last day" according to His spoken words; that His words were saving, eternal life to those embraced them; and that His words were said, not just on His own authority, but at the prompting of God, His Father.

As C.S. Lewis said in his book "Mere Christianity", such are the claims of either a madman, a deceiver, or the Lord Himself.

I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.

Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

The Worlds' Attitude towards Truth
In our day, the world's stance towards the concept of anyone who claims to speak truth remains the same as it was in the time when Jesus walked the Earth and Pilate asked Him his now-famous question. People still have what I'll call Pilate's attitude: the idea that with all the competing explanations of life presented by a multitude of religions and philosophies, and by scientists, artists and media, who can really discern what is the truth? Is not truth, if it exists, in the eye of the beholder? Suppose that all we experience in this world is really just sensory illusion, anyway? How do we then know if anything is real, or whether anything at all can be known?

In light of the unknowable nature of truth, the world tells us, isn't it better to humbly admit that one cannot know, and just try to get along with others? Because the minute one starts proclaiming that he or she knows what "the truth" is, all you get are disagreements and hate and wars. Don't all religions teach the same basic ideas anyway, things such as love each other, follow the golden rule, don't hurt your neighbor? Maybe, in the end, God is behind all of the religions and will lead everyone into heaven, no matter what their religion or beliefs are right now.

Besides, look at the horrible things done in the name of religion historically, and even now as we speak. People blow themselves up in the name of their "god", killing innocent people, and think that they are right in doing so because of their beliefs. Isn't this is the inevitable result of exclusive and dogmatic religions-- that they lead people into hate and killing each other? Maybe John Lennon was right. "Imagine" he sang, living in a world without religion. A world in which "All You Need is Love" and we would all "Give Peace a Chance" (other Lennon songs). Maybe, if enough of us just decided "War is Over", and together focused our thoughts on peace (as he and his wife Yoko urged), we could, by the power of our unified thought energies, sway this world away from its self-destructive path.

Mr. Lennon seems to well sum up the wisdom of this world. His well-meaning counsel sounds very reasonable, if one accepts the premise that the only truth we can really know and accept is our own, and that all religious truth, including Christian truth, just divides. But we come back to our discussion of truth-- how do we know whether Lennon's prescription for saving the world is itself right and true? A lot of people during the 1960s and 70s attempted to live out Lennon's "way of peace", but overall, the course of humanity has not turned towards peace since then.

The World's Critique of Christianity is Partly Right
But those who reject the Christian faith will argue that the same objection applies, and with more force, to Christianity. If the Christian religion is true then why is it that after almost 2000 years of Christian influence, the world remains still full of war and division? And today one finds so many Christians are hypocrites-- they talk of being loving like Jesus, but then in the news we learn they're doing things like stealing money from their ministries, getting divorced, committing adultery and worse. In addition, so many Christians-- especially in America-- seem to define faith as a lifestyle of wonderful blessings received from God (which includes guarantees of physical health, wealth, great relationships and special favor from God). Isn't this conveniently forgetting that Christ taught that His followers must suffer in this world, deny self, preach the gospel and make disciples, give to the poor and needy, and pursue justice? If Christianity were really true, they argue, one would see Christians doing more of these sorts of things and being less materialistic. Unfortunately, such criticism of many who call themselves Christian is altogether accurate.

False and True Christians
In answer to such critique however, we must distinguish between true and false professors of Christ. But first, we will admit that true believers (those born again, by the power of the Spirit who now indwells them) still do sin, because they have not yet been fully redeemed (changed) by God. According to the Bible there is this great gap between the sinless, perfect obedience of Christ to the Father's will, and the sin-stained expression of faith of even his most sincere followers. This gap will only be completely eradicated when Jesus returns. So the Christian true to the teaching of Scripture readily confesses that he/she still sins and thus falls short of the glory of God. He sorrows over such sin and repents of it, and finds forgiveness and restored relationship with God by the grace received through the "blood of Christ" (the sacrifice Christ made on the cross to bear the penalty for my sin). However, there will be, according to the Lord, many who merely claim the name "Christian" but indeed will be proven to be hypocrites. They present, by their false lives, teachings and actions, a gross misrepresentation of true Christian faith. They may on the surface however appear genuine in their profession of Christ. They themselves may be sincerely deceived that they are following Christ. How can we be wise enough to discern the difference between sincere Christ followers and those who only profess Christianity? And how do we avoid hypocrisy, and make certain that we are indeed His disciples? Let us turn to two passages of Scripture.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Corinthians 1:18-25)"

Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it (Matthew 7:21-27)"

The problem with the wisdom of the world, according to this 1 Corinthians text, is that earthly wisdom foolishly does not acknowledge the existence of God, and moreover, regards as foolishness the preaching of "Christ crucified" by Christians. Despite clear evidence that the world has been created by an Intelligent Designer, who has additionally revealed himself as Savior to those who believe in His Son Jesus Christ, the world prefers its own wisdom and rejects God (Romans 1:20-21). But for those who say they believe in Christ, Jesus' statements remind that merely claiming to be Christian is no proof of knowing Him. It is those who actually do the will of God, in accordance with the teachings of Jesus (albeit imperfectly), whose lives will pass the test of authentic discipleship, being built on a solid foundation.

Accepting the Testimony of Our Physical Senses, Thinking Rationally and Believing in Objective Truth
We return to our discussion on truth. I recognized a long while ago, in my own search for truth and meaning, that I would never have a basis for deciding whether one point of view was more true than another, unless I embraced the notion that there is objective truth. Philosophers and theologians may endlessly ponder the nature of reality and whether truth exists, but when it comes to practical daily living, I realized that humans have no choice but to embrace their rationality and trust their sensory perceptions, make up their minds about certain ideas, and get on with life. For even if we deny it, we all live as if there is such a thing as objective truth, and relate to the world using thought, reason and rationality in response to things we experience through our senses. We build a view of life by accepting or calling certain realities "true", and in this process, our minds seem designed to function rationally.

I make these very broad observations about the nature of how we perceive and understand true reality because we live, as you are probably aware, in a "postmodern" age characterized by the claim that all truth is not objective but relative. Yet in order to make that claim, one must take an absolute stance. But if there is no objective truth, then there is no way to prove the absolute claim that there is no objective truth.

The "truth-is-relative" view may try to assert that statements contradicting one another can both be true at the same time. It perhaps sounds more democratic and "loving" to allow everyone their own point of view, to say that they are all "true" in their own way. However, the point I'm making is that because our minds were designed to be logical and rational, I don't think such statements are ever satisfying to the earnest seeker after truth.

Don't Give Me Any Directions
I'll give you an example. Suppose I am driving through an unfamiliar town on my way to a particular destination and become very lost. I see someone walking along the road, stop and ask them for directions. Now suppose that after I have written down their detailed directions, I decide that I cannot (and will not) trust their information (after all I don't know them and/or what if they were just a phantom?). Therefore I toss the note of written directions out of the window and continue merrily on my own way, searching as best as I can, figuring that somehow I will arrive at my destination by guessing when I should turn left or right.

This little illustration symbolizes what I think the world often advises, with regard to finding life and purpose and truth. Most people at some point in their lives probably consider the question, "Is there is a God?" and wonder whether there is a destiny and purpose behind life. But the basic assumption of our day is that no one can possibly come to any conclusion about such matters, for no one person or group holds the "Truth". Also, as there are no "easy" answers, it is simply arrogant for anyone to presume to tell another that they have found "truth" that is universally applicable. Instead, each must plod along on their own path, trusting in themselves alone to direct their own journey. Someday we'll all get "there", whatever and wherever that is. But just don't give me any "directions".

As we have seen in the Scriptures however, Jesus came to this world to bear witness to the truth; to reveal Himself as the Truth and the Way to know God. He said that people do have a clear destiny-- eternal separation from God, or eternal union with God. He claimed to tell us exactly how to find God-- and His claims are exclusive- for if His claims are correct, we won't find our way to God except by Him. As we saw in my illustration above, any earthly destination has coordinates. We would be foolish to ignore those in the hope that by simply moving forward in a meandering, guessing way we will successfully arrive at our object. How much more foolish then, to think that we can arrive at the purpose of this life or find our heavenly destination, if we don't know what it is, where it is, or how to get there.

