A Teenager's Rebellion, Provocation, or Sincerely Seeking...

Q: My 16 year-old son has decided that Christianity is not for him. He has asked me to prove what I believe logically, without using the Bible or the "Christian perspective". That puts me at a disadvantage, since I can only explain it by the Bible and faith and assurance he gives me. He [my son] does not accept the fact that much of belief in God requires faith. My dilemma is this: he wants me to explain that we have a soul that lives beyond this world, that there is a hell and a Heaven, and that God is the ultimate authority figure, without using the Bible. Can you help me??? Can you suggest any written information I can get my hands on that will help my son see the validity of the Christian faith, from a perspective of someone not believing initially, and then coming to belief through the trial and research?

A: Wow! I’ll say that your son’s request is grossly unfair…like asking someone to tell you where Haiti is without reference to its location. It makes no sense!

In order to answer his question, it is important to know first why he “doesn’t think Christianity is for him”? What is his motivation in making these statements? Is he:

• Asking sincere, searching, questions as he moves towards independence?
• Struggling with the arguments of his peers and seeing no way to answer them?
• Trying to justify behavior he knows God doesn’t approve of?
• Reacting against an inaccurate modeling of Christianity?
• Trying to irritate his mother by “pushing her buttons”? or
• Acting out against some perceived hurt or injustice for which he holds God responsible?

Each of these dispositions requires a different response. Some might reflect a genuine desire to put faith into perspective. Others might be the result of a hardening heart – a child who wants to pursue life on his own terms and must eliminate the obstacle posed by God.

What does your son think of the Jesus of the Bible? Does he like Jesus or reject even the notion of what the Bible tells us about Him? How would he define Christianity in his own words? These kinds of questions might reveal that the Christianity he rejects is not authentic Christianity at all.

From what you have written, it sounds like your son is saying that he wants to live his life without regard to God. He is ready to take life on his own terms. In that case, his challenge to you is not sincere, but perhaps prideful – declaring at the same time that he can be the god of his own life and that he knows more than you do. The way that he has framed the challenge, by limiting how you can make your case, suggests that he isn’t really interested in the answer.

For you to “prove” the existence of someone you know very well cannot be relegated to what is and is not admissible evidence. Is there evidence? Yes, abundant evidence, but it is the kind that will be dismissed by the person who rejects any evidence that proves the case while limiting the remaining evidence to things that will not substantiate the supernatural. What kind of evidence is there? Again, the first is your own life and relationship with Christ. Add to that the evidence of 100s of millions of people who know the very same Jesus – cross-culturally, -ethnically, -racially, -socioeconomically. The person who knows and loves Jesus in urban 21st century America has the same experience as the person who knows and loves Jesus in rural Ethiopia. They don’t differ on essentials (biblical essentials, by the way)… nor would Christians across the centuries. This is remarkable – even miraculous. There have been a number of authors who have done a fairly good job making the logical case (see below*), and their books might be helpful. Faith, however, is the result of a genuine spiritual encounter with the living God. A person who asks the questions your son has asked, if he is willing to hear the answer from God, will receive it. A person with a hardened heart who demands that God satisfy his proposition for how God is to encounter him is being foolish. There is abundant evidence for God – every person of faith, having eyes to see, can see that. It is the hardened heart that blinds a person to see what is plainly evident.

Here is another word picture that perhaps your son can relate to. It would be like your son trying to convince you that driving through red lights is illegal and dangerous, without referencing the driver’s manual, any of that legal mumbo-jumbo including the laws of physics, and without talking from a “social responsibility” perspective. Ultimately running red lights is dangerous whether your son convinces you of it or not. There is another way to learn this lesson, but the cost is simply too high and the consequences too permanent. The same is true of our choosing to ignore God.

