Refuting Calvinism

The majority of Christians in our church culture possess an innate belief that man is able to freely choose saving faith. Christian media, however, is dominated by theologians and preachers who believe otherwise, that God has predestined certain people to faith and eternal life while condemning others to hell by a decision wrought before mankind ever sinned. This media influence has brought about an unnecessary confusion regarding God’s sovereignty, ushering in a mindset influenced by the doctrines of John Calvin and other “Reformed” theologians. Does the Bible teach predestined salvation? Do we have free will? Are both doctrines somehow true?

Many Christians realize deep inside that Calvin’s form of predestination, which disregards faith and the will of man, seems capricious. In our hearts we know that condemning someone to hell when he has no hope to live without sin or to find the savior, is inherently unjust. Yet, Calvin’s doctrine runs rampant in the church, and many Christians throw their hands up in surrender, because ardent Calvinists twist the Scriptures to the point that many truth-seeking believers have trouble defending the simple truth of God’s word.

The generally accepted doctrine of predestination has also brought about an apathetic response to the call to evangelism. After all, if someone is predestined to be saved or condemned, it doesn’t matter if I, personally, witness to that person. Calvinist thought leads to the idea that God is going to do what He’s going to do, whether or not we speak a word of witness. Yes, Calvinists still witness, but they cannot possibly do so with the urgency that the truth demands, and their message is always tainted with falsehoods that lead people astray.

It’s also important that we learn the truth about the ways of our gracious God. He has not created humans simply to play with their robotic responses, forcing some into eternal damnation for sin they could not help but commit, that He is not a God who calls the world to repent, secretly knowing that He will force some to respond to His call while preventing everyone else from responding. Because of the tragic, even blasphemous attacks on God's character that Calvinist doctrine creates, it is important that we are able to explain Him rightly, so that the world will learn of our gracious heavenly Father and not the evil god the Calvinists propose.

I believe that God allows people to make a choice. We all possess the ability to have faith in Him even while we were still sinners. The Bible teaches free will. Yet, predestination and election are also taught in the Scriptures, though the truth of the Word does not line up with the Calvinistic understanding of these doctrines.

Over the next several days, I will posting essays that dismantle the five points of Calvinism, often called the TULIP, because each letter in that word represents one of the points. Although going through this exercise might not prepare readers for a debate with Calvinist seminarians, I hope it will give them confidence in the true doctrine of God’s gracious love and his desire that all people be saved through his wonderful sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. I hope this effort brings you joy and wipes away the confusion that so many misguided theologians have smeared on the Christian landscape. God is sovereign, yes, but God is also love. Let’s see how these two wonderful attributes meld in God’s wondrous plan of salvation.

Galatians 2 and the Peter/Cephas Controversy

Many assume that the apostle Paul confronted the apostle Peter in Antioch regarding Peter’s apparent lack of straightforwardness with the gospel. It’s no wonder they think so, because the King James Version of the Bible says exactly that in Galatians 2:11-14. Yet, there are many reasons to doubt this assumption.

Here is the passage in the King James Version:

Gal 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12  For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13  And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Gal 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Now here is the same passage from the New American Standard Bible:

Gal 2:11  But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Gal 2:12  For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13  The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Gal 2:14  But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

The texts differ regarding the name of the person Paul confronted. Some Greek texts say that the man’s name was Cephas, not Peter, and the translators of the NASB decided that these texts were the more reliable. To many people, that difference poses no problem, because Peter was given the name Cephas by Jesus, as follows.

“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter).” (John 1:42)

It’s interesting that Jesus never called Peter by that name again. Besides the John chapter one reference, the apostle Paul is the only person in Scripture to refer to the name Cephas using the Greek word for that name. One possible place is in Galatians chapter one, and it’s interesting to note that there is a difference in Greek texts here as well.

Here is the passage in the King James Version:

Gal 1:18  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

And here it is in the New American Standard Bible

Gal 1:18  Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19  But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

In this passage, it is clear that Paul was referring to Peter, because he indirectly refers to him as an apostle in verse 19. It seems to me that the KJV is correct in this case, and the name should be Peter.

Paul more definitely referred to Cephas using the Greek word for that name in other places:

1Co 15:3  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:4  and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:5  and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Paul differentiates between Cephas and the twelve. This isn’t proof that Cephas was not part of the twelve, because Jesus easily could have appeared to one of the twelve and then to the twelve together, but the following use of Cephas casts doubt on that idea.

1Co 9:5  Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Here Paul puts Cephas outside of the group called “the apostles.” It is theoretically possible that Paul could have listed Peter separately from “the apostles,” but it would be unnatural to do so. It is more natural to assume that Paul was referring to a non-apostle.

We have historical evidence pointing to the idea that Cephas was not the apostle Peter. Eusebius wrote:

“And there is a story from Clement in the fifth of his Hypotyposeis in which he also says that Cephas, concerning whom Paul says: But, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples, one who happened to have the same name as Peter the apostle.” (Eusebius. The History of The Church. Book 1. 12)

This was Clement of Alexandria, who lived from about 150 AD to 215. He likely had access to records that no longer exist, so this is historical documentation indicating that this Cephas was not Peter. Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, though not one of the apostles.