Excepting those in mental asylums and the mentally delusional, we live by certain "truths" that we accept-- most without daily reflection-- to be real and valid-- such as, I was born and I exist, my birthday is on such and such day, I have certain physical dimensions, I live in such and such place, have such and such job, such and such relationships. We also "believe in" many things-- perhaps one believes one ought to love others and not do them harm; that stealing is wrong; that if one works hard they will "succeed" in life; etc. Certainly beliefs vary tremendously, but constructing some sort of belief system about reality seems necessary to function as a human being.

The truths of Christianity are built upon this sort of practical and rational foundation. We believe that Jesus Christ really lived on earth, that He spoke and taught and did the things that have been written of Him. Why? Because there were human beings present as eyewitnesses of these events who wrote them down. We also believe because the evidence that Jesus Christ is really who he claimed to be is both reasonable and abundant (visit the sites listed in my Apologetics section to find some of this evidence). Now Christianity, unlike other religions, does not say that it does not matter if Jesus existed or not and that what is critical is that one just follow His teachings. No! It says that because Jesus as the Son of God really came to this world and really died to save sinners from their sins, that those who believe in Him will be supernaturally born and actually know eternal fellowship with God. It says that only if this Christ really was resurrected from the dead-- as He claimed He would be-- is there any real hope for those who call themselves Christians. So Christianity is more than metaphor or theory, it is the reality of a life lived in actual relationship with a living God. The God who is real came to earth and died for my sins, and if I believe in Him I will be forgiven all my sins and transformed from a sinner to saint, completely by His mighty, gracious power.

So today, if you do not know Christ in this personal way, please visit my "Gospel Presentations" section at the top right column of my blog. There you will find links to helpful presentations of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You also find instruction about what to do if you believe that Christ is indeed who He said He is, that He really died for sins and rose from the dead, and if you desire to receive His offer of mercy and reconciliation to God.

Discernment for Believers
In Part 2 of this article, I will (God-willing) address the issue of discernment of truth for believers in Christ. It seems today there are so many different teachers, preachers and points of view about what is true Christianity. How can we discern the true way? How do we decide which interpretations of Scripture are correct so that we may be faithful to Jesus and not go astray? Which teachers can be trusted? I think this is an extremely critical issue for the church today, for all of the many different "brands" of Christianity cannot be equally true and valid at the same time, since they are making opposing claims.

I recently added a new link list to my blog titled "Discernment Ministries", under the section "Apologetics". I invite you to peruse the many ministries listed in this section (though I do not vouch for the accuracy of everything written on these sites). These types of ministries recognize the danger of false doctrines within the church, how such teachings lead us away from God, and so they aim to make people aware of these teachings and warn them away from error. This is a deadly serious matter, for people's souls are at stake. As Christians we are called to test and examine all teaching and doctrine according to Scripture, but this can be difficult when almost every teaching or doctrine claims to have scriptural support. As fallen creatures, I don't think that anyone's interpretation of Scripture is ever going to be 100% perfect in understanding. Nevertheless, it is critical to the Christian's spiritual health and safety to grow in understanding and application of the truth of God's word. As Paul said to Timothy, "do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)." Discernment ministries and blogs such as this one can assist, but are of course no substitute for one's own diligent study of the Word.

Tags: What is truth, discernment ministries, discernment, Pontius Pilate, exclusivity of Christian claims, postmodern relativism, rational evidence for the truth of Christianity

Christian Relief and Social Action Links

A reader of this blog from Pakistan wrote to me personally, asking for help for his fellow Pakistanis who in recent months have been hit extremely hard by devastating floods caused by a cyclone and heavy rains. Over one million have been left homeless.

He writes, "our main concern are the women and children... at the moment they are living under [the] sky without food, shelter and lack of basic necessities of life. Even the water they are getting for drinking is contaminated and [the] worst part of their sufferings is the diseases which are spreading rapidly, particularly among children of minor age.

I have created in the right column of my blog a new (preliminary) list of "Christian Relief and Social Action" links, to point anyone with an interest in helping these people to organizations involved in relief efforts. I am not familiar with all of the relief agencies, but I have heard of "Gospel for Asia" and would highly recommend them, especially in this case. Other well-known organizations are Samaritan's Purse, Save the Children, and World Vision International. I would also recommend World Emergency Relief (WER), which according to an article in Christian Today was rated very highly for its efficiency in proving services, transparency about its finances and its well-run organization.

Please pray for them, and if you can, send a gift to help with the relief efforts.

Tags: Pakistan floods, relief efforts

Why Don't People Leave Comments (or, Leave a Comment You Lazy Blog Surfin' Freaks or I'll Hunt Down Your IP with my Spam Gun)?

So, I was reading the other day that research studies have been done showing that 90% percent of the time people don't leave comments when visiting a blog. Really? Who knew? It can't be... not my readers here at Jordan's View. They always leave comments-- witty, relevant, funny, encouraging comments. Yeah right.

I'm just kidding with you really. But a comment once in a while, really now, would it kill you? To click my little comments button and type a few measly words? Oy veigh!

I even installed this cute little widget that makes it really easy. Just click the little symbol to register your response to the post: COOL, FUN, INSIGHTFUL, FELL ASLEEP, I'M CONFUSED, DISAGREE, THIS BLOG STINKS (OK, the last one isn't a real option).

What more do you want? Shall I go over there and click the button for you, lazy freak?

Really, I'm just kidding you. You want to be an anonymous phantom ghost surfer, it's OK with me. But remember, I can get your IP address and who knows what I will do with it (HA HA HA HA, "Dr.Evil style laugh" )!!!

Have a nice day...

American psyche by George Saunders

[The following article was published by the UK's Guardian Unlimited newspaper. HT: Joe Carter].

A recent headline indicates a number of disturbing American trends: Father Kills Bear Charging At Son With Log.

First of all, who's giving these animals logs? There's nothing in the world a respectable bear needs with a log. If that bear has a log, he has it for one reason: to kill somebody.

It's clear to any American reader that our animals are going bad. Every day there's some story about out-of-control wildlife: Mother Kills Pit Bull Mauling Son With Spatula. Or: Lover Kills Shark Swimming Towards Daughter With Spear Gun. Or: Son Stops Mountain Lion Attacking Dad Using Judo.

What are these people thinking? Who gives a pit bull a spatula or a shark a spear gun? What kind of idiot enrolls a mountain lion in a judo class?

Oh, wait, hang on. I just went back and read the article. Turns out the father used the log, to kill the bear.

Actually, that's what's wrong with our country: sloppy journalism. That headline, properly written, would have read: Father Uses Log To Kill Bear, Bear That Was, At That Time, Sans Log Or Any Kind Of Weapon, Charging Son Of Man.

Although that makes it sound as if the bear was charging Christ. Which - I mean, the article gives no indication that this was the case. In my opinion, a bear would not last a minute versus Christ. Especially if you gave Christ a log.

Anyway: sloppy writing, that's our problem. Also failure to fact-check. Look at this one: Man Discovers Picasso Painting In Attic. Hello! Picasso's dead! If not, he's, like, 200 years old, and I doubt he can 1) climb the stairs into some dude's attic or 2) paint once he gets there.

In addition to poor fact-checking: bad journalistic ethics. Take this one: World's Tallest Man Saves Drowning Girl With Extremely Long Arm. Why do we need to know the length of the poor girl's arm? If she had a weird voice, would we say, World's Tallest Man Saves Drowning Girl Who Is Terrible Singer? What's next? Fireman Saves Baby Who Looks Exactly Like Yoda?

What bothers me about that bear story is this American tendency to step in and do everything for our kids. It would have been better if the father had just handed the kid the log, and said, "Son, throw this, hard, at that bear. Or you're dead." That way, the kid learns something. I'm sure we've all heard the biblical proverb, "If you teach me to fish, I fish for ever; if you kill my fish with your log, next time I'm hungry, I'm just going to come walking up to you with a log and a live fish."