If your son insists on limiting the evidence, what kind of evidence is acceptable to him? What kind of proof would be so convincing that he would immediately surrender his life into Jesus’ hands? What sort of evidence does he consider valid in proving something to you? Certainly the same kind of evidence can be used to show the validity of Christianity. Your son, while proposing to have an enlightened response, is actually very narrow-minded in his approach to God. Limiting the evidence serves only ignorance, a kind of spiritual “climate-gate” if you will. If he were willing to apply himself to the evidence he would have a much more interesting challenge to his current position. There is additional evidence that is biblical, testimonial, historical, forensic (see The Testimony of the Evangelists, below), and relational.

Finally, another important element to consider is “how does your son give and receive love?” He needs to know that you love him no matter what his position on Christianity is. It is also helpful to then show how Jesus reveals his love for your son through their own “love language.”

If we can answer these questions first, then we can develop a much better answer to his “proof challenge”.

* Here are just a few books that might be helpful. There are many more in our church library.

• The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
• The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis
• Evidence the Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
• The Testimony of the Evangelists, Simon Greenleaf
• Five Love Languages of Teens, Chapman

Why Does Jesus Conceal The Good News of God?

Q: I read Mark 4:11-12 (New Living Translation) where "Jesus says 'You are permitted to understand the secret about the Kingdom of God. But I am using these stories to conceal everything about it from outsiders, so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled'."
My question: It’s not clear to us why Jesus wanted to prevent outsiders from understanding. He says it’s so the Scripture might be fulfilled, but it still seems like we’re missing the full meaning. Wouldn’t Jesus want everyone to understand His teaching? Is it because the timing wasn’t right yet? (i.e. Jesus hadn’t gone to the cross yet to establish the new covenant).

A: Matthew gives a bit more context by quoting Isaiah more fully:
You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.

Which is from Isaiah 6:8-13, in which the context is Isaiah’s willingness to go and speak on God’s behalf: And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Then I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said: “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste, and the Lord removes people far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains when it is felled.” The holy seed is its stump.

In the context of the passage, Jesus is talking about people who hear with their hearts. The parables, it seems, were written in a heart-specific language – the hearing is for those whose hearts are seeking God. To the one with even a little bit of an inclination to hear what God was saying it was granted. Those who are not seeking Him will not hear Him, even if he were to make it abundantly clear. Those who do not have a God-directed heart simply hear an interesting story that they will reject. In fact, their complete understanding could prove dangerous to the fulfilling of all Scripture.

How so? Wouldn’t Jesus want everyone to understand His teaching in plain language? Perhaps, except for those who, when they understood His claim of Deity, would seek to kill Him. The plan of God was not to be fast-tracked. The Pharisees and leaders were quick to seek Jesus’ death whenever His claim was clear.

What happened to Dan & Ephraim in Revelation 7?

Q. Why are Dan and Ephraim not included in the list of Jewish tribes in Revelation 7?

What a great question…since it reveals that you are reading your Bible closely. Yes, the list of the tribes of Israel that you read in Revelation 7 is different from what you would normally read in the Old Testament. It is a section with several interpretive possibilities. I would suggest the following solution.

John’s theme in the Book of Revelation is to pastorally encourage Christians (those who by personal faith in Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection) to overcome the idolatry and sexual immorality of the world and remain faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ. The tribes of Dan and Ephraim were known for their blatant idolatry in the Old Testament. Their exclusion from this list of tribes, each with 12,000 people sealed, is likely based on their close ties with idolatry. Alan Johnson insightfully writes,

“The early church held that the Antichrist would arise from the tribe of Dan. Charles has argued that this belief is in fact pre-Christian Jewish tradition, first mentioned in Christian sources in Irenaeus (d. second century A.D.) … Furthermore, Dan was associated in the OT with idolatry (Judges 18:18-19; 1 Kings 12:29-30). This may be the clue. If John sought to expose Christian idolatry and beast worship in his day by excluding Dan from the list of those sealed, it may also be possible to explain, on the same basis, why Manasseh and Joseph were chosen to fill up the sacred number rather than Manasseh and Ephraim. In the OT Ephraim was also explicitly identified with idolatry (Hosea 4:17).” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12)

To go beyond your original question, about why the omission, it may be informative to consider that many scholars identify the 144,000 with the whole elect people of God, including both Jews and Gentiles. If this is accurate, then this passage, using symbolic numbers, refers to the sealing of the true church from out of the midst of those who merely claim to be the church. Let me conclude with another quote from Johnson,

“The description of the judgments under the sixth seal (6:12 ff.) ends with the question "The great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" (6:17). Chapter 7 answers this question by implying that only the true servants of God, who are divinely sealed, can be protected from the wrath of God and the Lamb.” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12)

Do we instinctively know God's law through our conscience?