Internal evidence in the Galatians chapter two passage also indicates that Cephas could not have been Peter. Let’s look at the verses leading up to Paul’s opposition to Cephas.

Gal 2:7  But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

Gal 2:8  (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

Gal 2:9  and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

If Cephas were the same person as Peter, why would Paul change his name in mid-sentence? (In this passage, there are no variations among the Greek texts. In other words, the various Greek texts all agree on the Greek words in these verses. They all use the Greek word for Peter at the same places, and they all use the Greek word for Cephas at the same places.  Where it says “Peter,” the Greek word for Peter is used in every Greek text, and where it says “Cephas,” the Greek word for Cephas is used in every Greek text.)

Also, Peter himself used the Greek word for "Peter" in his own letters to Gentiles, so why would Paul use the Aramaic form (Cephas) to Gentiles, a form they would not be familiar with? That wouldn’t make sense at all. If Paul had meant "Peter," it would make sense to use the most recognizable form of the name when writing to Gentiles, and he certainly wouldn't change from one to the other in the middle of his thought, such as in Galatians 2:7-9. The most reasonable conclusion is that Peter and Cephas are two different people.

According to this passage in Galatians 2, Cephas recognized the grace given to Paul, because Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter had been to the circumcised. Why, then, would this fact cause Cephas (if he were really Peter) to extend the right hand of fellowship to Paul and divide their ministries (Paul one direction and Cephas the other) when it was the division itself that indicated that they ought to divide? This would have to be circular logic.

To explain this crucial point further, let’s break down this passage:

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
Gal 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The reasons for the actions of James, Cephas, and John are underlined, and the actions themselves are italicized.

"Seeing that" indicates that James, Cephas, and John had noticed something that happened in the past. What did they notice? That Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised. Those things happened at some unspecified time in the past, and these three are taking note of the events in order to decide on an action.

What is that action? To have fellowship with Paul so that he would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

But that had already happened with the real Peter. He and Paul had already made the choice to divide the ministry and choose separate targets. So if Cephas is Peter, what is he using as a basis for deciding to divide the ministry and choose separate targets? The fact that he already has made that decision? That would be nonsense.

It would be like making a decision to become a farmer because you already are one. It is a senseless, circular statement.

The decision was based on something that happened in the past, so using that as a basis for an identical present decision that cannot logically be repeated by the same person proves that this Cephas cannot be Peter.

Again, Paul had already gone to the Gentiles, and Peter had already gone to the Jews, so if this Cephas is Peter, then he would be deciding something that had already occurred. This is not sensible. And since Paul changed the Greek words for the names in the very same sentence, thinking that these two people are the same would be the most illogical way to understand this passage. In fact, there is no logical reason at all to think that they are the same.

We also have proof from the book of Acts that this person in Galatians 2 could not have been the apostle Peter:

“From there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished. When they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. And they spent a long time with the disciples.

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. (Acts 14:26 - 15:2)

This is a perfect description of what was described by Paul in Galatians 2: There was dissension with Judaizers regarding the necessity of circumcision, it occurred in Antioch, and Barnabas was involved as well. This Acts account perfectly fits the Galatians 2 account, and there is no other event recorded in Acts that coincides with Paul’s account of a dispute in Antioch.

So what did Paul and Barnabas do about the problem? They decided to consult the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Who was one of those apostles? Peter himself:

The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." (Acts 15:6-11)

If Cephas in Galatians 2 was Peter, it would make no sense at all for Paul to go all the way to Jerusalem to consult the very person who was causing a problem. Peter was already in Jerusalem. He wasn’t in Antioch. So it seems impossible that Peter could have been the man Paul confronted in Galatians chapter 2.

Some refer to other accounts in Acts where they believe the Galatians chapter 2 conflict might have taken place:

Act 11:22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
Act 11:23 Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;
Act 11:24 for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.
Act 11:25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
Act 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Act 11:27 Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.
Act 11:28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.
Act 11:29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
Act 11:30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

We see the presence of both Paul and Barnabas at Antioch along with the desire to provide for the poor, so this could be the first meeting between Paul and these people and when the right hand of fellowship took place. The Galatians text (Galatians 2:1-11) might lead us to believe that the first meeting between Paul and Cephas occurred in Jerusalem (see verse 1), so the meeting might not have occurred here in Antioch at all, but there is no mention of the dissension similar to what we saw in Acts 15.

If the first meeting between Paul and Cephas actually did occur during the Acts 11 events in Antioch, the apostle Peter could not have been present. Where was Peter at this time? In Jerusalem speaking up boldly for the Gentiles. (Acts 11:2 and following) According to the beginning of chapter 12, Peter went to jail in Jerusalem at that time (Acts 12:3), and Paul and Barnabas left Antioch (Acts 13:4). So if this Cephas is Peter, and this was the first meeting (which it might not have been), then he could not have been in Antioch meeting Paul at this time.