Now I just need a title for this column. Ah, I've got it: Writer Proves Stupidity Of Americans With Guardian Column.

Humble Yet Bold Ambassadors

The question of how Christians should engage in public discourse, particularly in what manner they communicate with those who differ from them, whether other Christians, people of other faiths, agnostics, or atheists, is a very important one, because we are "ambassadors for Christ"(2 Cor 5:20). As His ambassadors, we are called to the highest standard of integrity and holiness as we verbally express ourselves.

While the manner in which Christians engage others in the marketplace is certainly not a new concern, the explosion of blogging on the Internet in these modern times has made the issue even more urgent and relevant. Virtually anyone with access to a computer and Internet may create a blog and begin sending forth their words and opinions, unregulated and unmonitored, into the permanent and public discussion. Unfortunately, this means that much may be said that is unbecoming of those who call themselves Christian. Name-calling, gossip, slander, poor argumentation, have all, unfortunately, been witnessed. Words spoken in anger and without much forethought are with one click of a button etched into the public record. Being fallible humans, our words may often be sinful, even though we do profess to follow Jesus Christ.

In light of the responsibility we have then, as "ambassadors for Christ", recent essays* by leading Christians call upon Christians to regulate themselves as they debate in the marketplace of ideas. We are reminded that we ought to be civil and gracious (both to the world and with each other) as we present the truths of Christianity, keeping in mind that the way we communicate before the world is being watched by those who are wait to see whether Christians indeed are those who have been touched by the love of God, as we claim.

In my previous post I argued that a culture in which truth is under attack demands a bold Christian response, yet one that can be humble, respectful and loving at the same time. Yet there is probably a place too, for those who have a more prophetic gift/voice, and thus may speak in stronger language when they address the sins of this generation.

But let us remember the words of our Lord Jesus who said, "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned (Matthew 12:36-37)." Therefore, whether our words as believers are those spoken as prophet or ambassador, let us remain vigilant over them, knowing we will be judged.

For further reading:

I highly recommend this essay, which offers much practical wisdom on this subject: "How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us", by Dr. Roger R. Nicole, Ph.D., a Visiting Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary.

*This is one of the recent essays appealing to Christians to improve their civility, (which I refer to in this post):
A Plea For A More Civil Discourse by Thom S. Rainer

*My previous post The Age of Tolerance Calls for Bold Proclamation of Truth, was prompted by David Aikman's editorial "Attack Dogs of Christendom" which appears in the August 2007 issue of Christianity Today.

Does the Bible call Christians to defend the faith/argue for the faith?

Monergism.com also offers a whole page of resources dealing with this issue, under the category "CONFLICT"

Tags: Civil discourse, Christians in the marketplace of ideas, ambassadors for Christ, dealing with those who differ from us, Christian bloggers

The Age of Tolerance Calls for Bold Proclamation of Truth

The August 2007 issue of Christianity Today magazine features an editorial titled "Attack Dogs of Christendom" written by David Aikman, an esteemed journalist who has written much on the topic of religion and Christianity. The editorial examines what Aikman labels the "attack dogs of Christendom", that is, certain web-based ministries that are frequently boldly critical of other Christians. The main point of his brief essay is that, if necessary, Christians may criticize other believers, but should do so with a grace that provides a fitting witness to the transforming work of God on their own character. This certainly sounds right, but is it the whole story?

Aikman describes particular ministries as greatly missing this mark, saying that they are "so drenched in sarcasm and animosity" that they might leave inquirers to Christianity "permanently disillusioned". He bemoans the fact that at a time when "no attribute of civilized life seems more under attack than civility", such web ministries, by their uncivility towards other Christians, do not demonstrate "the witness that brings savor and grace to a crumbling generation". Instead, he writes, they "blast each another from here to eternity with characterizations that differ little from the coarse vulgarity of cable TV". Aikman concludes, "Where is the gentleness, modesty, and wisdom with which we are supposed to shame those who mock and accuse the Body of Christ from outside?" and urges Christians to set an example for the world of gracious critiquing of one another.

Aikman's plea that Christians demonstrate God's love and graciousness, even if they find it sometimes necessary to criticize each other, is a point well taken. Fallen human nature tends to exhibit self-righteousness as it looks upon the failings of others, but our Lord reminds us, when picking the speck out of someone else's eye, we must first see to it that the log in our own has been removed. If also we constantly reflect on the biblical truth that we (even as believers in Christ) continue to be fallen creatures that are only saved and transformed by the power of God through the sacrifice of His only Son on a cross, we will not help but become more humble and gracious towards other sinful, fallible people.

Getting doctrine right is no incidental, trivial aspect of our call to follow Christ, but a vital work.

Nonetheless, I believe Mr. Aikman has really missed the passion and even the great frustration that drives many "discernment" ministries. This passion is, in many cases, driven by a correct understanding of this truth: that getting doctrine right is no incidental, trivial aspect of our call to follow Christ, but a vital work. I would certainly agree with Aikman's witness to the attack on civility in our culture. But does not this dearth of civility and increase in coarseness mostly correlate with the increased godlessness in society? The United States, a nation founded upon free expression of religious beliefs, whose government and founding documents were molded by the Judeo-Christian world view, has increasingly abandoned Judeo-Christian truth as its bedrock value system. Included in this abandonment is the growing tendency in these times to resist defining truth objectively. Of course if truth cannot be decided upon objectively, then establishing right theological doctrine seems even more unobtainable. And the fight for right doctrine has come to be seen by many in different quarters as a sort of petty squabbling over matters that are not essential to working together as Christians for the greater common good.

One might say then, with all due respect to Mr. Aikman, that "no attribute of civilized life seems more under attack than truth"-- for truth is under attack not only by the liberal establishment, but even by those within Christendom who erode truth by not taking their own firm stand upon doctrines of the faith. The decrease in civility Aikman laments seems directly tied to a nation that no longer fears God as it once did, and which is increasingly marginalizing God in all aspects of its civic life. But the Church is called to be salt and light in our culture (Matthew 5:13-14), exposing the darkness by living according to truth and holiness, and preserving that which is good. Yet this edifying and preserving only is accomplished as the Church obeys its mandate to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19-20)." Teaching accurately that which Jesus taught then, seems to be indispensable to making disciples, and demands that we interpret and disseminate the teachings of Christ correctly.

Despite this critical task, many evangelicals today (especially in the Emergent camp, but also in the broader evangelical community) are downplaying the importance of doctrinal correctness, some labeling it "divisive" to the Church at large. There is a kind of teaching in American Christianity today that has become most concerned with providing practical aids to living in the here and now: improve your marriage, your sex life, your finances. It is claimed that in-fighting over doctrine presents a poor witness to the world, and distracts the Church from its more primary and urgent call to do "love" through justice, serving the poor, helping the hurting, etc. The debate over doctrine is viewed as dry, intellectual, and most of all abstract, an exercise which doesn't help us bring Christ's compassion to a hurting world in practical ways.

Surely there is truth to the charge that a practice of Christianity dominated by endless debate over minor theological points, and which seeks to root out heresy, not for the sake of more fruitful, God-honoring living, but motivated primarily by pride and ego, will leave those who practice it puffed up with knowledge but lacking in the charity towards others that really counts eternally (1 Corinthians 13). Some discernment ministries may indeed be driven by these less than noble, ultimately unworthy, motivations.

The Age of Tolerance
However, we are living in the Age of Tolerance, and that spirit it seems, has invaded the evangelical church. For today many ask Christians to cease being dogmatic (after all, who are we to say that Christ is the only way?); and to talk about man's essential problem as the lack of self-esteem, rather than, as the Bible tells it, sinful rebellion against God. We ought, some would say, to make Christianity "user-friendly"-- to shape our presentation of the gospel to appeal to the "postmodern" frame of mind, or re-package it so as to appeal to the "felt needs" of unbelievers. In other words, don't preach the biblical counsel that speaks about the depth of sin and the universal need for repentance, and of the price of the cross of Christ. Preach instead that God has a wonderful plan for your life, a plan to make you happy, bless your finances and your health and lead you into a kind of heaven on earth. Preach the gospel as an option ("try Jesus"), and not as a command to believe and repent. Preach that we Christians don't have any solid, final answers and we're just on our own journey, just like everyone else. Preach that Christian "love" is really about accepting everyone just as they are, even in their sin, and not asking anyone to repent of their sins.

