Did humans have a conscience before the Fall?

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

(Romans 2:15).

A number of weeks ago this question came up at Bible study. The conscience also surfaced in a recent sermon. I thought I’d give my best answer to this question, recognizing it is a question and not an absolute of the faith and with the recognition that whether it is correct or not we all have a conscience now!

I answer the question in the affirmative, yes Adam and Eve had a conscience, even before the Fall.

Having a conscience was an integral part of being created in God’s image (Gen 1:27), to have God’s law written on their hearts. Conscience is a broader evaluative instinct than good and evil and includes differentiating between useful/worthless, helpful/unhelpful, true/false, good/bad. Adam and Eve clearly had a factual knowledge of right and wrong before the Fall for Gen 2:16–17 tells us:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 That they possessed a factual knowledge of right and wrong is the only thing that makes the serpents trickery logical (for tricking involves making someone believe that what is wrong is actually right). So when the serpent comes along and lies, bearing in mind that at this point our first parents had complete free will (now we only have free will to act according to our nature-sin) their consciences were likely screaming. However, Satan’s trick was to confuse them, or deceive them, such that they were willing to suppress their conscience and choose wrongly.

 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Gen 3:6)

You might be thinking at this point, “but they had not yet eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil so how could they know what evil was?” They didn’t, though they know what wrong was. We read on (Gen 3:7-8):

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

They had a conscience before the Fall (a factual knowledge of right and wrong), yet they did not have an experiential knowledge of good and evil until after the Fall. The main difference was that before the Fall they had not known evil and therefore had a clear conscience. After the Fall—for the first time— they had a guilty conscience because they knew they were naked and were afraid to meet God.

What about Gen 3:22 then, lest “they become like us knowing good and evil.” That is best explained as God’s foreknowledge of evil.

The long and the short, I would suggest Adam and Eve had a conscience before the Fall

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

 

 

From Baptism and Back Again

hobbitThere and back again is the subtitle to the children’s book The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien (1937). It is the journey of a small hobbit named Biblo who travels from Hobbiton in the Shire to the Lonely Mountain on the other side of Middle Earth to help a host of dwarves recapture their treasure from a dragon.  I cannot tell you more than that in case you’ve never read it, but he makes it there and back again in the end.

There is another epic story that could bear a similar name, though we’d have to call it something like From Baptism and Back Again: A True Story of Biblical Baptism. It is a story of the loss and then the subsequent rediscovering of the practice Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19–20.

I am utterly convinced, as a man swayed by credible evidence, that what is often called believer’s baptism by immersion or credobaptism (clarifying the only proper subject, mode and imagery) is the only type of baptism and that all of the extra-Biblical evidence (first century history, early Jewish practices, the meaning of the word baptizo, biblical context and theology, archaeology, and early Christian history, liturgy and literature) is conclusive to this end.[1]

Allow me to recount how Christianity went away from true baptism and developed other human practices and traditions (wrongly called baptism) and then came back again through the rediscovery of credobaptism during the Reformation.

Essentially the story goes like this…

Early Christians (think Acts and beyond) clearly practiced credobaptism exclusively. However, as Christianity grew in numbers and acceptability (along with a growing fear for the souls of infants), many began to push to expand the envelop of who could be baptized. This process was accelerated with the legalisation of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire in c.312 AD and the beginning of Christendom (when Christianity became the official state religion in Europe). Hereafter these recent unbiblical developments increased at an unprecedented rate. Corresponding to the legalisation of Christianity came rampant nominalism (something those in this period of the Church lamented). If society had become Christian how could all be identified as such within society and find inclusion in it? The answer: baptize every individual, whether adult or child, believer or unbeliever. Baptism would be one’s passport in Christendom (btw- which is why groups like Anabaptists and Baptists were viewed with such suspicion by the state in the Reformation, they were rejecting their passports!). The origin of infant or paedo-baptism as a new phenomenon is well documented by Tertullian (150–225).[2] He provides the first literary evidence for the practice, not because he embraced it but because he opposed its introduction into the church and the rampant nominalism it helped to breed. Listen to what he said[3]:

tertullian

Sadly, however, the tide of nominalism was against people like Tertullian until paedo-baptism became embraced by the Church almost universally. Though Biblical baptism was still practiced at various points, unbiblical forms of baptism remained the norm until the Reformation began in the 1500s and groups like the Anabaptists and Baptists began to reject all other forms of baptism but the historic and Biblical form as unscriptural, nominal and “popish.”