Others claim that the argument between Paul and Peter took place during another of Paul's visits to Antioch:

Act 18:22 When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and went down to Antioch.
Act 18:23 And having spent some time there, he left and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

There is no mention of any dispute here or of any visit by Peter, so why should we think that the Galatians 2 dispute took place at this time? There is no reason at all except for the fact that this is the only time Peter could have been there, which carries the presumption that the person Paul confronted in Galatians 2 was Peter, and that is the idea in dispute.

Another problem is that Peter, at the time of Acts 18, would have to completely go against what he had so boldly stood for. It would be totally contradictory for Peter to do that. In fact, throughout the book of Acts, Peter stood up for the Gentiles’ reception of the gospel. Ever since his call by God to preach to Cornelius in Acts chapter ten, Peter was unwavering in his support of unfettered access to the gospel for the Gentiles. There is no evidence in Acts that Peter ever strayed from this steadfast support.

Yet another problem with the idea that the Galatians 2 man was Peter is that Paul indicates that people who do what the confronted man did are not even true believers.

Gal 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

Paul questioned Cephas – “How is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” To compel someone to live like Jews is an attempt to bring people into bondage. Since Paul indicated that such people were false brethren, they weren’t true believers, so it’s reasonable to conclude that Cephas wasn’t a true believer and certainly not the same person as the apostle Peter.

Also, in Acts 15, when Peter addressed the group about the controversy in Antioch, he said the following: "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

If Peter was the one who caused the controversy, then why would he rebuke the ones who were causing it as if he were not involved? That would be ridiculous. Obviously, the simple answer is that Peter was not Cephas. They are not the same person.

The evidence, both biblical and historical, is overwhelming that the man Paul confronted in Galatians is not the apostle Peter. That man was named Cephas, likely a Jew who sympathized with the Judaizers.

Because of Peter’s faithful defense of the Gentiles and their reception of the true gospel at every turn, it is important to make sure we do not denigrate Peter’s legacy with the false charge that he dissembled in Galatians chapter two. After the Holy Spirit indwelt him at Pentecost, he was sure and steadfast. Let us honor the truth about Peter and clear his name in the church, especially among those who have so greatly benefitted from his faithful stand for our inclusion in the faith.

How Great is the Darkness!

Jesus said, "The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, 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 that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23)

A couple of events during the past week have brought this passage to mind. While Jesus was likely talking about the eye being the source of light and knowledge coming into a person's mind and how the gateways to the mind need to be clear and holy, it seems to me that the principle holds true for the church as well.

The gateways into the body of professing believers surely influence the way the church as a whole thinks and processes information--pastors, authors, filmmakers, and musicians write, speak, and sing about ideas and transmit their understanding of God and His word to the pew-sitters in congregations all across the world. If these eyes, these gateways of light, are clouded or blind, then those who receive their input will process skewed or erroneous information, and they will live according to faulty conclusions.

This week I was reminded of that in two very disturbing circumstances. I went to a wedding this past Saturday, and the preacher looked the groom in the eye and told him he is a sinner, and that when he sinned against his wife, he would have to repent, and when his wife, who is also a sinner, sinned against him, he needed to forgive her.

He went on to say that this sinning, repenting, and forgiving in marriage is an illustration of the gospel and how Jesus and the church function.

Wait a minute! The groom is supposed to represent Jesus, and he is a sinner? The bride is supposed to be spotless and pure, and she is a sinner? Marriage is supposed to be an illustration of a holy union, not an adulterous tryst. I wanted to stand up and ask, "What sin will he commit? Adultery? Wife beating? Child molestation? How dare you suggest such a wicked idea!"

And then they said their vows, promising fidelity, support, love, etc, all after the pastor insisted that they wouldn't keep these vows. It was sick and twisted, a slap in Jesus' face. I can't imagine how these two could speak these vows knowing that they would intentionally violate them, assuming they believed this pastor's words of darkness.

A few weeks ago I received a textbook for potential endorsement, and yesterday I had some time to look through it, a Christian worldview book for teaching children about God. Although I had some minor quibbles with the approach, the subject matter was reasonably true until I came across this line, an exhortation to Christian children:

"In the meantime, if you should happen to sin—and you will sometimes—you need to seek God’s forgiveness as soon as possible."

This is horrific. Can you imagine that this could possibly be a good way to teach children, to insist that they will sin?

Johnny, don't steal. Oh, but you will sometimes, and then you have to hurry and ask forgiveness. Don't fornicate, but you will sometimes, so be sure to ask forgiveness. Don't rape, murder, or take drugs, but since you will sometimes, be ready to ask forgiveness.

The absurdity is mind boggling. How can we avoid the accusation of madness if we command our children to do something and then tell them they won't obey our commands? How can our children look at us as anything but raving lunatics if we exhort them to holiness and then insist that they cannot achieve what we request?

And the confession for forgiveness part is also an illogical mess. What happens if they don't ask forgiveness? This is the dilemma that the anti-holiness crowd constantly runs into. On one hand, they say that 1 John 1:9 is an everyday thing to do, confess and be forgiven, but they get hung up when you ask, "What happens if a Christian doesn't confess? Are they not forgiven? Will they go to hell if they don't confess?"