We are being taught that to choose Christ is ultimately our own choice, that to be born again or eternally separated from God-- the choice between heaven or hell-- is totally within our own hands. Yet the Bible teaches that those who do come to Christ come only because they have been called out and given the grace to do so by God-- for Christ declared, "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (John 6:65)"

In light of all this, is there a kind of criticism of other Christians by Christians that is justifiable?

Well, when even Christians are no longer preaching the gospel as Jesus did, as a call to radical self-sacrifice and as a repudiation of the lies that this world tries to sell;

When the Church ceases to stand hard on Bible truths and to preach them boldly, uncompromisingly and without apology, though they offend and many will reject them with words such as, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?(John 6:60)";

When we forget that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump (Galatians 5:6)", and that the little compromises we make with truth end with wholesale rejection of truth and falling away into deception;

Are we not then neglecting our solemn duty as believers to "preach the word; [and to] be ready in season and out of season; [to] reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Timothy 4:2-4)?

Paul warned Timothy, "the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2 Timothy 4:3)". That time is now upon us.

And so Christians must:

Always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:5)

Hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, and [be] able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).

"Teach what accords with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)"

I think that this is exactly what the responsible discernment ministries are attempting to do, in such times as these. Should they be gentle, modest and respectful? Certainly.

But there are also times for righteous indignation, times when double-talk and compromise must be challenged, and when those who say they are representing Christ must be called upon to defend their practices biblically. Paul challenged and opposed Peter, when the latter was acting hypocritically (Galatians 2:11-21). Read the story. Paul did not challenge Peter to embarrass him. Nor did he do so that he could now be seen as the #1 leader of the church and Peter be relegated to #2. He did it for the sake of the truth, for the sake of the souls of those in the Church, the precious souls for whom he and Peter had become responsible to God as leaders in the church. He was responsible to teach them sound doctrine, and to help them to mature in the wisdom of God. How? By teaching the Galatians the right doctrine about their justification before God, and opposing any actions (even if done by a fellow believer) in contradiction to right doctrine.

If we too are called by God to be disciple-makers (aren't we all?), let us tackle the call to teach and defend right doctrine with the same commitment and passion that Paul showed here. Let us do so humbly and depending upon God for much grace and wisdom. But let us not neglect this privilege and responsibility.

Tags: David Aikman, Attack Dogs of Christendom, Christianity Today, tolerance, discernment ministries, truth, defending sound doctrine

Where Did All these Calvinists Come From?

Whether or not you believe the current Calvinistic resurgence a good thing for evangelical Christianity (I do), Mark Dever has recently concluded a highly informative 10-part series titled, "Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?" that traces the history of Calvinism in America, particularly its popularity among a new, younger generation of Christians.

Highly recommended.

[P.S. Speaking of Calvinism, I am working on the next post in the Arminian vs. Reformed theology series. It is another article on unconditional election which I think will be my last post on the topic. I'll then move on (Lord willing) to tackle the next letter in T-U-L-I-P: "L" for Limited Atonement. Many thanks to those readers who have encouraged me in this project!]

Tags: Calvinism, History and Development of Calvinism in America, Mark Dever, Young Restless and Reformed

4-Part Video Series on the Emerging Church by Gary Gilley

I have posted in my Jordan's Video sidebar (right column) a 4-part series by Dr. Gary Gilley, who speaks on the dangers of the Emerging church.

The following is a description of the series, from Godtube.com:

"Dr. Gary Gilley of Southern View Chapel visited Ireland and spoke on issues concerning the church today. This video is part of a four part series and a damning indictment of the market-driven churches that are so popular today.

Dr. Gilley contends that the church has sold out to our culture so that the influences of the culture have become the influences in the church. The most significant forces pressing against the church are entertainment, market driven philosophies and psychology. These three are largely absent from the Bible, yet are startlingly prevalent in evangelical churches. The leaders and issues he concentrates on most are Rick Warren and his book The Purpose Driven Church, Bill Hybels and Lee Strobel. In this fourth part of the series, Dr. Gilley will explain what the Emerging Church is and how it is dangerous to the Evangelical community."

The church I attended for many years in New York City seems to be embracing this "Emerging" approach to church growth, judging from their recent activities (doing the 40-Day Purpose Driven Church program and sponsoring simulcast seminars on leadership, led by Bill Hybels). It all sounds so good. But as these videos explain, the true gospel is not the primary value in this movement. Rather, what seems to be most important is what "works", while doctrine is downplayed. Though my old church is doing much laudable ministry, I think this new direction is clearly dangerous. Unfortunately, churches across the country are also succumbing to these misguided influences.

Please check out the videos and consider for yourself whether this Emerging movement is positive or negative.

Tags: Gary Gilley, Emerging Church, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Purpose-Driven

"Jesus" Gets A Divorce

It's sad that there are so many charlatans and deceivers claiming to represent Jesus Christ and Christianity these days. A story today on CNN highlights one such man, Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, founder of cult group "Growing in Grace", who claims to be the second coming of Christ. According to the CNN report, Miranda's wife of five years, Josephina Torres, is now suing him for divorce, alleging he verbally and physically abused her, and that he committed adultery with many women in the church. The report also gives evidence that Miranda is an extravagant, admitted gambler.

A group whose leader claims to be the second coming of Christ, yet teaches his followers that there is no such thing as sin or hell; who flaunts his possessions and jokes about his gambling, is very obviously a blasphemer and not even a true Christian, let alone the second coming of Christ.

Besides the thousands within the group itself being misled and deceived, the other sad thing is that the world sees such people and finds perhaps another excuse to reject Christianity. But maybe they cannot be blamed for being unable to distinguish between such false teachers and true Christians, when there is so much bogus teaching even in "popular" Christianity.

Jesus warned us in advance about these kinds of false teachers (Luke 9:21, Matthew 24:4-5). These are signs that Jesus may be coming back soon.

May we then also rid ourselves of all hypocrisy, closing the gap between who are in Christ (perfected saints without sin) and what we are in current experience (not yet fully-redeemed saints who daily struggle with sin and fleshly temptations). Thank you Lord for your mercy and for your grace that has not left sin unpunished, but which placed upon Jesus, the Lamb of God, the sin of us all, as He bore the penalty for sin for those who believe in Him. Amen!

Compassion for Tammy Faye and other Health-Wealth Disciples

The other day an item appeared on a well-known Christian blog that showed a video clip of Tammy Faye Messner's last appearance on the Larry King show. The blog pointed out that Mrs. Messner, a long-time proponent of "Word-Faith" theology, was now (in her illness) a vivid illustration of the false hope of that brand of teaching. Sadly, a few days after appearing on Larry King, Tammy Faye died.

Now, while I have come to the view that the way healing is taught in the Word-Faith movement misinterprets Scripture in many instances and is therefore incorrect, nonetheless I feel that compassion should be shown towards someone like Tammy Faye. To me it is not in very good taste to show footage of a deathly ill woman just for the purpose of scoring a point against Word-Faith teaching-- even if one's point is correct. Christians especially ought to have, and show, compassion for the sick and dying. If her hope in God and in His healing was misinformed because of Word-Faith teaching, all the more reason to show sympathy towards her.

I wasn't very familiar with Tammy Faye, not ever having watched the PTL show, but she seemed to have many fans, even now long after the heyday of the popularity of her Praise the Lord telecast with then-husband Jim Bakker. In this, her last public appearance, Tammy Faye held herself with dignity, expressing her faith and hope, as best she knew how. She came across as a gentle, kind soul, yet with the courage to show her dying face to the world.