Q: I've been reading Romans (NLT). In 2:14 it says, "Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong." But in 7:7 Paul says, "Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is evil? Of course not! The law is not sinful, but it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet.’" It sounds like Paul is saying that we instinctively know God's law through our conscience, but he then say's that he wouldn't have known that something was wrong prior to learning the law (7:7-9). Can you help me with this?

A: Perhaps it would be helpful to read Roman’s within a framework of understanding regarding the people who were to receive the letter. Paul was not the pastor of any of the churches to whom he wrote. He was planning to visit in order to be encourage and be encouraged by the Romans churches and to establish a base for ministry to Spain. Other believers had founded the Roman churches (though one of the house churches, that of Priscilla and Aquila, was led by people who he had served with earlier in Corinth). A primary concern of Paul was that they come to understand his teaching, since Paul was alleged by some to be teaching a lawless Gospel. So, Paul is addressing people in established churches who for the most part do not know him and might have concerns about his teachings. There are four groups of people under consideration in the Book of Romans:

• Gentile non-believers (prominent in Chapter 1),
• Jewish non-believers (prominent in Chapter 2),
• Jewish believers and
• Gentile believers.

Paul was aware that Jewish people generally identified more with other Jews, non-believers included, than with Gentile believers. They were convinced that their brothers in faith were the Jews. Paul is trying to explain that the true brotherhood was along the lines of faith among believers, not race, whether Jewish or Gentile. Everyone else needs Christ.

Within that context the Gentiles referred to in Romans 2:13-15 are the believers – they are more lawful without the Law than the Jews themselves. They have the presence of the Spirit, who is leading them in the works of the law written on their hearts. They are the true brethren of the Jewish believers and demonstrate it by this very lawfulness. All men have a conscience and have some ability to discern right from wrong. Without God’s salvation, that conscience can be ignored, seared, or weakened. Without salvation, based on conscience alone, men will not become righteous.

 In Romans 7:7, Paul is relating his own experience as a Jew with the Law. He could have claimed that he was a righteous follower of the Law (and he did at one time) until God showed him a sin that was at work in him even at the height of his Law-keeping – that of covetousness. In fact, Paul learns that sin is pervasive, even in this man who so desires to keep the Law. Paul wants his Jewish brethren to be aware of the conviction that the Law should bring – a man should not claim proudly that he is a faithful follower or the Law would condemn him. In humility, the Jewish Law-keeper must recognize his own inadequacy and receive salvation from Jesus Christ. Just as the Gentiles.

So, in summary, the contexts of the two statements are very different, so they are not in disagreement

Can we change God's Mind?

Q: If a person is destined or foreseen by God; from his beginning to go to hell, can a Christian come along side him and pray and intercede for him and change God's mind about this man; change his heart so that he will enter into heaven? Or is he predestined to go to hell and there's nothing we can do?

A: You’ve asked questions that have been debated among Protestant Christians for more than 400 years. While almost all Christians believe God is sovereign — He is all-powerful and all-knowing, so it would be impossible to “change his mind” in the way we can change another person’s mind — they disagree on how His sovereignty interacts with human freedom. Some believe that God’s power overcomes any resistance to His offer of salvation. Moreover they believe that God has willed, or predestined, only some people for salvation. They believe that even though a person may experience “choosing” when they receive salvation, they are really unable to resist God’s grace and they “choose” salvation because God has already chosen them. These people are generally called Calvinists.

Other Christians, called Arminians, believe that God wills that all people be saved and respects human freedom to the point that He limits His own power to overwhelm their freedom, and when they choose salvation, they truly make a completely free choice to do so. In leaving the decision to them, God respects their choice continually. Should they choose, having once been saved, to reject Him they can lose their salvation.