Then they'll say, no they'll be fine, because all their sins have been forgiven past, present, and future. (Of course, they have no biblical proof for this faulty assertion.)

Okay, then why confess? There seems to be no need if their sins are already forgiven.

Well ... uh ... because it says to confess?

True. It does say to confess, and it says that confession brings forgiveness and complete cleansing from all unrighteousness. This is an if/then statement. If you confess, you will be forgiven. Doesn't that imply that lack of confession will mean lack of forgiveness and cleansing? If not, then why make the statement at all if forgiveness is granted no matter what? And, of course, if they're completely cleansed, I assume they'll never sin again.

And then they usually get angry or try to change the subject.

Their doctrine is ridiculous, and it's so tragic that it has become the default in church circles. Surely the eye has become a pit of blackness.

Confession in 1 John 1:9 is the confession that brings about forgiveness and salvation, and salvation brings about complete cleansing from all sin. There is no other reasonable way to interpret it.

It's frustrating and sad. The church holds on to this sinning doctrine so doggedly all the while exhorting their congregants to be holy. What a strange lot they are! Be holy, but you can't be holy. Go and sin no more, but you will sin every day. Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, but you will never be able to do that.

This is madness. This is darkness so black, the blind are truly leading the blind into a pit. This love of sin and the comforts of false security will surely cause millions to be among the crowd who call out to Jesus, "'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?' And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23)

This is what the church today has fallen into, a completely warped view of reality, a twisted mindset that cannot even see its own clownish behavior. God help us!

(Artwork by Ed Miracle: http://www.miraclesart.com)

Misunderstandings in the Epistles

One of the main arguments people make for the existence of sinning Christians relies on the epistles to the churches. They claim that Paul and others refer to the letter recipients as saints, yet describe ongoing sin among the church people. Therefore, they think, there must be sinning Christians.

The problem with this approach is the assumption that a greeting that refers to the readers by a descriptive label means that every single person who might read the letter or referred to in the text must also be labeled the same. Such an assumption is not true, and the text of the epistles proves that this leap is not warranted.

A proof of my assertion comes in 2 Corinthians:

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?" (2 Corinthians 13:5)




Paul refers to his audience as saints in the first chapter, but here in chapter 13, he tells the people to test themselves to see if they are in the faith. Why would he do that if he believes they are all, without exception, saints and true believers? They wouldn't make sense. And what is the test? The context indicates it is whether or not they are sinning.


Note verse 2: "I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone."



And verse 7: "Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved."



Even though Paul referred to them as saints, he still tells them that disobedience would indicate that they are not really in the faith. This passage alone should be enough to prove the point, that when Paul mentions sinners in the church, he is not including them as true saints in the church.

I’m not going to go over every letter that refers to saints and every proof that sinners in the church are not really saints, but I will focus on the letter that is used most often by opponents of holiness—the book of 1 Corinthians. Once it is established that Paul uses “saints” in his greeting while knowing that sinners among his readers aren’t truly believers, that fact can be used to prove that he uses the same practice in other letters.


I will begin this analysis with a passage that many use to prove sinfulness among Christians.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
1And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. 2I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

Many people will confess, no matter what their position is on the subject at hand, that no relatively large church will contain only true believers. There may be false professors of faith, interested seekers, or even skeptics who were dragged into the congregation by a friend or relative. It seems reasonable that Paul would know this and would write in such a way that all parts of the body would receive proper instruction. This kind of all encompassing teaching would require some kind of wording that would allow the readers to understand who among them is to receive the message. For example, such wording of identification is made in the following passage.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5
1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this as though I were present. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This is about a man who apparently had a sexual affair with his father's wife. Notice that Paul says that there is "immorality among you," indicating that this person is a part of their group while at the same time not insinuating that this is an indictment directed against all of them. More important, the construction of verse 5 reveals that the man in question is not a Christian.

Follow this line of thinking carefully. When Paul says that he is delivering this man to Satan "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus," he is stating a purpose for his disciplinary action. The reason that he is delivering the man is the hope of salvation for him. If this man were already saved, the purpose would not exist, and the statement would not make sense. This is a clear example of Paul singling out a non-Christian from the group in order to deal with him properly. In Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians, he makes an appeal that is in the letter to the church at large, but it is meant for only the unbelievers among them.

2 Corinthians 5:19-20
namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Those who are believers in the group would not need such an appeal, because they have already been reconciled to God. The next appeal also makes more sense if it is perceived as being addressed to unbelievers only.

2 Corinthians 6:1
And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain-

Since this verse comes immediately after an appeal to receive initial grace for salvation and is followed (6:2) by another request to come to salvation, it is written to tell the unbelievers how to receive the grace they need. Since Paul appealed for some to come to Christ, it is impossible for him to have considered all of the Corinthians in his reading audience as Christians.