The Healing/Prosperity Message of "Word-Faith" Teachers (aka Health/Wealth Gospel)

These days as I surf the Christian channels it seems I keep encountering shows featuring testimonies and/or demonstrations of people supposedly miraculously healed. Are these "miracles" actually taking place? I must admit I view them with a mixture of desirous curiosity and strong skepticism. I wish that the miracles they say are happening were truly happening. But it seems that for every testimony one hears about people receiving healing, there are also the many who are not healed. This latter group includes people who "faithfully" follow popular Word-Faith teachings like "healing is in the atonement", or the notion that healing will come by spoken, persistent proclamation of certain scriptural promises (this demonstrates faith, through which God then brings about healing). I know, because my wife was one of those sincere people not instantly healed though putting such teachings into practice [She is however much better these days and we certainly thank God for her progress in healing. It's just that we don't think that there is a correlation between seeking God for healing via the Word-Faith approach and her progress to date].

Even as my wife and I several years ago were applying such teachings to our own circumstances, I had certain misgivings. I thought: if our expectation of healing is founded upon Christ's atoning work, so that together with forgiveness of sins, healing is the believer's birthright, then why isn't the believer in the atonement who seeks healing necessarily always healed?

Sin is always forgiven (without the one exception of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit") through the cross of Christ. If then this "healing in the Atonement" teaching is true (that the atonement means sickness as well as sin is removed from the believer), we would expect that healing would occur in the believer's life in every case. Yet the reality is that there always are exceptions to healing- there are countless people who pray for healing with faith, but do not receive it. Some have prayed and been healed at one time, and yet have not received healing the next time they have asked. It is known as well that even prominent Word-Faith style teachers have experienced sickness and negative answers to requests for healing.

Unfortunately, lay people who follow these teachings and have not been healed may feel both discouraged and guilty. This is how my wife and I felt. Surely if God heals all, the fault for non-healing must lie with us, rather than with God. So people end up concluding that they have not exercised the right kind (or amount) of faith, and must be to blame for having missed out on the promised healing. Word-Faith teaching does try to explain non-healing, but their answers aren't satisfying: the bottom line in their explanations seems to be that a non-healing indicates defective faith somewhere, or something left undone by the believer.

But for my wife and myself, when healing did not come through the Word-Faith approach, we began to consider other explanations. Could it be that God is actually sovereign over all things our lives and did not want the healing to happen at this time, for His own reasons? This at times seemed like a horrible thought. For Word-Faith teaches that God doesn't inflict illness upon His children just for the sake of teaching them life-lessons, or to discipline them. But if sickness is a suffering, and suffering may be used by God to mold us in Christ-likeness, then why might He not allow a physical suffering in our lives to teach us? Why is the suffering of sickness put into a different category by this type of teaching? Indeed through study of the ancient viewpoint presented in classic Reformed theology, and also as we thought through these issues, we began to think differently about healing.

We Are Being Redeemed
The guarantee of physical healing in this life simply does not fit with the stage of redemption we are in-- we still live with mortal bodies that get sick and eventually die. The perfect physical healing that comes through the atonement will indeed become ours, but only when our bodies are fully redeemed. Until then, we deal with sickness and death in this life. God may, and often does, heal now in answer to prayer, but we cannot demand that our prayers for healing be granted because we apply a certain formula based on guarantees the Bible does not actually give.

There is a parallel to this "in-between" redemption in the spiritual realm. Although we are being sanctified by the Spirit of God and will someday be just as He is, becoming Christians did not completely remove sin from our lives as believers. We still live with a "sin principle" that resides within our mortal bodies, and therefore we can and do sin (Romans 7:17-18). Thank God that because the power of sin has been broken we do not have to sin (Romans 6:3-4). The power of the Spirit within us can always help us choose not to sin (1Corinthians 1:13), but in this in-between state of redemption we live in now (Romans 8:18-25), often we do choose to sin (1 John 1:8).

Therefore just as being in Christ doesn't entirely remove the presence of sin from our beings and from our lives, so also the presence of sickness is not yet completely removed from our bodies. Again, we have to deal with sickness and death in this life.

Prosperity Teaching
Closely related to the well-intentioned though mistaken doctrine of healing in the atonement is teaching that Christians must prosper financially/materially. Prosperity teaching says that special material blessings from God are, like physical healing, the birthright of every Christian. These come to us however, only as we "sow our seed", by tithing to our churches and by giving to this or that ministry. In the same way that proclaiming faith in God's promises to heal is supposed to be the vehicle by which God becomes obligated to heal, "sowing seed", in the form of sending money to a particular ministry, is supposed to demonstrate a faith God is absolutely certain to reward. I find preacher after preacher on TV teaching along these lines. Whether the ones sowing seed are thus being blessed by God or not, it may certainly be observed, from the lavish personal wealth of the leaders of ministries promoting this message, that they themselves benefit greatly from all this "seed-sowing". Are such teachers purposefully trying to deceive people then, and teaching these things just so they themselves get rich? I am not saying that. Many are no doubt sincere in teaching this doctrine and believe that they too ought to reap the material harvest that their teaching brings. In fact they may point to their own example, saying, "You can have what I have".

But even unbelievers can see that prosperity teaching does not correlate well with the biblical portrait of the lifestyle of Jesus Christ Himself, who lived humbly during in His time on earth. In contrast to telling followers that they would certainly reap a financial harvest by sowing seed into His ministry, Christ strongly and repeatedly warned against the dangers of covetousness.

Look at the fruit. Does prosperity teaching teach us to live humbly and be satisfied with what we now have materially, or does it promote covetousness? Prosperity teaching seems to say that if we don't have the material things we want (and supposedly ought to have, because God wants to give it) it is only because we have yet to exercise the right kind of faith. With the temptation that lies within the human heart to look to material blessings for comfort and satisfaction, this is a dangerous message. Jesus who knows human hearts more than all recognized this, and rightly warned us to "be on your guard against all kinds of greed".

Truth and Error in Word-Faith teaching
Truly God is our great Provider, and He richly blesses us spiritually, and often materially. But is the truth of the reality of the presence of God in our lives proven only if we are blessed with this world's goods and thus can show the world that "Christianity works"? Is it not rather demonstrated when we show our joyful satisfaction in God Himself, whether or not we have been richly blessed materially, and by our contentment with whatever we have been given?

Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs (1Timothy 6:6-10)

Is Word-Faith all wrong then? Personally, I think there is truth mixed in with a lot of error and mis-emphasis. The truth of course is that our God is indeed a miracle-working, "nothing is impossible" kind of God, and we should therefore raise our expectations of what He can do in and through our lives. Certainly God works through such faith in Him, faith that is depending upon Him alone to bring about wonderful results we can't even foresee or fully imagine.

But the great error and mis-emphasis in Health/Prosperity teaching is to make material blessings or physical healing the proof that God is at work in our lives, the proof that He is indeed a good God. What of poor Christians who live in underdeveloped nations? What of faithful Christians all over the world who get cancer and suffer or die? Are such believers ignorant of their supposedly invulnerability in Christ to such suffering? If they just knew how to pray with the right faith would they suddenly be healed of all sickness and poverty? The answer to these questions ought to be obvious. Despite the teaching of some, Jesus Christ was not a rich man leading an extravagant lifestyle and neither were His followers. They seemed to have what they needed (food, clothing) and even enough to be generous to others. But the early Christian community lived with a sense that Christ's return was imminent, and they were not living a lifestyle of building up for themselves "treasures on earth".

Also not every believer in this community always lived in perfect health. There are New Testament examples of those who were became ill (among them great leaders in the church, including Trophimus, Timothy and the great Apostle Paul). Since Jesus taught that it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God," (because of the way wealth tricks us into worshiping it rather than God), does it make sense then that Christians should be exhorting one another to prosperity in this life?

Can a Christian Be Rich Then?
Does this mean that a Christian who seeks to do well in his field and to make a good living sins? Not necessarily. If in pursuing the course that God has mapped out for us and using our God-given talents we prosper and even become wealthy, we will be good Christians as we steward these resources to give generously to the work of the kingdom. We should also enjoy without guilt the blessings God has given. But what is driving us? Are we after the comfort and security of wealth, trusting in it rather than God for our security? Are we keeping money and material blessings in their proper place, as we pursue the priorities of God? These are difficult things for us all, for the human heart retains its temptation to make idols of riches and comfort and all sorts of worldly things, even though we have truly become new creatures in Christ. So we must be on our guard against covetousness, as Jesus warned.

