How Much Do You Love God?

But whoever has this world's good, and sees his brother have need,
and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him,
how dwells the love of God in him?
1 John 3:17

A person's generosity towards the less-fortunate is a clear indication of his or her devotion to God. Generosity toward one's unfortunate brother or sister in Christ is a reflection and an accurate measure of one's love for God. Stingy, miserly Christians are miserable miscreants. "Stingy,miserly Christian" is an oxymoron, for "how dwells the love of God in him?"

In the immediate context of verses 16-18, we see that God demonstrated his love for us by laying down his life for us and we are required to do the same (v. 17). Then verse 18 commands us to love not in word, but in deed.

So many who claim to know Christ as their Savior keep a tight clamp on their wallets. We sing:

All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.

But as we sing that we are lying through our teeth unless we also surrender our finances and our worldly possessions.

We have many poor people in our churches. We are willing to spend thousands of dollars to send the Bible to people we have never nor shall ever meet this side of heaven yet we refuse to spend $20.00 to buy groceries for an indigent family. This is sheer hypocrisy and ought not to be.

I know of a family that loves to sing "Freely, Freely." You know the words: "He said, 'Freely, freely you have received — Freely, freely give." Yet when it comes to giving they don't know what it means, their tight-fisted hearts and hands will not allow them to give freely.

What was the one sin that condemned the rich young ruler? Was it not covetousness. Will we, who refuse to share the wealth that God gave us, get off with any lighter condemnation? The command to assist the needy with our material blessings is not to the rich only, but to all. If we have what another needs in excess of what we need, we are under obligation to help out.

God will take note of your generosity and you will eventually get back that which you have given. God stakes his honor on that, for he tells us:

He that has pity upon the poor lends unto the LORD; and that which he has given will he pay him again. (Proverbs 19:17)

God is no man's debtor. He will repay you and you will be doubly blessed.

How much do you love God? Prove it!

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Jesus must be Lord of all or …

One of the clichés bandied about in Christian circles is “Jesus must be Lord of all or he can’t be Lord at all.” As with many other trite sayings that are in wide circulation, this one has passed into the warp and woof of modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity without nary a critical thought or a moment’s contemplation. The statement is not true. It is false. It is a lie. All lies have as their source Satan himself. This cliché is meant to encourage people to live all-out for Jesus Christ, but in some cases it has the opposite effect of comforting people who are presuming they are Christians and on their way to heaven but who are, in fact, spurious believers destined for the Lake of Fire.

Now, I’ve been so brazen as to declare this a false statement. I’ve contradicted what more learned men than I have said. The late Adrian Rogers, an iconic figure among many Southern Baptists, has written on his blog, “There is no middle ground for the Christian: Jesus must be Lord of all, or He can't be Lord at all.” Interestingly enough, he in that same blog, takes my position. I’ll show you that a little bit later. The pastor of a church in Houston similarly states, “Jesus must either be Lord of all or of nothing. The choice is yours.” This idea is prevalent in modern churchianity, as a search in Google will show. That it is echoed by so many does not, however, give it legitimacy. Follow me to the Court of the First and Last Resort.

Let us be “more noble than those in Thessalonica” and search the scriptures to see whether those things are so.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we do not “make Jesus Lord” of our lives or anything else any more than a British subject makes Elizabeth II the Queen. Jesus is Lord. He is the Lord Jesus Christ. That is one of his titles. It means something. It is not a mere sentiment. This is how Paul and Silas referred to the Savior when they addressed the Philippian jailor and said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house (Acts 16:31). It is God that made (past tense, completed action) Jesus Christ to be the Lord: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ,” (Acts 2:36).

Secondly, we do not “accept” Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. (By the way, the idea of “accepting” Jesus was totally foreign to the apostles). The admonition that Paul gave the Philippian jailor says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” We cannot pick those elements of Jesus that we like while disregarding the rest. We must believe on “the Lord.” What does that mean? It means when we come to Christ we come with the recognition that not only is he the only Savior, the only way to God, but that he is also the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe and of ourselves in particular. His being Lord gives him the right to order us around, to send us where we do not want to go, to do the things that we do not want to do. It means we submit to him much as General Robert E. Lee submitted to General Ulysses S. Grant — unconditionally!

That brings me to the original thesis of this posting: The saying, “Jesus must be Lord of all or he is not Lord at all” is false. This bromide is, as I said above, supposed to encourage spurious saints to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Whether it is effective or not, I do not know. But God did not call us to be pragmatic. He called us to be truthful.