Again in 1 Corinthians we see Paul stating his assumption that his readers are saved, and in the same breath he qualifies the statement with the possibility that they are not.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

It is valuable to examine other places where Paul and other writers change their focus from one sub-group within the addressed group to another. In Ephesians chapter 2 Paul makes it clear that he is addressing Christians (vs. 19-22), but notice the change to a different audience in the first two verses of chapter 3, "For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles- if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you," and in verse 6, "to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." Paul is addressing Gentiles in general, some of whom may not have even heard of Paul's "stewardship" of grace or of the great news mentioned in verse 6. A quote from later in the chapter indicates that Paul did not assume that his audience in the passage was made up of believers but seemed to assume that they were not.

Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man; so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God.

Paul's prayer is that these people would be strengthened "so that Christ would dwell" in their hearts. Having Christ dwell in a person's heart is practically a definition of being a Christian, so if Paul's reason for praying for this spiritual strength was for the indwelling to come about, it would not make sense if they were already believers and already indwelt. Also notice the second purpose for the prayer, "so that you ... may be able to comprehend with all the saints ... " Paul assumes that his particular audience does not, at the time of the reading, comprehend the love of Christ. This is something that "all the saints" do know. If they were saints, then they would also know the love of Christ, and if they knew, there would be no second purpose for the prayer.

The writer of Hebrews uses the same method of addressing particular people among a larger group.

Hebrews 10:26-29, 39
For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? ... But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

The writer warns the group about falling away and then states that "we" are not in that group. How could the writer warn a reading audience about something of which they are not a part unless he is temporarily changing the focus of his address? The warning makes no sense unless this change of audience focus is understood.

The point is that Paul and other writers change their focus to a particular audience from a general audience in many places. In the case of 1 Corinthians chapter 3, this particular audience consists of unbelievers that are in the church, Paul's general audience.

Let us look more closely at the shift in Paul's particular audience in the 1 Corinthians 3 passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter. In verse 3 Paul wrote, "For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" The use of "among" indicates again that there are some in the group who are guilty of the charge and probably some who are not, so when he says, "are you not fleshly," he must be referring to those who are guilty. It would not make sense to ask this question to those who are not guilty of his accusations. But does this mean that this specific, fleshly group in focus is not made up of Christians? It is not clear that they are unbelievers from a surface examination, but the fact that they are not true believers can be brought to the light as follows.

Notice the "could not" in verse 1. The past tense indicates that Paul is talking about a time in the past. To what time was he referring? It seems that the reference is to a previous event mentioned in chapter 2, verse 1, "And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God." This first meeting with the Corinthians was probably the time when Paul first introduced the Gospel to them. Paul goes on to explain that the "natural man" cannot understand God's wisdom, and he sets this kind of man against one who has received the Spirit (2:11-14).

Therefore, in verse 1 of chapter 3 Paul refers to his first presentation of the gospel to them and says that he could not speak to them at that time as to "spiritual men," those who have received the Spirit (2:12, 15), but as to "men of flesh," the "natural man" of 2:14. They could not have been saved at that time, because they had not heard the gospel yet. As has been pointed out before, "men of flesh" is not descriptive of Christians, because the flesh is crucified in a believer (Galatians 5:24). Therefore, when Paul says, "you are still fleshly," he means that they are still not Christians, in the same state as when he first presented the gospel to them.

This does not mean that all of the addressed Corinthians are fleshly or unsaved, only those who are part of Paul's current focus in the verse. Since Paul said that "there is jealousy and strife among" them, he was indicating that this is not true of all of them. Only those who are guilty of the jealousy and strife would be considered fleshly by Paul, and only those are unsaved.
Babes in Christ

The use of the term, "babes in Christ," does not prove that the Corinthians were "baby Christians," but actually gives more proof that they were not believers at all at the time to which the verse refers. The word for babes here is not the word used in 1 Peter 2:2, where "babes" is used in a positive light. The word in 1 Peter is a form of brephos, the word commonly used for a small child or infant, a young person who would be expected to grow into an adult. The word for babes in 1 Corinthians is nepios, a simple-minded or immature person, definitely a negative word in most contexts.

It is interesting to note that Paul uses the same word to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14:20, "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature." Paul wants his hearers to be babes in the things of evil. Of course he does not mean that he wants them to be baby, evil people, or newborn in evil and growing in it. He is saying that he wants them to be removed from evil by being ignorant in the things of evil.

In the same way, Paul says that he had to speak to the Corinthians as those who knew nothing about the things of Christ, because this was probably their first hearing of the gospel. The term "in Christ" does not mean that the people were in Christ in the way that Christians are in Christ, just as someone who is a babe "in evil" would not actually be in evil in the way a truly evil person would be. Since Paul wants his readers to be babes in evil and since he really wants them to be totally separated from evil, to be a babe in evil must include separation from it, a separation that is due to ignorance or inexperience. In the same way, to be a babe in Christ is to be ignorant of Him and separated from Him because of ignorance. The same word for babe and the same kind of message is given in Hebrews chapter 5.