May the Lord forgive us if we have made health and wealth the measure of our faithfulness to Christ or of His goodness to us. May He teach me and every believer to eradicate the idols from our hearts. May we have compassion for those lured by false ideas, whether they are in the world or whether they are Christians. May we learn to live fully by the truth of God's word, and teach others to do so as well, and so be set free.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:19-24)

Tags: Tammy Faye, Health-Wealth gospel, Word-Faith teaching, sick Christians, Prosperity gospel

The "Random" Meme (Isn't that Redundant?)

My Godblogger 2005 friend Charlie Lehardy has tagged me for a "meme". What's a meme, you ask? Well, on the Internet it seems to be defined simply as one blogger asking another blogger to answer a series of questions, so that we all can get to know each other a bit better. Isn't that special?

I don't always like memes, but this one looks like fun. Charlie's meme answers were both interesting and amusing.

Here's the rules for this particular "Random" meme (which, as I ask in the title of this post, seems redundant, since all memes are a bit random, right?):

* Let others know who tagged you.
* Post 8 random facts about yourself.
* Post these rules.
* Tag 8 others to continue the meme

And now here are 8 random facts about myself.

1. Lousy jobs I was lousy at: One of my first jobs was being a messenger (by foot) for a printing company in Manhattan. I once lost a package en route to my destination (left it on the seat in the subway platform--miraculously, I wasn't fired).

I was also an ice cream scooper at a popular Häagen-Dazs store in Greenwich Village. Somehow, I beat out an entire city block of people who had interviewed for this coveted position. Soon thereafter, I quit. (At the time, I could eat a pint of their ice cream and not gain an ounce. Now, I gain weight just thinking about eating a pint of Häagen-Dazs).

In the summer of 1985 I had a job folding towels in a factory- yes, really. I got fired because I wasn't folding fast enough (I don't know how I got this job in the first place--I suck at folding towels)!

2. To calm me down as a baby, my Mom would put on some music, which mesmerized and fascinated me. I was so cute.

3. When I was in fifth grade I won my school's spelling bee, but then lost in the regional competition. I remember the spelling of words by "seeing" them in my mind.

4. I didn't get a driver's license until I was already in my early twenties (which isn't completely unusual if you're growing up in the New York City area). My first car was a white Toyota Tercel I bought from my Mom for a dollar. It lasted a long time, but towards "the end", the steering wheel would shake almost uncontrollably whenever I drove the car, like it was possessed. Fortunately, I turned in the car to the dump before it killed me (turns out the axle was on the verge of snapping).

5. Charlie and I have this trait in common-- while I often don't remember the words to songs, I have fantastic "auditory" memory. Especially on songs I really like, I can recall their parts in detail; bass lines, harmonies, drums, guitar parts, etc.

6. When I was 18 or 19, I played the lead part of Tony, leader of the Jets, in a community production of "West Side Story".

7. I wasn't raised in a church-going family, but by God's grace came to be a Christian in my early twenties. Among the odd means God used to reach me was the Hal Lindsey book, "The Late Great Planet Earth, and also a documentary film called "Say Amen Somebody".

8. I would have thought I'd be interested, but for some reason I never examined the Arminian/Calvinist debate very closely until recently, after already being a Christian 20 plus years. However I believe life-changing and positive results will emerge from this study of the "doctrines of grace".

To continue the meme, I hereby tag the following bloggers:

Steve Camp
Dan Edelen
Josh Harris
Mark Swanson
Tim Challies
Rich Tatum
Amy K. Hall
LaShawn Barber

Tags: Random meme

Joe Carter, What Were You Thinking?

Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost has one of the most highly regarded Christian blogs, and just today he posted his top 100 influential Godblogs. Jordan's View was... not on his list. Therefore I must ask: Joe, what were you thinking?

Seriously though, I think that it would have been good to make the list, since it would have perhaps brought more readers my way. Did I not make it because I need to write about something other than my analytical Arminian vs Reformed theology series? Is my writing in the series too chunky and long-winded? Well, probably not. There are blogs on his list, like Parableman for example, that are probably a lot more "deep" than mine (certainly harder to understand I would think). Besides, as Joe admits, the list is highly subjective-- these are the blogs that have personally influenced him (Still, a plug from an influential and good blog like the evangelical outpost, well it sure would be nice).

Now for your information, I have written posts in recent days that weren't part of the ongoing (some might say "never-ending") series. Lighthearted, fun pieces even. I hope someone noticed.

But even if no one at all were reading it, I think "the series" has been a good exercise (for me). It's given me opportunity to do a kind of writing that I actually hadn't done that much of before on this blog. But more importantly, it has helped me think through the biblical validity of the Reformed view of the "doctrines of grace", and as I have done so, I have grown in confidence that these doctrines taught by the Reformers are indeed biblical, and thus, crucial to the building of a sound church and Christian life. Now I know many believe the exact opposite, saying that Calvinism actually paints a distorted picture of God and of His relations with human beings. My response is, judge the Reformed picture by the exegesis of the Scriptures of its best proponents and also, of course, by the fruit of their ways. (Plus, read my series...ha ha. I have had a few nice people tell me that they've found it helpful).

Sure, there are "immature" people who espouse Calvinism, people who may know some of the truths Calvinism proclaims but use the belief system to make themselves feel superior to others. But the true Calvinist must be humble, otherwise he's a fake who understands nothing of the doctrines of grace.

Anyway, it's too bad I didn't make Joe's list this time around, but I'll keep writing my series and trying to write consistently and creatively-- as the Lord leads-- and let's just see if I don't make the list next time. You're probably wondering why should I care? Well, I do admit-- I'd like to be read and to have an influential blog. But really, what's most important to me is to write a blog I think honors God, and is a reflection of my best, for Him.

Tags: Joe Carter, the evangelical outpost, top 100 blogs, Jordan's View

Arminian vs Reformed Theology : Answers to Objections to Unconditional Election-Pt 4

Unconditional, Individual Election to Salvation in Romans 9

In a previous article I wrote about why I believe that Romans 9, though not written to be a treatise on the doctrine of election, nevertheless teaches an unconditional, individual election that is integral to the argument being presented by Paul in the chapter. Those who believe that Romans 9 does not teach unconditional and individual election hold different interpretations, one being the idea that Jacob and Esau represent nations, and therefore that the election spoken of in the chapter has to do with the fate of nations. I think that this is incorrect and in this article will further defend my reasons for thinking that Romans 9 reveals an unconditional election of individuals.

Paul's Concerns in Romans 9

Let's examine the chapter again. Verses 1-5 begin with Paul expressing "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" over the fact that his own people, the Jewish nation of Israel, are missing salvation through Christ because of their unbelief. And yet, he immediately asserts that the "word of God (to Israel)" has not failed. Thus we learn immediately that the nation Paul is concerned with in this chapter is Israel. It is in relation to Israel that Paul frames the following problem, for which he will provide an answer:

If Israel has been elected by God, why isn't everyone in Israel responding in faith to Jesus Christ, and receiving salvation through Him? In fact, Israel as a nation seems to be missing salvation through Jesus, and therefore, it would seem that the word of God to them has failed.

So we see that Paul's concern is this chapter (and continuing into Romans 10-11) is with the salvation of Israel. It is because many of his fellow Jews are missing out on salvation through Christ that Paul feels such tremendous grief that he even goes so far as to say that he would be willing- if it were possible-- to have himself cut off from Christ, if then somehow his fellow Israelites might find salvation. But Paul will go on to show that God's word to Israel has not failed because 1) there is a remnant in Israel, chosen by grace, that is being saved; 2) God's plan for the elect nation of Israel is being carried out; 3) all who believe in Christ are "children of the promise", elected unconditionally by God. The unconditional nature of election is shown in that the guarantee of the success of God's word to Israel and also, to believers in Christ, Paul is arguing, is not based on their faithfulness to the covenant (their meeting conditions), but upon God's.

