Belgic Confession, Article V: The Authority of Scripture

We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.

And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them – not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.

For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen. (BC, Article V)

The authority of Scripture is one of those things about which a lot of people talk, but few people live.  Many churches have articles in their respective statements of faith in which they pay some homage to the authority of Scripture, but in reality they hardly ever even preach from the Bible – the supposed authority from which their beliefs reside.  Instead of preaching expositionally through the Scriptures and making application after careful exegesis, the Bible is used to prop up the latest ‘culturally relevant’ sermon which was born from the pastor’s latest movie watched or book read.

Does God Want Us to Avoid Certain Career Choices?

Question: Are there certain ‘jobs’ or ‘careers’ that God doesn’t want us involved in because for some reason they may lead others astray from Him or us as well?

Answer:  Well clearly there would be jobs that are off limits due to the fact that they are inherently sinful, such as prostitution or drug dealing.  Anything that is patently illegal or immoral would be good candidates for jobs that God wouldn’t want us doing.

The Belgic Confession, Article IV: Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture

We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and the New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged. These are thus named in the Church of God.

The books of the Old Testament are the five books of Moses, to wit: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the book of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two of the Kings, two books of the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Job, the Psalms, the three books of Solomon, namely, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; the four great prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah (Lamentations), Ezekiel, and Daniel; and the twelve lesser prophets, namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Those of the New Testament are the four evangelists, to wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the thirteen epistles of the apostle Paul, namely, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon; Hebrews; the seven epistles of the other apostles, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John. (BC, Article IV)

In our last look at the Belgic Confession (Article III), we demonstrated that God spoke through the apostles and prophets in order to communicate to his people.  We observed that Christianity is a revealed faith, in that God revealed himself to us through his spoken and written word.  This begs the question if God spoke to us through his word, how do we know that we have the ‘right word’ from God?  One of the arguments that has been leveled against the Bible and Christianity is how do we know what we have in the Bible is what God intended for us to know.  Additionally, how do we know that what we have in the Bible is everything that God intended for us to know?  Essentially the questions boil down to this:  What makes these books of the Bible the written word of God?

Why Did God Create Mankind Knowing They Would Fall Into Sin?

Question: Did God know that Adam and Eve were going to sin? If He did then why did He create them?

Answer:  This is a two-part question, so let’s deal with in two parts.  The first question asks “Did God know that Adam and Eve were going to sin?”  In order to answer this question, we must know what the Bible teaches about God’s knowledge.  Orthodox Christian theology teaches that God is omniscient.  This is a word derived from Latin, which literally means “all-knowing.”  Does the Bible support the claims of orthodox Christian theology?  Let’s examine some passages:

“Rightly Dividing the Word — Law & Gospel”

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul instructs his young protege to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  What does that mean?  It’s a call to all ministers of the word to present the word of God correctly — i.e., as it is meant to be understood and faithful to the overall message of Scripture.

Sadly, many modern day preachers are doing anything but rightly dividing the word of truth.  They bend and twist Scripture to fit their particular ‘pet theology,’ or they use Scripture to make a point to 21st century hearers that is completely foreign to the way it would have been understood to the original audience.

James warns his readers that they should be very careful in striving to be a teacher of God’s word because those “who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).  We’re all going to be judged for our sins, but those who lead people stray with false teaching will be held to a greater judgment.

So how do we rightly divide the word of truth?  We need to understand the ‘meta-narrative’ of Scripture — i.e., the overarching story of the Bible.  Sermons not only need to be exegetically sound, but they also need to tie into the meta-narrative.  Every passage in Scripture has its immediate context, but it also fits into God’s story of redemption from Genesis to Revelation.  Jesus told the disciples on the road to Emmaus that he was the central focus of Scripture (Luke 24:27).  The cross is the central point in all the Bible — it is the point where God’s law meets with God’s grace.

The following audio file is taken from a recent White Horse Inn radio broadcast and it shows how Scripture should be understood in terms of Law and Gospel.  Give it a listen.

White Horse Inn program #946:  Rightly Dividing the Word:  Law & Gospel (original air date: May 24, 2009)

Can God Use ‘Sinners’ to Accomplish His Will?

Question:  Exodus 2 records that Moses killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew slave. It also states that he did so “after looking around to make sure no one was watching,” which indicates this was a premeditated act.  Pharaoh did issue a death sentence against Moses, which caused him to flee Egypt; but apart from that, why did God not punish Moses more severely for such an act?  After all, isn’t murder still murder? And, despite such an act, God still chose to use Moses in a mighty way (which reminds me of how God used Paul, even though Paul had committed some heinous acts himself prior to his conversion).

Answer:  Your question strikes to the core of the overarching question “Why does God choose to use any of us to accomplish his will?”  The short answer to that question is that God is gracious.  God is gracious to work his sovereign and holy will through broken, imperfect vessels such as us.  It also underscores the point that Joseph made to his brothers when he said “You meant it for evil, but God intended it for good” (Genesis 50:20).  God is able to use us, warts and all, to accomplish his will.  Our failures and foibles in no way prove as hindrances for God ability to use us.