Hebrews 5:12-6:2
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for some one to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For every one who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Here the writer has turned his attention to a group within his audience that is having a problem with understanding the "elementary teaching about the Christ." If they do not understand these things, repentance from dead works, faith toward God, and the others listed, how can they possibly be Christians? The answer is, they cannot. Further study makes it clear that in nearly every place in Scripture, this word for babes is used to refer to one who is in ignorance, not to one newly born.

The word is also used in a passage which is familiar to many.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

The word for child, in each usage, is a form of nepios, and it is again used to describe someone who is ignorant. The following passage also promotes this idea.

Ephesians 4:14
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

The word for "children" is again a form of nepios and again it refers to someone who is ignorant or foolish. When the Scripture writers wanted to refer to someone as a baby Christian or a child in the faith they used other words such as brephos, which was mentioned before, or teknon as in the following verses.

1 Timothy 1:2
to Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1:4
to Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Philippians 2:22
But you know of his [Timothy's] proven worth that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father.

In these verses, as in other passages, Paul uses teknon to describe a child in the faith, either someone who was newly reborn or someone that he feels that he bore himself as a spiritual offspring. When he uses nepios, however, he is describing people who are ignorant in whatever context the word is used. In 1 Corinthians 3, since he calls them "babes in Christ," they must have been ignorant concerning Christ, at least at the time to which he was referring.

Paul is using this "babe" title to give a warning to the group of unbelievers. They have adopted a position that the one who has taught them is the means by which they are measured. In the following passage, Paul reveals that this reliance on human teachers will not work.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
10According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

Paul is teaching that certain structures that are built upon the foundation will be burned up. It is commonly held that these structures are works of men, but this interpretation does not fully fit the illustration given. In verse 9 Paul asserts that the people are God's building, the ones who sprouted from his and Apollos's care (verses 5-6), and in verse 10 the illustration is expanded. Paul laid the foundation ("I planted") and another is building upon it ("Apollos watered"). This indicates that the builders are "servants through whom you believed," "God's fellow workers" (verses 5 and 9). They are ministers of the gospel.

The warning in verse 10, "let each man be careful how he builds upon it," is addressed to these ministers. The one who preaches the gospel is the man whose "work will become evident." Since the foundation is Jesus Himself, a person, it is reasonable to assume that a building set upon this foundation is also people ("you are ... God's building"). The testing mentioned in verse 13 is the revealing of the true nature of the people who are resting on the foundation, a determination of who is and who is not a true believer.

This figurative method of discrimination is not unusual in the Scriptures. In Matthew 3:12 the chaff is burned while the wheat is saved. In Matthew 13:30, 42 the tares are gathered and burned. In Revelation 20:12-15 the unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire. There are other references, but these passages clearly demonstrate that the Bible often uses the illustration of fire burning unbelievers in judgment and believers being saved from the fire.

A minister of the gospel will be saved even if some of his "converts" are not, and this is truly a great loss for him (verse 15). Once again in verse 16 Paul reiterates that the people are a building, a temple, and verse 17 gives more proof that the people are the object of the burning discussed in verse 15.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

The temple is the building erected on the foundation, which is Christ. The temple is cleansed of its false parts (verse 15), but if any man destroys the temple, destruction is in store for him. The "any man" may still refer to the teacher, the builder in verse 15. If this is the case, he would probably be a false teacher rather than a good teacher who merely has false converts. The good teacher is saved because his purpose was to build the temple in truth, but the false teacher destroys the temple and is destroyed as a result. It is also possible that "any man" now refers to a false convert among the true parts of the temple. Verse 18 demonstrates this possibility.

1 Corinthians 3:18
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise.

Paul seems to have changed his focus from a teacher to individuals in his readership. In that case, the destruction of that man could be part of the cleansing of verse 15, the man's desire to destroy the temple being the "evidence" (verse 13) of a bad part of the building. In any case, it should be clear that Paul is not talking about the works of individuals in the passage; he is expounding on the quality of the lives of people in the church and on whether or not they are truly saved.

Describing a person as part of a building is not an unusual illustration in the Bible. In Ephesians 2:19-22 the people are called a building laid upon the foundation of Christ, and the building is called a temple, just as in 1 Corinthians 3.

Ephesians 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Another example comes from 1 Peter.

1 Peter 2:4-6
And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed."

Once again the people are the elements that make up a building, a spiritual house of worship, and Jesus is the foundation of the house, the corner stone.

It might be simpler to see that this interpretation is true by looking at verse 12 of 1 Corinthians 3 and working backwards to discover the meaning. Verses 12 and 13 contain, "Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold ... each man's work will become evident." In order to find out what is being built upon the foundation and what a man's work is, it must be determined what that foundation is. Verse 11 states clearly that the foundation is Jesus Christ.

Next, the identity of the people who build upon the foundation and what is normally built upon it must be ascertained. Verse 10 states directly that Paul laid the foundation and another is building upon it and that others also can build upon it (let each man...), but it does not identify who the other person (people) is or what is being built. Verse 9 says, "For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."

Now we can see that the building is made up of people, the Corinthian church in this case. Who are the builders? They are the fellow workers of verse 9. A specific fellow worker is named earlier in verse 6, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." The full context of the illustration points out that people are being built upon the foundation, Jesus Christ, and that the people who build are fellow workers with Paul, such as Apollos. It is also clear that the "work" of verse 13 is the labor for the gospel. "Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor."