One of the earliest Baptist confessions of faith, the First London Baptist Confession of 1644, states:

No. 39

That Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized. (Acts 2:37, 38; 8:36-38; 18:8).

No. 40

The way and manner of the(1) dispensing of this ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water: it being a sign, must answer the thing signified, which are these: first, the(2) washing the whole soul in the blood of Christ; secondly, that interest the saints have in(3) death, burial, and resurrection (of Christ) ; thirdly, together with a(4) confirmation of out faith, that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and rises again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints by raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ.

1) Mat. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38 2) Rev. 1:5; 7:14; Heb. 10:22 3) Rom. 6:3-5 4) 1 Cor. 15:28, 29

These believers were violently persecuted at first by other nominal and authentic Christians alike. Since the Reformation credobaptists have come to represent the largest bodies of Protestants in the world: Baptists, Pentecostals, Community Churches, Free Evangelicals, etc. Ironically, many anti-credobaptists still will practice credobaptism with adult converts (my local Anglican church once asked to use our space at the Baptist church for this very purpose).

Thus, though baptism has endured great trials, it has journeyed away from its Biblical origin and then back again so that—thankfully—credobaptism stands once more as a beautiful sign of the Gospel.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

 

[1] While convinced, I count other brothers and sisters in Christ who differ on this important secondary point (so long as they do not believe baptism has any saving value) as full heirs in the Gospel, however, as disobedient to Jesus’ command in this regard. While not primary this important secondary matter has many consequences when overlooked or neglected.

[2] Tertullian was an elder in the church in Carthage (North Africa). He was a prolific writer in early Christianity and an apologist for the faith.

[3] The quote is taken from Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 364.

Post-truth, alternative-facts and fake news

Post-truth, alternative-facts and fake news

What is truth? (John 18:38)

Those are famous words uttered by Pontius Pilate. Whether he meant them as a retort, a genuine question, or both has been debated, but his question has been echoed down through the centuries.

“What is truth?” Pilate asked Jesus as the Truth himself stood before him. Here was the man who brought truth and reality into being at creation. Here was the man who delineated the bounds of truth (morals) and told us to tell the truth because otherwise we would be acting contrary to His very nature. Here was the man who will judge all people by the truth and whether they knew the Truth at the end of time. It is a perennially good question to ask!

Truth, simply put, is “that which is in accordance with fact or reality.”

Sadly, we are living in an age that relativizes truth, pushes it to the corner, says it is in the eye of the beholder, that it is not relevant. Humanity has moved from knowing the Truth (pre-Gen 3) to a place where very often it is suppressed in favour of our version of the truth.

In 2016 Oxford Dictionary defined their word of the year as post-truth. Here “post” doesn’t mean “after” as in “post-war” but “beyond” or “irrelevant.” They define it as:

Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

Truly, this signifies that we’ve moved from being a theonomos culture (where the law of God or the law of nature is self-evident), to where we are not even a heteronomous culture (where someone else sets the law, like a king or a dictator) but have arrived at an ever increasingly autonomous culture where each person decides what truth is for them (the irony being that as soon as they disagree with another’s version of the truth they protest and cease to be autonomous but become heteronomous wishing to impose their view militantly on the other. Hence they operate under the guise of tolerance which is really selfishness).

little-golden-bookMost recently we have seen post-truth at play in politics with the coining of another new term: “alternate facts.” This was poked fun at by countless people on social media including by this meme (or spoof) of the old children’s book series Little Golden Book, where a dog is a cat and an egg is soup. It seeks to make the point that post-truth is downright silly.

Fake news has also come into our vocabulary with trust in the mainstream media falling to 32% in the USA. Who are we to believe? Who is telling the truth? What is truth? While I believe in the freedom of speech I cannot help but see that many of those who are “crying wolf” have contributed to the epidemic. The reason why some are using “fake news” is not so much because news has been fake but because it has very often been highly biased and very often interpreted facts narrowly within one worldview (liberal). The very people who have often called evil good and good evil are now upset a similar tactic is being used against them.

It is my prayer all of this post-truth, alternate facts, and fake news nonsense will not drive people into their particular prejudices and result in ignorance but cause us to wake up and ask what is truth?