Let's see how Paul presents this argument.

The Israelites were chosen by God and are therefore a greatly blessed nation. Paul writes, "To them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises." In addition, Paul says, to the Israelites "belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, [came] the Christ, who is God over all". Yet even with these great advantages, the result of her favored status with God, Jerusalem/Israel "did not know the time of [her] visitation" (Luke 19:44)-- many Jews were not putting faith in Christ and therefore not attaining to the righteousness that is obtained through faith in Him.

So it seems as if the word of God to Israel has failed. Now if this is true, then the great promises to believers in Christ that Paul has been both enumerating and extolling (Romans 8:12-37) are likewise in danger of failing. But Paul encourages his Roman readers to remain confident about these promises concerning their faith in Christ. He does so by pointing out that God is faithful- for He has been faithful to His covenant with Israel, in preserving for Himself a remnant of believers in Israel who have been "chosen by grace" (Romans 9:29, 11:5).

In Romans 11 Paul will also explain that a "hardening" of Israel (by God) has occurred, so that the full number of Gentiles may be added in, that is, be saved, by being included in God's covenant (Romans 11:25). God's purpose in this scheme of election is that the Jews, who had always enjoyed favored status with the Lord, might be provoked to jealousy by seeing the Gentiles being "grafted in", and that they will once again return to the Lord to be shown mercy.

A Methodical Argument

Paul develops the argument methodically. In chapter 9 he explains that "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel", and "not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring", but that the true offspring of God are "children of the promise". In other words, there is a special blessing of God that is not passed down through the bloodline or by birth, but comes to those whom God chooses by His word of promise to believe. These chosen ones therefore become His "children of the promise". Another way to describe this would be to say that there is an election within election-- that is, the nation of Israel was elected to special privileges, yet within Israel, some individuals also are elected to receive the call to salvation in Christ.

To show how this happens, Paul first gives the example of Isaac, born to Sarah by a promise of God, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." Isaac is a "child of the promise." Now it is conceivable that one might challenge Paul by saying that the reason Isaac was chosen by God to receive the covenant blessing, rather than Abraham's first-born son Ishmael, was that Isaac was properly of the line of Abraham, (being a product of the union between Abraham and his wife Sarah), while Ishmael (conceived through Abraham's union with the maidservant Hagar) was not. But with the next example, Paul will show that the bloodline has nothing at all to do with who receives the special word of promise from God.

Paul points to Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, who was pregnant with twins in her womb. Here are two children to be born to the same mother, and having but one father (Isaac). Yet Jacob alone is chosen, while his twin Esau is not. Is this because Jacob is a better person than Esau? The biblical record of the life of Jacob reveals a cunning, deceitful man who tricked his older brother Esau out of the blessing that was due him as eldest son. Esau on the other hand is shown to be one who, by his actions, puts no value upon his birthright (Gen 25:34, Heb 12:16). Neither seems especially meritorious. Yet the question of whether the character of Jacob is superior to Esau and therefore merits God's call is a moot point. For Paul shows that when "they (Jacob and Esau) were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad— in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls", Rebekah was given the promise by God that "the older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob)." Therefore the election of Jacob and not Esau has nothing to do with any of their actions (including, of course, foreseen faith). To further emphasize the clear-cut nature of God's choice, Paul quotes God himself as saying, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Nations or Individuals?

Why does Paul refer to Jacob and Esau here? Is he speaking about the destinies of the nations Jacob and Esau represent? If so, it is strange that Paul neither indicates nor develops such a line of argument. It is true that the descendants of Esau-- the Edomites-- would someday serve the descendants of Jacob-- in fulfillment of the prophetic word of God ("the older will serve the younger"). But Paul in Romans 9 is apparently not concerned with contrasting the nation of Israel against other nations. He is not arguing for the right of God to choose the nation of Israel as the vehicle through which salvation would come (God has already made Israel the vehicle of salvation, he says in Romans 9:5). Rather, Paul's point is to emphasize the independence and unconditionality of God's choices in election ("Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"), and to show that even within the elect nation of Israel, there is a further election, made by God, of individuals to salvation. This is why God's covenant word to Israel has not failed: because God is saving specific individuals. For this reason Paul's examples throughout the chapter are of individuals (Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Pharoah)-- for he is talking about the salvation of persons, in contrast to the nation of Israel, which, on the whole, was missing salvation.

Since God's Word to Israel has not failed, we may also trust God's word to believers in Christ

Again, one of Paul's chief objectives is to prove that the Word of God to Israel has not failed, so that believers in Christ may also be assured that God's promises to them are likewise secure. Having made possibly the most sweeping promises in the entire word of God concerning the elect-- those whom God foreknew-- Paul here demonstrates that such promises are dependable, because they are based upon the trustworthiness of God, who has fulfilled, and is still fulfilling, His word to Israel. In speaking of the elect in Christ, Paul had previously written,

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 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? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 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 (Romans 8:28-39)"

Paul now argues that his listeners may indeed trust these amazing and good promises-- since God's word has not failed His chosen people the Jews, neither will it fail in regard to these great promises given to believers chosen in Christ. Notice that God's power and faithfulness is the focus throughout this great passage. Nowhere in these inspiring words do we find the implication that God's promises depend on the faithfulness of those receiving the promises. Rather it is the powerful love of God in which Paul encourages us to put our confidence.

How do Paul's examples of Isaac and Jacob show God's faithfulness to believers as individuals? Paul shows that God chooses specific individuals (Isaac, Jacob) by an election that has its basis, not in the foreseen, "free" responses of men, but in God's compassion and mercy (Romans 9:15). Election is said to be not prompted by, or dependent upon, human works or will or exertion (Romans 9:11,16). God's elective call is generative-- it does not merely foresee what those chosen will do and thus formulate an elective call in light of such foreknowledge. Rather God's elective call is the catalyst by which His chosen ones come to Him, so that His redemptive plan might fully unfold in their lives (Romans 8:29-30). Again, Paul does not say that Jacob and Esau represent nations here; his focus in this chapter is the nation of Israel alone, and the problem of why some individuals in Israel are being saved, while others in Israel are not.

Israel's Unbelief is the Result of Election

What then is the cause of Israel's unbelief? If elect, why don't they all believe? In verses 30-33, Paul describes the problem of Israel's mis-targeted pursuit of righteousness:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Note carefully that in these verses Paul does not answer the question of why Israel was unbelieving. He says that the Israelites have not attained the righteousness that comes by faith alone, because they were pursuing this righteousness as if it were based on works (Rom 9:32). But in Romans, chapter 11, Paul does explain the "why" behind the unbelief of Israel:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”

So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”

And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever”(Romans 11:1-10)

Paul's explanation for Israel's unbelief is clear: it is the result of the fact that some were elected while the rest were hardened, both election and hardening being God's work. Paul even presents himself as an example of one who is a believing Israelite chosen by grace. [As an aside, it is hard to picture Paul giving an "Arminian testimony"-- that God chose him in light of his own "foreseen faith"-- for prior to being called by Christ, he was quite busy persecuting and killing Christians. Even after becoming a leader and a great apostle, Paul never forgot the evil deeds of his pre-Christian days-- this helped to keep him humble and to remember that God's grace alone had saved him and made him what he was (1 Cor 15:9-10)].

What is "it" (Romans 11:7) that Israel has failed to obtain? "It" refers to the righteousness and the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 9:30-33, Romans 10:1-4). As in Romans 8:29, we find here again in Romans 11 that God's foreknowledge of His people-- ("His people whom He foreknew" Romans 11:2)-- is personal knowledge, not merely knowledge of what the people of Israel would do. Israel as a nation was chosen (known) by God and God has not rejected Israel, yet only the elect within Israel have obtained the righteousness unto salvation through Christ that they were destined for. The rest were hardened (Romans 9:18, Romans 11:7-8).