This is a simplification of a very complex issue, but it summarizes the two positions with respect to your questions. All but the most extreme elements on both sides consider each other to be genuine brothers and sisters in Christ despite the disagreement. The Foursquare Movement, along with most Methodists, and Free Will Baptists for example, are considered Arminian. Presbyterians and the Reformed Churches, for example, are mostly Calvinists.

Both sides can point to a lot of Bible verses to support their positions. That’s why this debate has been going on for so long.

However, a very wise pastor once said that after many years of ministry and Bible study, he didn’t know how these two views could ever be reconciled. But he was confident that somewhere way over his head where he couldn't possibly understand it these two views do reconcile in God. I think that’s a very good way of looking at it. Honest Christians, who love God and His Word, honestly disagree on the questions you pose. But I sense more than a theological curiosity in your questions. I sense a heart that longs for others to be saved—to know and be known by Jesus Christ. Remember that encouraging this desire is more important than answering debatable questions as you ponder these things.

While others may look at someone walking away from Christ and debate whether he ever really was predestined to be Christ’s (Calvinist), or whether he made a truly free decision to reject Christ (Arminian), you run after him. Tell him again of the Savior whom you love, and who loves him. Pray for his soul trusting him to God, who loves him more than you or I can ever could. God will be greatly pleased when you do these things..

When Was Jesus Actually Born?

Q:  The summary at the beginning of the Book of Mark in my Bible includes approximate dates and key events.  It listed Jesus' birth as 2-3 BC.  Why wasn’t it 0?  My limited understanding is that it was supposed to be 0, but when the BC/AD system came into existence several centuries after the birth of Christ, they made a mistake in calculating the actual year of His birth.  Just curious if you have any other insight or info on this.  

A: Remember that the chapter summaries in Bibles are not inspired Scripture (nor are the numbers or the section headings). Those summaries are brief introductions or commentary to help provide the reader with context.

Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, most likely closer to 6 BC.  You have it right, though... it was based on a different calendar system.  In the reckoning of time based on BC (before Christ) and AD (Anno Dommini = year of our Lord), there was no year “0,” so it goes straight from 1 BC to 1 AD, which is only a minor problem, but it helps explain why dating ancient times from historical records is difficult.  Eras were generally the basis for how to number years and they differed from one nation to the next.  In 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguus came up with the current system to replace the Diocletian calendar.  He didn’t have the data required to determine the exact year when Christ was born (though he honored Christ with the designations of BC and AD).  Since we know that Herod the Great reigned until 4 BC, and since we know that Jesus was about 1 to 2 years old when Herod had the children of Bethlehem killed, we now believe that Jesus was born around 5-6 BC.  There are some scholars who have even suggested that His birth may have been as early as 18 BC and that he was close to 50 when He died.  The important thing to remember when you read the biblical accounts is that they never give a date – they only describe who was in leadership, so it is our only means by which to compare dates to the calendar we currently use.

Jesus, Mithras and Horus

Q:  How does one reconcile the existence of Jesus with the preexisting myths of Mithras, Horus, etc., which predate Jesus by centuries and have some great similarities with that story? Why is Jesus the savior and not Mithras?

A:  Those preexisting myths bear no resemblance to the story of Jesus Christ. According to what read, Mithras was not born of a virgin in a cave. In fact, Mithras was born fully grown from solid rock; the event leaving a cavity behind. There was no mention of a virgin. He was helped out of the rock by shepherds, who offer him a pick from their flock. Persian Mithraic traditions recount his conception through the incestual relationship of the god Ahura-Mazda and his mother. And the earliest written records of this story, again from what I have read, post-date Christianity. The more I read about Mithras, the more surprised I am that anyone would link it to Christianity and Jesus Christ.  Horus is even more difficult to understand since there don't seem to be any parallels to the history of Jesus. Mithras and Horus are myths, and they are known to be myths. The story of Jesus has a thorough, verifiable, historical record.