In Acts 10:36 we find these words: “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:).” Notice the words in parentheses: “He is Lord of all.” That is a present tense statement. He is Lord of all. Note again, that he is Lord of all. There is nothing not subject to his dominion, his lordship. He is Lord of all!

Adrian Rogers agrees with me (not that it makes what I have written truth) and says in the same blog from which I quoted above,

In the dictionary, the definition of the word lord is one with absolute power, absolute authority. We often speak of commitment, but the real question is surrender. When you're committed, you're in control; when you surrender, you relinquish control. If a robber puts a gun to your head, you don't commit your wallet; you surrender it!

To understand that truth is the beginning of kingdom authority. He is called Lord no less than 747 times in the New Testament. You can't make Him Lord; He has already claimed the title. Your questions are, first, will you recognize His Lordship, and second, will you submit to it? He is Lord of all you have and all you do. Do you live by that Lordship?"

The quality of our new converts suffers because of our misuse of terminology. How much different do you suppose a new believer would be if he was told that he needed to demonstrate repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ? Our superficial evangelism does not allow for this, of course. Sinners are in rebellion against the Almighty. They are avowed enemies. When one comes to Christ one must abandon his self-centered and egocentric thinking and living and surrender to the rule of a new master, the Lord Jesus Christ. He (or she) must be told that when they come to Christ their life is no longer their own (1 Corinthians 6:15-20). Then, their conversion will give proof to their confession that “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,” (Philippians 2:11).

Where there is no vision....

Where there is no vision, the people perish:
but he that keeps the law, happy is he.
Proverbs 29:18

This is a favorite verse of those in the success-motivation field. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" — and that is where they end the quotation, divorcing it from the significant clause that follows. At any rate, the idea in their heads is that you have to have an idea of what you want, where you are going, and how you are going to get there. All that is true, but none of that is intended by the wise Preacher.

What the writer actually intends to tell us is that when the Word of God fails to be communicated through the mouths of his prophets, things are in a bad strait. It is the prophetic vision that is the subject of this verse, not some grandiose idea of success.

We have come to a day in which "there is no vision." Preachers preach everything but a word from the Lord. Some preach others sermons. Plagiarizing another's sermon and calling it a word from God? How ludicrous. To steal another's words or to steal his authorship and present it as coming from God through your heart? We need to hear a word from the Lord, not a word from Rick Warren.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." Some preach their own ideas. Some preach how-to sermons. Some even preach from magazines. Others resort to gimmicks like drama, dance, and puppet shows, none of which have been ordained by God. And so it is: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." We need to hear a word from the Lord. We are not interested in nor benefited by your ideas, Rick Warren's ideas, nor the Reader's Digest. We want to know what God is saying through you. We need to know what God is saying through you.

There is a connection between the two clauses of this verse. On the one hand people perish. On the other they find blessing. The connection is the Word of God. When the Word of God is clearly, boldly, and unabashedly preached from a heart that has been exercised by the Savior who has redeemed us, that same word then passes into the hearts of the hearers and becomes a tool for the Holy Spirit to use to work sanctifying change in us. As we obey that word we shall find ourselves happy, or blessed.

Too many believers sit under preachers who have not the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. They can conjugate verbs, parse and diagram sentences, and give the history of the text but do not know how to make it applicable to the man and women — and the children — in the pew.

Today, in these United States, we find ourselves living out the truth of this verse. There is no vision, and the people perish. There is little difference between the average professing Christian and the person who makes no claim of knowing Christ. The world has invaded and conquered the Church and we wring our hands and wonder what went wrong. Doctrine after doctrine has been watered down or ignored and our people no longer know what it is to be a Christian: and all because there is no vision, no word from God.

The Shack — A critique

The Shack, Wm. Paul Young, Windblown Media, Newbury Park, CA, 2007

Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, says: "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good." That’s like comparing the Bible to Alice in Wonderland. The one is filled with truth, the other with error. One has stood the test of time, the other will not last ten years. Truth be told, The Shack is not that good.

"Bill, it's a work of fiction!" That was the response one gave to me when I presented him with some of my criticisms of The Shack. That objection has been repeated by others. "It's a fictitious novel and should be read purely for entertainment value. The author never intended it to become a 'bible study book' or anything of the sort," is another example.

Is that a legitimate objection?