Is God Just in Saving Only a Few?

Question:  This is the response of a popular apologetics website on the issue of election: 

God’s choosing to be gracious to some is not unfair to the others. No one deserves anything from God; therefore, no one can object if he does not receive anything from God. An illustration would be a man randomly handing out money to five people in a crowd of twenty. Would the fifteen people who did not receive money be upset? Probably so. Do they have a right to be upset? No, they do not. Why? Because the man did not owe anyone money. He simply decided to be gracious to.

 

The comparison is off, and sugar coated.  It would be more accurate to say, if people were trapped in a burning house and God chose to save only a few, instead of all, he would be totally within his right!

And you say this is justified? But the people in the burning house were put there by God, through no choice of there own, they can’t help but be there, because they weren’t perfect and were born with (through no choice of there own) inherent sin. So, we are created by God with flaws, and because of this, we deserve hell.

My questions are, where is the logic and justice in this? And how is God worthy of worship because he lets so many suffer in hell and only chooses a few? How can a Christian be satisfied with this scenario?

Great is Your Faithfulness!

The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. (Lamentations 3:22-23; ESV)

If the way we react to disasters and calamities is any indicator, we grossly take the grace and mercy of God for granted.  Usually whenever a disaster strikes, the inevitable response from believers and non-believers alike is “How could God let this happen?”  We have become so accustomed to grace that we bank on it – we expect the sun to rise every morning; we expect the rain to fall in season; we expect the crops to bear fruit in due course; and we expect to draw breath every waking moment.

Were the Apostles Wrong About the Timing of Christ’s Return?

Question: Hi, I’ve been going over this question in my mind for awhile now and I was hoping you could give a good answer.  Why did the Apostles expect Jesus to return in their lifetime?  Here’s a few verses that has me thinking this:

1 Peter 4:7 – “But the end of all things is near: so be serious in your behavior and keep on the watch with prayer.”

Romans 13:11 – “Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.”

James 5:8 – “You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.”

There are a couple others…

Were they simply wrong?  I’ve kind of thought that since Jesus said no one would know when he would return, not even himself, but the Father.

“Why Women Are Unhappy”

I was reading through some Townhall articles (www.townhall.com), and came across this gem from Phyllis Schlafly.  If anybody know anything about Schlafly, she is a conservative columnist and political analyst and a constitutional attorney by trade.  In addition to all of that, she is an outspoken critic of feminism and the feminist movement.  As such, she receives the usual amount of vitriolic hatred that the political and ideological left spews on anyone who dares to disagree with their insane views of reality.

Her latest column, entitled “Why Women are Unhappy,” comments on a recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that “shows women’s happiness has measurably declined since 1970.”  The authors of the study advance two possible theories to explain their findings:  1) Women’s liberation raised the expectations of women and unhappiness ensues when they fail “to have it all”; 2) Women are being overwhelmed by the pressures of being mothers in the workforce.

These are reasonable theories.  I can certainly attest to the fact that the world makes a lot of promises that it fails to deliver on, why should it be any different for a woman than it is for a man?  My theological worldview is such that we shouldn’t seek to find fulfillment in workforce, but in Jesus Christ.  It’s not that work can’t be fulfilling or rewarding, but if we treat our careers as the “be-all-end-all” of life, we’ll be sorely disappointed.  The second theory also makes a lot of sense — working 40+ hours a week in addition to trying to be mom and wife is demanding work; no doubt about it!

However, I think Schlafly has some better answers.  She postulates, and I agree, that the timeline of the study coincides with the feminist movement in America, and that correlation is too striking to be a mere coincidence.  She offers two further theories to explain the data:  1) The victimhood mentality that is fostered by feminism prevents women from ever being happy; 2) the unintended (or maybe intended) consequences of feminism which portrays men as superfluous and has led to many more instances of single-motherhood.  

I’d like to offer my own theory which lines up with Schlafly’s thesis.  The feminist movement has always sought to blur the distinction between men and women (which seems patently absurd).  The differences between the sexes go far deeper than simply reproductive organs.  God created men and women to compliment each other — what a man lacks in his physical/emotional/spiritual makeup a woman supplies with her physical/emotional/spiritual makeup, and vice versa.  God created both men and women in his image (Genesis 1:27), which implies that neither one alone bears the complete image of God.  That is why marriage is the union of man and woman into a one flesh union.  When you convince a woman that she should be unhappy with her God-given role in his creation, it’s no wonder why this would ultimately lead to unhappiness on the part of women — you are telling her she shouldn’t be the person God created her to be!

Shlafly closes her article with the following:

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20 percent of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. I suggest that women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth.

Give the article a read, it’s very eye-opening!