The "labor" in this verse is the work of the gospel and corresponds to the work that each man does in verse 13. Comparing the rewards for labor in verse 8 with the rewards for "any man's work" in verse 14 gives further evidence that the working man in verses 12 and 13 corresponds to the laborer for the gospel in verses 5-9. It follows that the section concerning the works of a man from verse 10 of chapter 3 through verse 15 is a general statement regarding the outcome of the work of the gospel and corresponds to the specific example of the work of Paul and Apollos for the sake of the gospel among the Corinthians.

Verses 21-23 sum up Paul's purpose for the warnings in the chapter.

So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

This demonstrates that the previous warning to the Corinthians was meant to teach them that their salvation condition is not dependent on their teacher, "whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas," but on their relationship with Christ, the quality of which should leave some of them in doubt.

All of this explanation of chapter 3 is put forth to show that Paul was giving a warning to those in the church at Corinth who were not true believers; they will be tested to determine if they have true faith, and they cannot rely on the status of their "builder." Such a warning was necessary because of the problem that the Corinthians had with wanting to maintain their status symbols (1:12). Therefore, Paul was not speaking to Christians in this passage, but warning the non-Christians in the church that their true nature would be revealed by fire.

We see this pattern repeated throughout the epistles, so the common notion that references to “saints” in epistle greetings mean that all the readers are Christians is not supported by the text.

Shame on Notre Dame

Notre Dame University has committed an indefensible crime against the unborn by inviting Obama to speak at their commencement this year and by giving him an honorary degree. Obama is the most ardently pro-abortion politician I have ever seen. He is an accomplice to pre-meditated murder, and this supposedly pro-life university is bestowing honors upon him.

The university tried to defend its actions in a number of nonsensical ways. They said they don't want to ban dialogue and want to encourage discourse. First, there should be no discourse on abortion. It is murder. Would they encourage discourse on exterminating Jews, on enslaving black people, or on slitting the throats of children? Hardly. Yet, they want to encourage discourse on the slaughter of the innocent unborn. Such hypocrisy is damnable.

And having Obama come to speak is not discourse. He lectured the students. He did not debate with them. And when some people tried to offer their opinions outside the commencement, they were arrested and put in jail. So much for discourse.

Notre Dame, you're not fooling anyone. You invited this evil usurper for fame and publicity, and you have sold your collective souls to the devil. May God help you to repent of this wickedness.



Click here for the website mentioned in the video.

The Accusers

Based on my observations, many people in the church of today have a habit of accusing people of sin in a strangely all-inclusive manner. Whatever their sin du jour is, they often sweep across everyone with a pointing finger. Apparently they think it’s somehow humble or “theologically correct” to assume that everyone is doing what they’re doing.

The photo illustrates my point. The sign says, “We commit the golden rule to memory and forget to commit it to life.”

First of all, who are “we”? The people in this church? If so, that’s not a church I want to attend. If they don’t obey the golden rule, they are being disobedient to God and are likely not people with whom I would want to fellowship. It seems odd to me that they would advertise their church that way. Might next week’s sign say, “We know all about ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but we ignore it”? How about, “Adultery is wrong, but we do it anyway”? That a church would advertise their sin this way is truly troubling and certainly not biblical.

If they mean all people are like this, that’s quite an amazing claim to universal knowledge, and, of course, a faulty one. The Bible says that Christians are saints, and they are obedient in all things (1 John 5:18), so this sign really stands as Satan’s pointing finger, for Satan is the false accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10).

Yes, this sign is faulty and troubling, but it is, in many ways, a sign of the times. I have seen this kind of language used in many Christian circles. “We’re all sinners,” and “All young men lust,” and “We all fall into this trap,” and “We all wear masks to hide our true selves.”

The accusations, when considered with their inclusive language, are false. True Christians are not sinners, many Christian young men are chaste in body and mind, and some of us have shed all pretentious masks.

Why do many in our culture turn to this kind of negative, accusatory language? Are they hoping to feel better about their particular sins by assuming everyone else must be wallowing in sin with them? Is the false doctrine of the sinning Christian so deeply ingrained that their tongues follow the course set by Satan and his accusing minions? Can’t they see that such statements are not only false, they don’t even make sense?

If all people everywhere are caught in sin and are not obedient, the only practical conclusion is that it is impossible to obey. If that’s true, it doesn’t make sense even to provide the command, and it is certainly unjust to punish sinners eternally for committing sins they can’t help but commit.

Yet, the Bible says that it is not only possible to obey God in all things; it is the only true Christian life. No one who is born of God sins (1 John 3:9 and 5:18), and anyone who claims to be a Christian while still sinning is not telling the truth.

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:3-4)

It’s crucial that we tell the truth about sin, obedience, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can be obedient in all things, and to make universal claims that we are not obedient is an insult to Jesus Christ, who has provided us with the power to obey, as well as the cleansed heart, brimming with love for God, that causes us to want to obey.