I do not believe it is. One of those that objected to my criticism of The Shack has himself remonstrated against Dan Brown’s fictional work, The Da Vinci Code. If criticism against the later is legitimate why is it not against the former? Dan Brown, as far as I know, does not push his book as truth; Willie Young does. He would have you believe that while it is a novel, that much of it is true. He states in his blog, Wind Rumors, that “Mack is mostly me” and “the conversations are very real and true.”

I also believe that criticism of The Shack is fair and appropriate because, even if there was a flat-out denial of it being a true-to-life real story, it portrays Christianity and Christianity’s God in ways that are supposed to make God more personal and understandable to people, along with making the Christian life more real and understandable, as well. However, I believe the author misses the mark so widely that this book will further confuse the many who are biblically illiterate and whose Christian beliefs are shallow.

Fiction that purports to be biblical and that portrays God, whether written by a Christian or an unbelieving author, must first and foremost be truthful. It is at this very level that The Shack falls short.

My first objection to Shack is the constant over-familiarity of referring to God as “Papa.” I suppose this usage is deduced from Romans 8:15. Modern preachers tell us that abba is the Aramaic word for “daddy.” Where they got that I do not know. Abba comes originally from the Chaldee and passed into Aramaic and means, “Father.”

While the Bible tells Christians that they may come before the throne of God boldly, it never tells us we can come to God as familiars. In fact, we must come on the merits of Jesus Christ. None of the apostles, who were much closer to Christ than any character in The Shack, were so impudent as to refer to the Father of our Lord as “Papa.”

My second objection to The Shack is its misrepresentation of God the Father. Mack, the main character in the story, has a run-in with God. He sees God in human form. What does God look like in The Shack? Aunt Jemima or, as it says in the words of the book, “he was looking directly into the face of a large, beaming African-American woman.” The Father is always referred to as “she.” This is horrendous, to say the least.

The Bible repeatedly tells us that God is not a man (and by extension, not a woman). The Bible also tells us that God is spirit and no man has seen God at any time. When God did decide to reveal himself to mankind, he did it through his Son, who is “the express image of his person.” Thick or thin, black or white, God cannot be represented by a woman, let alone any man other than Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit, too, is portrayed as a woman. Her name is Sarayu. She is Asian.

Mack’s vocabulary leaves a little to be desired. A book written for a supposedly Christian audience should be careful to be without fault and to set a good example. As I read the book I was often surprised and dismayed by the earthy language used. One example should suffice. On page 177 of my paperback edition, Mack is engaged in talking to the Lord of Glory (an image of Jesus which is actually lacking in the book) when he says, “But why do we keep all that crap inside?” Crap is a euphemism for … well, you know what for. It’s use is beneath the dignity of a child of God and certainly would never be used by one knowing he was talking to the Son of Man. That it is commonly heard, even in the house of God, does not justify its use in the book. In another place, Mack uses “Geez” in conversation with the Holy Spirit. Geez is a corruption of Jesus and its use is a violation of taking the name of God in vain.

The book also contains theological errors. In one place (p. 194) God the Father says, “I am now fully reconciled to the world.” I do not find that concept taught in Scripture. What I do find is that God sent his Son into the world to reconcile the world to him (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Jesus is quoted as saying, “…I have no desire to make them [Buddhists, Mormons, etc.] Christian.” I find that statement absurd, coming from one who supposedly writes from a Christian perspective.

One more error: The Holy Spirit says to Mack, “In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” The first sentence is not true. The second sentence is stated by the apostle Paul twice, in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23. Willie Young’s use of it in this context wrests it from the context in which the apostle used it. In the first place all Christians are under some law. We are not under the law of Moses, but we are under the law of Christ. We are not under the law of sin, but we are under the law of the Spirit of life. We are under the royal law, that which requires us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. To say that we are not under any law is sheer foolishness.

My last complaint against the book is the attitude that Mack takes toward God in his great loss. Mack becomes bitter and withdrawn, condemns God and, in short, acts like a child robbed of his candy. Mack attacks and condemns God, doubts God, is angry with God. All of the emotions and thoughts that Mack expresses are those that you and I go through in similar circumstances. But they are thoughts, actions, and emotions condemned by God. How much better would it have been for The Shack to have pointed Mack to the book of Job where one suffers much more loss than what Mack did and responded without sinning. Alas, the author missed a great opportunity. The book finishes with Mack understanding more about God but never repenting of his self-centeredness and rebellion against God.

