jump to navigation

That’s What Christmas Is All About, Charlie Brown December 19, 2008

Posted by jasonlowe in Culture.
add a comment

charlie_tree1

The countdown is upon us.  Only 6 days until Christmas.  Many folks are busy wrapping up their Christmas shopping, wrapping up their Christmas gifts, and wrapping up bags of baked Christmas goodies.  But, just as Linus needed to share the real “reason for the season” with Charlie Brown, Christians need to be reminded to share with others the true meaning of Christmas, the birth of Jesus Christ.  We attempt to accomplish this task in our ever-increasing secularized culture by wishing others “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays”, participating in Christmas plays and programs, and conducting live nativity scenes.

However, it appears that many of us who celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior don’t really understand or comprehend the true magnificance of this gift, if the results of a recent report from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life are even remotely accurate.  In that report, a slight majority (52%) of American Christians think that at least some non-Christian faiths (such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, etc.) can lead to eternal life.  If that is true, then what are these confessing Christians really celebrating at Christmas?

It certainly cannot be the birth of the one and only true Son of God, as He is revealed in the Bible.  For the Bible clearly teaches that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is the only way that a person can be saved.  Consider the following Scripture passages:

John 3:16-18: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in him is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

John 14:6: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

Acts 4:11-12: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.  And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Romans 10:9-10: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”

This is the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus Christ is the only Savior.  This is known as the exclusivity of the gospel, and it is not a popular message in our culture of tolerance and inclusivism.  Increasingly, it is not even a popular message in our churches, as evidenced by the results of this Pew Forum study.  The challenges of the exclusivity of the gospel are nothing new, as history has shown us 4 basic views.

1.  Universalism – this view holds that there’s really no need for a savior since everybody will be saved.  Hence, Jesus Christ is not the only Savior.  John 3:16-18 (quoted above) is only one of many passages that disprove this view.

2.  Pluralism – this view holds that there are many paths to God.  In other words, one can be saved through many types of religions.  Hence, Jesus Christ is not the only Savior.  John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12 (both quoted above) disprove this view.

3.  Inclusivism – this view holds that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, but explicit faith in Him is not necessary in order to be saved.  Thus, the truly sincere Jew, Hindu, or Muslim is saved through Jesus, but they just don’t realize it.  A well-known proponent of this view includes C.S. Lewis.  In his popular book Mere Christianity, Lewis states “We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” (Mere Christianity, p. 64) However, Romans 10:9-10 (quoted above) disproves this view.  Only 3 verses later, the Apostle Paul states, “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’  But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed?  And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without someone preaching?  And how are they to preach unless they are sent?  As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’  But they have not all obeyed the gospel.  For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”  (Romans 10:13-17)

4.  Exclusivism – this view holds that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and explicit faith in Him is necessary in order to be saved.  This is the true biblical teaching as shown above.

So, contrary to what half of American “Christians” believe, Jesus Christ is the only Savior, born of a virgin roughly 2000 years, who would later die on a cross in order to pay the debt for our sins so that we could be saved.  The fact that God loved us so much that He would sacrifice His only Son for our benefit is magnificent, and it is truly something to celebrate. 

And that’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

Warning! Spanking Your Child May Cause Cancer October 6, 2008

Posted by jasonlowe in Culture.
add a comment
Yep, you read that right. According to an article on slate.com, “High levels of corporal punishment (spanking) are also associated with problems that crop up later in life, including diminished ability to control one’s impulses and poor physical-health outcomes (cancer, heart disease, chronic respiratory disease).
As a statistician, I’d really like to see the correlation coefficients behind that finding! Lord willing, I am a soon to be parent, but I cannot yet tell you from experience about the effects of spanking a child. But, I can discuss this from a much higher authority than my experience; I can discuss this from the authority of God’s Word.

The title of the article is “Spare the Rod”, which is a direct and obvious disregard for Proverbs 13:24: “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” The main point of the article is that parents should not spank their children because scientific research says so. Just like in my previous post about worldview clashes in the movie theater, yet again we have a worldview clash in this article. “Science” (with a whole host of naturalist presuppositions) says one thing, while the Bible and those who believe it (with a whole other host of presuppositions) says another thing. While I am not anti-science, most scientific research is so fickle that one would never know what to believe. But, this discussion is about the scientific finding that spanking your child may cause cancer, and to that point, we now turn.

The article states that high levels of corporal punishment “are associated” with diminished ability to control one’s impulses. First, the term “associated” is such a vague term that it could mean just about anything. For example, light is associated with darkness, but it’s only because they are complete opposites. Good is associated with evil, but for the same reasons. I am associated with Michael Jordan because I’m a human being and I like to play basketball, but the similarities end there. The observation that corporal punishment is associated with a diminished ability to control one’s impulses doesn’t tell me anything. The article says nothing of any type of direct, causative relationship, because one does not exist.

There is, however, something that does cause a person to have a diminished ability to control one’s impulses. The Bible calls this sin. “Impulses” is simply another word for “desires”. And a fulfillment of one’s desires, when contrary to the will of God, is sin. James 1:14-15 says, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” And without the Spirit of God living in a person, they have no choice but to give into their desires and sin. 2 Corinithans 4:3-4 says, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Timothy 2:26 says that unbelievers have “been captured by the devil to do his will.” So, a diminished ability to control one’s impulses is not caused by corporal punishment, but by sin. In fact, we were born as sinners so there was never a time that we had an ability to control our impulses, let alone a diminished ability. But, for the Christian, one of the fruit of the Spirit is self-control. (Gal 5:23). Jesus Christ is the only way to have the ability to control our desires!

Similarly, the article says that corporal punishment is “associated” with poor physical outcomes such as cancer, heart disease, etc. Of course it is! But, flying a kite is also associated with poor physical outcomes like cancer and heart disease. So is petting a puppy, or reading a book, or riding a rollercoaster, or writing a blog post! Why? Because according to WebMD (or any other medical website), 3 of the top 4 causes of death worldwide are heart disease, cancer, and lower respiratory infections, which are the exact three “poor physical outcomes” that the article cites are associated with corporal punishment. That observation can hardly be considered as a cause/effect relationship. The ultimate cause of these “poor physical outcomes” is, once again, sin. The Bible says that “the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23)

If the Lord delays in his return, something is going to take us all out of this world, and there’s a good chance that it will be heart disease, cancer, or respiratory disease, regardless of whether or not you were spanked as a child. So, if you love your children, heed the words of Proverbs 13:24 and do not spare the rod.

UPDATE:  Dr. Albert Mohler has now blogged on the same article.  You can read his take on it by clicking here.