God asserts that truth is real and that it matters: “do not bear false witness” (Ex 20:16) and “abhor what is evil; cling to what is good” (Ro 12:9), and that the Bible is God’s standard of truth (Amos 7). Christianity is based on facts (Luke wrote “an orderly [eyewitness] account…that you may have certainty” about Jesus [Lk 1:3–4]). Jesus claimed to be the Truth (Jn 14:6), and that in knowing Him as the Truth would “set you free” (Jn 8:22). That upon believing in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins we would not only be reconciled to God (the greatest reality) but receive the “Spirit of Truth” who would “guide us into all truth” (Jn 16:13). This is not arrogance but a recognition that sin clouds our minds, and that when we have come to Christ and put on Christ we receive a new worldview, a new lens, a new way of looking at things.

It is my hope that as people react against post-truth it might lead them to consider the life giving truth claims of Christianity. The horrible alternate is that we truly are living in a time when people will “turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into lies” (1 Ti 4:4).

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

Two types of Christians I really respect…part II

A couple weeks ago I posted a blog with this title and now answer the second half of it, another type of Christian I have immense respect for, and for whom we should all unite our prayers.

The unequally yoked after marriage

The Bible envisions the possibility of one person in a marriage becoming a believer, what then?

1 Cor 7:12–16 says (emphasis added):

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy[1] because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,[2] but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.[3] God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Jesus teaching had not handled the situation of one spouse becoming a believer but Paul here (with inspired authority) applies Jesus’ teaching to this new situation.

I know of a number of women who have come to faith later in life (or “returned to the Lord”) who now find themselves in this tricky situation and the tension that introducing heavenly values into what had been a marriage of worldly standards can produce in a marriage. In spite of these trials the spouse should seek to be gracious so they might be won by their conduct (1 Pet 3:1, though this is given to wives the principle would extend to a husband).

I am also aware of many women whose husbands left them after they became a Christian. One such woman was married for 11 years when she became a Christian and had 3 children. Two years later the husband had enough of her new found faith and gave the ultimatum that it was either himself or Jesus. She choose Jesus and he divorced her.

For women (and men) who find themselves in such situations, let us unite our prayers, asking that the Lord would sustain them in any trial related to their faith but ultimately that the unbelieving spouse might be won over by their good conduct.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

[1] Open to Christian influence. This should not be read as “saved.”

[2] Similarly, this should be taken to mean under sound moral and spiritual influence from the believing parent and not “saved.”

[3] Not compelled to seek reconciliation.

Be on the lookout!

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8)

In January we looked at Jesus’ promise from Matthew 16:18, I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Jesus is on the offensive, the devil is on the defensive. Yet while his power was defeated at the cross it would be a mistake to let down our guard because he is still dangerous. This is exactly the spiritual wisdom Peter gives us in a passage we’ll be examining at Bible study this spring. It is generally when things are going well as a chapel and as individuals that the devil chooses to strike. Why? Often in those instances we let our guard down. Peter, however, says we should never be spiritually naive and always have our guard up because 1) lions strike without notice, 2) they are always on the prowl, and 3) if we’re unprepared the results can be messy.

The devil is especially concerned when people and churches draw near to Jesus. He doesn’t want that and will stop at NOTHING to disrupt this. As a Christian, do not think temptations and trials of various kinds will diminish the more mature you become, rather the devil’s attacks will intensify. Likewise, he’ll seek to disrupt the unity, faith and peace of a growing congregation. How does he do this? Often by fostering a spirit of jealousy, bitterness, strife, pride and rebelliousness that will show itself in gossip, slander, anger, a reliance on worldy wisdom, and disrespect toward others and leaders (see Eph 4). In effect he tries to take our eyes off Jesus. So let us resist the devil, be on our guard and be on the lookout—firm in our faith—fixing our eyes on our shied and defender, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

Two types of Christians I really respect…

There are two types of Christians that I have immense respect for (and would invite all believers to join with me in prayer and support for such fellow-believers): 1) Christian singles waiting to marry in the Lord, and 2) Christians who are married and find themselves married to unbelievers. This post will address the former.

Christian Singles

I have immense respect for men and women who’d rather wait and obey God’s command to not marry outside the faith, rather than disregard that for expedience (marry “only in the Lord” 1 Cor 7:39). While this could be anyone, because statistically there are more Christian women than men, it usually happens to be young women in their 20s or 30s. Though they may have a great desire to marry, though the social and peer pressure to do so may be enormous, though many seemingly good alternatives may come along among unbelievers and tempt them considerably, they patiently wait upon the Lord, obey His command and submit to His providence (Ps 130:5–6), maintaining their purity. For such people, would you join me in honouring them and praying for them?