As always, I welcome civil comments. It won't be helpful to say that this post makes me the same kind of accuser that I am complaining about. I am pointing out a specific error that is displayed in public, a similar reproof to the ones Jesus made in Matthew 23. I am not making a false, general accusation.

Fathers - Comfort from Strength

As Father's Day approaches, I will occasionally post an excerpt from my book, The Image of a Father. You can buy an autographed copy from me for only $5 plus shipping by clicking here.

This excerpt is entitlted, "Comfort from Strength."

Fear of the unknown surrounds the young; strange shapes in the darkness, creepy sounds in the night, slithering creatures under the bed or in the closet. They all work together to make little hands clench the sheets and yank them over their heads until the dawn of the next day. Even the worries of the world—political unrest, wars, street crime, and kidnappings—can deeply disturb young minds. They hear the news and imagine the troubles sneaking into their own homes; they magnify the dangers, exaggerating them, having no experience to discern the real risks.

As Christian fathers we realize there is no need for fear. We agree with King David, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me” (Ps. 23:4). We know that our heavenly Father is a God of comfort as the apostle Paul so clearly taught. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort; who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Cor. 1:3, 4).

From this passage, we learn without a doubt that we’re to reflect God’s comforting ways, passing his comfort on to our children. It is through knowing God, experiencing his comfort through our own trials, remembering his mercies when we wondered about the future, seeing his mighty works when we could not see how the days of trouble would end, that we have the confidence to stand now without fear.

Our children don’t have that luxury. They may not have seen a mighty God march to your rescue like the commander of a great army to save you from a dangerous predicament. Perhaps they weren’t there when God’s healing hand touched a friend of yours and brought him back from the brink of death. With few exceptions, they’ve never faced a fierce enemy and experienced deliverance from his evil intent. But if you’ve been a Christian for more than a few years, especially if you’ve done mission work on the gospel frontiers, then you have been there. You have seen God’s powerful hand move to thwart your enemies. You have felt his loving arms wrap around you in the midst of alarm. You have heard of his mighty deeds from brothers and sisters all over the world who have escaped the wiles of Satan, the crafty liar who would seek to stop the spread of the gospel.

As those who have seen and heard the works of God, we have experienced his comforting touch. It’s our duty, therefore, to extend that comfort to our little ones, so they, too, may feel the warm blanket of protection when they suffer the chill of the unknown.

Whether or not monsters really stalk our children from the dark corners of their rooms, tales of God’s protection will help them stare down the murky shadows, and they’ll sleep, heads uncovered, in blissful confidence and peace.

So what stories do we tell? What kind of tale would help our children see the light of God’s protection even in the darkest of times, such as what the Israelites experienced in Old Testament times? They were able to recount the horrible plagues God used to smash the pride of the Egyptian monarch, the parting of a sea that threatened to hem them in against the thundering chariots and the points of sharpened spears, and the conquering of terrifying giants who occupied the fruitful land God had promised. What could compare to those stories of awesome might?

At our home we receive mission magazines, and we delight in reading the stories of our dedicated missionaries in foreign and often dangerous countries. Whether at the dinner table or during our evening devotions, I enjoy watching the wide eyes of the younger children as we recount the dangers, even near-fatal encounters, from which God has rescued countless numbers of his servants.

Of course there are times when God chooses to allow some of his faithful ones to go home to heaven, but even then we emphasize that they’ve gone to a place of comfort, reaching the end of their earthly ministry as faithful soldiers of Christ. We can even rejoice with them. How great is the joy to die in the midst of service to God! Even stories like these bring comfort as the children picture a powerful angel escorting a martyr into a joyous “Welcome Home” celebration.

Along with sharing the stories of others, I frequently sprinkle in my own recollections. Some of God’s works in my life are quite impressive, and I enjoy glorifying the Lord by sharing those situations with my children. And it doesn’t hurt to tell them the same story more than once, for the effects it has on their hearts changes over the years as each child matures in wisdom and understanding. Stories that may seem “small,” God’s little mercies on a day-to-day basis, help our children see God’s intimate care, that he is not just concerned about the big issues—war, disease, and parting seas—but he truly does care for us more than the sparrows he counts in the fields. I tell them about the near miss on the highway, about how a stranger hailed me and gave me the wallet I had just dropped, and about an edifying e-mail from a Christian friend. I also encourage them to tell me about their activities, so we try to identify the events in which we can see God’s protection and resulting comfort.

Sometimes stories of faraway lands and recollections of times long past may not soothe a child who senses a closer, more present danger. Perhaps he’s experiencing a situation no story can address. Although you may unsuccessfully rack your brain to come up with a memory that parallels his troubling circumstance, there’s still a way to help your child find comfort. We don’t have to rely on a specific event God has already handled; we can rely on the immovable foundation of God’s character, the unsearchable depths of his wisdom, and the inestimable reach of his power. Simply put, there’s nothing God can’t handle, and this simple message brings comfort to almost any child. But there is one caveat—you have to live like you believe it; and I’ll explore that issue in a future post.