Objections Raised Demonstrate that Paul is arguing for an Unconditional, Individual Election

It is precisely because Paul says that this election to salvation pertains to some and not to others, and is being accomplished according to the prerogative of God alone (not in response to the meeting of any conditions by human beings), that Paul anticipates and then responds to objections (as stated in verses 14 and 19). There would be no objections if what Paul was arguing for was conditional election.

Now the first objection raised is the possible injustice of God in this type of election. Paul writes,

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills (Romans 9:14-18)."

Paul's response to the charge of possible injustice in the scheme of election he is presenting may at first seem to not answer the charge. The objection is a logical response to what Paul has been teaching, for it concludes that if God's elective choices, such as choosing Jacob over Esau, are not based on any merits within persons, but reflect solely God's choice of one rather than another, then there appears to be injustice on God's part. Notice that Paul does not correct the understanding behind the objection; there is nothing wrong with that. Paul's answer is to quote Scriptures demonstrating God's divine authority to dispense mercy or hardening just as He pleases, because of who He is. So the fact that God's elective choices are completely independent of, and not conditioned upon, human actions (verse 16) emphasizes the divine prerogative. Also, Paul describes election as dependent on God's mercy alone, which implies that all of mankind is in such a pitiful state that God's mercy alone is the only thing they must rely on.

Now Paul responds to a further objection. "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

Bob Deffinbaugh, in his article "Divine Election is Questioned" detects what seems to be a difference between these two objections (verses 14 and 19). The first (v14), raised by Paul himself, asks whether there is injustice when God chooses people according to His own counsel, and seeks an explanation of God's ways, rather than demanding a justification from God for His actions. But the second objection seems to have a different spirit. It is being raised, not by Paul, but by someone else ("You").

To paraphrase the objection, it states, "OK Paul, you say God can do whatever he wants and no one can stop Him. But if that's true, how can He then find fault with anyone? If God is controlling who is elect and who is not elect, if He is calling all the shots, how can anyone be held responsible? Who can fight God?" This objection, unlike the previous one, seems to challenge God and to put Him on trial, so to speak.

Take note of Paul's bold answer, which is really a rebuke. "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Romans 9:20-24)"

If the Arminian understanding of election were true, one might have expected to find Paul responding to this second objection differently. He might have said, "No, no, you have misconstrued me. I am not saying that God chooses to elect people, as He did Jacob and not Esau, completely without regard to the faith He sees in advance in them. By His perfect foreknowledge, God does indeed take into account people's faith when He makes His elective choices. So you see, His elective choices are perfectly fair-- for they anticipate the choices His creatures will make and takes them into account, in accord with His wise purpose. Your accusation that God is being unfair or arbitrary then, is misguided; you have misunderstood my argument." But this is not how Paul answers! Paul does not correct the understanding behind the objection, for it has accurately grasped the basic facts of Paul's argument -- that God, completely independent of human influence, sovereignly chooses specific individuals for election to salvation, in accordance with His own good purpose, and also, hardens others. Nevertheless, Paul rebukes the attitude that lies behind the question. For by the question the objector dares to hold the Creator accountable to the creature.

As Bob Deffinbaugh writes in his article "Divine Election is Questioned":

"The question assumes that if God is sovereign and He has determined all that will happen, then men are no longer responsible. The premise is correct: God is sovereign. God does choose whom He will save and whom He will harden. The conclusion is entirely wrong. The question assumes that if God is sovereign, men are not to be held accountable for their deeds. The answer given later [by Paul] is that God’s sovereignty is such that it gives men a choice and holds them accountable for it [emphasis mine]."

The Potter and the Clay

Paul maintains that even if God chooses some and passes by others, it is His divine right to do so, and by this kind of election God is ultimately working out His own merciful purpose, one that will being the most glory to Himself.

He describes God as a Potter who has absolute rights over His creation (the clay), "to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use (Romans 9:21)." Not only that, but Paul addresses God's purpose in so doing, saying that in electing some and not others God is both "[showing] his wrath and [making] known his power (Romans 9:22)." For, Paul writes, God "has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Romans 9:22-24)". In other words, God endures the continual rebellion of the non-elect-- described here as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"-- with great patience (for if He wanted to, He could immediately destroy them). Restraining His power to execute judgment upon the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, He is calling out individuals to be saved, not only from among His chosen people of Israel, but now also, from among non-Jews (Gentiles):

"As indeed he says in Hosea,“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted, "If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah (Romans 9:25-29)."

Mystery, Justice and God's Glory in Election

So we find in Romans 9 Paul describing an unconditional election of individuals from among Jews and Gentiles, one that takes place according the merciful purpose of God, and which saves only a remnant. It is necessary that such an election would be not "of works", because otherwise it would not have as its only source the grace of God given through Christ, but would depend upon the will or exertion of men (Romans 9:16, 10:1-3, 11:6). Think of how industrious Jacob was, in a fleshly way, in his attempts to obtain the blessing of God throughout his life. Yet in the final analysis, the favor he did receive was due entirely to God's grace and not his exertions (Romans 9:16).

Election must also be unconditional so that God, and no other, receives the glory from it. If man can claim even the tiniest part for his election unto salvation, God does not receive the full credit He alone deserves. Of course Scripture teaches that in any case it is impossible for men to boast that it was something in them that enabled them to choose Christ (1 Cor 4:7). Our salvation is a resurrection from the dead; we make no contribution to it (Eph 2:4-7).

Despite the fact that God is sovereign over the process of election, Paul shows that God holds the vessels of wrath accountable for their sins against Him. Clearly there remains much mystery in all of this, for Paul provides no explanation as to why some are elected to receive mercy while others are passed over, when all are equally undeserving. But surely we must not therefore conclude that God's choosing to elect unto salvation some, while passing over others, is unjust.

For if God chose to destroy the entire human race He would be fully justified, since all have sinned and fall short of His glory, and the penalty for sin is death (as Paul has argued previously in Romans 3:23,6:23). Accordingly, there is no injustice if God withholds salvation from those who do not deserve it, and certainly none deserve it. On the other hand, God demonstrates incredible mercy and grace by choosing, from among the great mass of humanity that universally rejects Him, stands condemned in its sin, and deserves nothing but condemnation, some for election unto salvation. This great salvation extends far beyond mere mercy into amazing grace, for God lavishes upon the undeserving chosen ones blessings unimaginable (1 Cor 2:9). At the same time, the justice and wrath of God against sin will be shown in the reprobation that leaves others to the just deserts for their sins, for God will not let evil nor evildoers go unpunished, but will "carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay (Rom 9:28)."

Certainly a great deal more could be said about Romans 9, for example, about the differences between the views of the Calvinist vs the Arminian in their definitions of corporate vs individual election. I direct you however, to an outstanding analysis on this very issue by Tom Schreiner:

CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL ELECTION IN ROMANS 9: A RESPONSE TO BRIAN ABASCIANO by Tom Schreiner

My intention had been to make this the "wrap-up" post for answering objections to unconditional election, but there are important objections I'd still like to address. I had better leave them for the next post. I hope however, that the points I've made here have helped demonstrate that there is a solid Scriptural case for unconditional election of individuals to salvation, particularly in Romans, chapters 9-11.

Resources for further study:
God's Purpose According to Election: Paul's Argument in Romans 9 by Steven M. Baugh

The Most Important Chapter in the Bible: Romans 9 by W.E. Best (free online book)

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible- Romans 9

Divine Election is Questioned (Romans 9:14-23) by Bob Deffinbaugh, Th.M.

A Reformed Response to the Comments of R. C. H. Lenski on Romans 9 by James White

Has God Failed? A bible study on Romans 9 by Lambert Dolphin
Election: Individual vs. Corporate- Links to miscellaneous articles at Monergism.com

Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election, Pt. 1 and 2- John Piper

The Joy of Romans 9 by John Piper

The Elect Obtained It But the Rest Were Hardened, Part 1- John Piper

The Elect Obtained It But the Rest Were Hardened, Part 2- John Piper

God's 2 x 4: Romans 9 on The Dividing Line with James White (free audio)

Tags: Arminian vs Reformed theology, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Unconditional election, Romans 9, election of individuals, corporate vs individual election