Excuses to justify the opposite, however, abound and are rooted in a wilful disregard for what God has said for our benefit.

An excuse such as “I love him” or “no one better has come along” is to fail to recognise that the prudent look for a marriage of both the head and of the heart and trust the Lord until He provides a believing spouse (if that of course is His will). “I can lead him to the Lord” is also naively unrealistic. We by our influence can never convert someone as that is the work of the Holy Spirit. All such excuses recall Satan’s first lie, “did God really say?” All excuses are exposed for what they are—unsubstantiated—and are swept away after the marriage when the reality of being yoke to someone who does not share your values becomes evident and begins to cause endless headaches.

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Cor 15:33)

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14)

This New Testament teaching is deeply rooted in the Old Testament (Dt 7:3–6; Ezra 9; Amos 3:3, Mal 2:10-16; etc).

While forgiveness is surely available for believers who persist and marry a non-believer, they will still face the consequences of their choice. For such people, would you join with me also, praying for the conversion of their unbelieving spouses, and the strength and grace to persevere under such circumstances.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

Manning Up

We’ve probably all seen those saddening reports that link absentee fathers to a great many social issues faced in our age. Yet, this issue is simply the root of a far less overt but equally destructive problem in society, that of men not “manning up” to their God given responsibilities and roles. Let’s look back to the Garden of Eden and examine Adam’s prime temptation and failure to better understand this deeper spiritual issue.

We often think it was Eve’s fault for the fall (at least that is one of the traditional views) after all she was the one talking with Satan and she is the one who took the fruit (not the apple!) and ate. But if you look more closely you see this:

“…she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with here, and he ate.” (Gen 3:6b)

Adam’s failure was that he failed to protect his wife Eve from the serpent’s lie by correcting the serpent by quoting what God had actually said (the truth found in Gen 2:16–17. Compare Adam’s failure to address the serpent with how Jesus responded to Satan in His temptation in Mt 4). Instead of “manning up” to his responsibility we actually see that “he ate” as well, becoming complicit in the crime that saw humanity separated from God. Even though Eve’s guilt was primary, part of the reason Paul gives Timothy as to why women should not be teachers over men in the Church (1 Tim 2:14), that Adam was the head over his wife (as Christ is the church, 1 Cor 11:3), that he had greater responsibility as the head of the family and representative of mankind, is the reason why the ultimate reason the Bible gives for this separation is not Eve’s sin but Adam’s, “…sin came into the world through one man…” (Ro 5:12). Adam was doubly guilty.

A man’s prime temptation is to shy away from responsibility; yet he finds his greatest fulfilment in stepping up into that responsibility, whether married or not. (A woman’s prime temptation and fulfilment is something entirely different which time does not allow to be unpacked here). Men are first called to godliness (a calling they share with women, 1 Tim 4:7b, “train yourself in godliness.”). This is something society often considers as weak for men to pursue but is at the very centre of what it means to be a real man like Jesus, to be in fellowship with God. A central part of being a godly man is to take responsibility in life, to not be lazy or to sit back, but to step forward, to do, to lead, not out of compulsion but willingly. When men are willing to be responsible they will step up into their God given roles, both those that Scripture ordains and those that godly wisdom suggests are normative (though not necessarily exclusive) to men.

Men are often portrayed as liking a challenge (I would suggest that this stems from how we were wired by God). Here is a spiritual challenge for men in our generation:

“And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land [said the LORD], that I should not destroy it, but I found none.” (Ezk 22:30)

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if more men chose humility rather than rebellious pride, Christ over Satan, responsibility over inaction or laziness (and men and women of faith prayed to this effect, and (especially godly women) encouraged and facilitated the men they know to the end). This would prove to be one of the greatest transformative forces to redeem the effects of the fall in our broken country and world, if more men would man up and stand in the gap.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris

Isaiah 66:2b in Review

“This is the one to whom I will look,’ declares the LORD, ‘he who is humble and contrite in spirit and who trembles at my word.”

2016 at the chapel was a delight for me. I thoroughly enjoyed our initiative under our theme verse of reading the Bible through chronologically while at the same time preaching through the grand story of salvation. We were able to preach on many familiar and unfamiliar passages and no doubt discover in our readings things we had never noticed before, even if we had read the whole Bible many times. I was very encouraged by the majority of our folks who took up this challenge (which was made easier than “going it alone” because of our constant group emphasis). A special congratulation to those for who this challenge marked the first time you read the whole Bible. I was also very encouraged by the other Christians outside the chapel who followed along with us. Now, whether you’ve completed this challenge or sense the need to get into God’s word more than you have in the past, don’t STOP reading. Rebekah and I will be doing the McCheyne reading plan in 2017 but there are others great and small. Please speak with me if you’d like any ideas. We will only find God’s favour as individuals and a chapel fellowship when we “tremble at God’s word.”

This involves a continual diet of heavenly nourishment:

“Son of man, feed your belly with this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.’ Then I ate, and it was in my mouth sweet as honey.” (Jer 3:3)

When we eat spiritually healthy food we will be healthy and grow. So take your fill! As you feed on God’s word you “taste and see that the Lord is good” as “sweet as honey.”

Continually being in God’s word is not only important for your personal health but also to be discerning in this “wicked and twisted generation” to discern the true way of God from the false way of this world:

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col 2:8)

How will we be able to discern the truth if we are not continually sharpening ourselves with Christ’s truth and a constant relationship with Him fed by His word?

May you continue to abide in His word and as you do so may you discover the riches that it is to know Christ, and grow in Him.

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings

Pastor Chris

Christmas Day vs. the Lord’s Day

This is the second Christmas blog post that seeks to cut through nominalism and encourage true worship of the Lord this Christmas season. The first was titled Christmas vs. Jesus.

A number of years ago at a church I was serving at there was a strong human tradition surrounding Remembrance Day (Nov 11). In the community this day was sacred. At the 11th hour everything stopped and a sizable portion of the village assembled at the cenotaph. Having been in the army I thought that this was very commendable. However, it illustrated an interesting point when Remembrance Day fell on the date and the time of our regular Lord’s Day worship of the Lord (which also had a Remembrance Day element such as a moment silence, etc). This rare occasion pitted one [noble] human tradition against the divine command of worship on the Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10; Ex 20:8–11). Sadly this produced an interesting spiritual experiment: would people choose a human tradition or joyful obedience to the Lord’s command?

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. (Prov 3:5–6).

It saddened my heart because some from our fellowship choose their own way and prioritised a human tradition over faithful obedience to the Lord. In fact one of the roles of the Sabbath command is to reveal our idols for the thing we are most tempted to do on the Lord’s Day (or do in place of worshipping Him) shows where our priorities truly lie (click here to read a blog on this subject).

The same is true of Christmas this year, as Christmas falls on the Lord’s Day. Christmas, a noble event in salvation history that we remember on December 25th (along with things this day has come to mean to people making this the human tradition par excellence) will be pitted against the Lord’s Day, the first day of every week sacred to the Lord. Will people “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”?

In all honesty December 25th, 2016 is a double blessing. We have the joy of not only honouring the Lord’s Sabbath command, not only remembering Christ’s resurrection from the dead and celebrating the new life we have in Him, but also on this rare occurrence of also remembering His incarnation and worshipping Him. After all isn’t Christmas about worshipping Jesus anyway?

But how many will be tempted to skip worship because they think they have too much to do or prepare?

How many will prioritise family, travel or vacation over the Lord?

How many will be lured by using those gift cards and shopping online?

Which day will trump the other? Will we fit Christmas into our Lord’s Day observance, or will the celebration of [a secular?] Christmas squeeze out and overshadow the Lord’s Day?

For Christians in a mixed family environment this can be very tricky. I empathise for those whom December 25 will present a significant moral dilemma between pleasing the Lord or family, but what an opportunity to witness by taking a stand for the Lord and explaining the reason for your position with gentleness and respect. I remember one side of our family always used to have their Christmas lunch on the Lord’s Day before Christmas. Only three families within this wider family were Christian, the rest were either nominally so or not at all and so in their mind no moral dilemma existed. They had no trouble having an early lunch because they didn’t have a greater appointment beforehand. Yet because three families always worshipped the Lord on a Lord’s Day morning that always came into conflict with the timing of this family Christmas meal. Usually the time of the meal was not pushed back to accommodate, though very occasionally it was, which meant that for those who choose worship ahead of family, you got some cold left overs upon your arrival. However, while they had neglected their duty, we had the joy of not neglecting ours.

I hope that this Christmas worshipping the Lord and honouring his day—first and foremost—will come ahead of any planned festivities.

“Let us not neglect to meet together as is the habit of some.” (Heb 10:25)

The Lord’s Sweetest Blessings,

Pastor Chris