Greg Albright, editor of Plain Truth Magazine said, "William Young's insights are not just captivating, they are biblically faithful and true.” I think Mr. Albright, along with a lot of others, need to do more reading from the Bible. That is where the answers to situations like Mack’s are found. They certainly will not be found in The Shack.

Jesus at the Door

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)


Someone once said, “A text without a context is nothing more than a pretext.” Nothing could me more true of the all-too-frequent use of Revelation 3:20 in the context of evangelism. This verse is commonly used to show sinners that it is up to them to open the door of their hearts to let Jesus come in and sup with them.


“You see,” says the evangelist, “Jesus is standing outside the door to your heart. He’s knocking on the door but he can’t open it because there’s no doorknob. You have to open it from the inside.”


My friend, to put it most truthfully and bluntly, this is poppycock. It is a lie. When this line of reasoning is used by one that knows better (and many do) it is using a tool of the Devil to do God's work. It is impossible to find any support for this fabrication in the context, although many commentators foist that explanation off on us in their writings.


What is the context? Jesus Christ is speaking to the backslidden, lukewarm church of Laodicea. He is urging upon them the necessity to repent. So Jesus is not standing at the door to a unbeliever's heart, but at the door of a believer's heart. When we speak of door and of the heart, it must be taken allegorically. We could just as easily say the door is of the mind, or of the will, or something similar.


Is there a knob on the door? Who knows. The Bible doesn't tell us one way or another. To state that there is no knob is to add to the scriptures and perhaps to come under the condemnation of Revelation 22:18. What we do know is that Jesus could, if he would, blow the door down. He could do that with his breath or just by willing it. Jesus wants voluntary obedience and gives us the opportunity to enjoy his company.


Just previous to this, Jesus speaks a warning: “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent,” (Revelation 3:19). This invitation to open the door is the counterpoint. On the one hand is the threat of chastening, on the other hand is the invitation to fellowship.


We need to recognize the urgency of living godly lives, of lives pleasing to Jesus. We may claim to be Christians, we may have been baptized, we may have joined and served in the church, but if we do not walk the walk, we shall be rebuked and chastised. If we are off the mark in our walk with God, the invitation to find our place at God's table is always extended.

Effective Antagonism

There are times we want to discuss a particular subject, teaching, or event in order to learn more about it. Sometimes we want to enter into a dialogue to understand the other person’s point of view, and sometimes we want to talk it over in order to correct or counter what we perceive to be an error in thinking. These are all legitimate aims.

Sometimes we are so convinced of the rightness of our own position that we run roughshod over those that disagree with us. I have seen pastors of many years do this as well as the exuberant young convert who is aflame with passion for his new-found views. Unfortunately, we often do great harm to the cause of God and truth by failing to take into consideration the person with whom we are contending. Next to the Bible, every contender for the truth should be thoroughly familiar with the principals of inter-personal relationships enumerated in How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie. How we pursue our objective will either gain us a hearing or a dismissal as just another troublemaker. Carnegie’s book will help to make it the former rather than the later.

I am not afraid of those with opposing viewpoints nor am I always opposed to having those views expressed in this blog. I, being human, am not perfect and therefore do not have perfect understanding. There are times I need to be corrected. One gentleman who did that in a humble approach was Russell Earl Kelly, PhD, Author of Should the Church Teach Tithing? You can read his comments at http://hermeneutical.blogspot.com/2007/09/honor-lord-with-your-substance.html.

Anyone can write a blog (and I am proof of that) and unless you know that person personally or by reputation you have no idea if he even knows what he is talking about. As a blogger, I have to do my best to establish and hold a readership. Proper use of language, vocabulary, punctuation, and correct spelling go a long way in giving me credibility. But more than that, I have to know what I am talking about. This holds true for those that want to comment on my posts as well. Let me give you a case in point.

The man that wrote in opposition to my article on the Trinity said, “Sorry, but your Trinitarian belief is incorrect. If you will check the Greek, you will find that the Pronoun used when referring to the Holy Spirit is neutral. The Holy spirit [sic] is the power of God. The bible uses the pronoun 'He' when referring to the Holy Spirit and it should be correctly rendered ‘It’. Just check the Greek.”

Any first-year Greek student will chortle upon reading that. “Just check the Greek,” — like the man is a Greek scholar. This man either has not the slightest exposure to the structure of Greek or is suffering from an advanced case of Alzheimer’s. Greek, along with many other languages, has three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. “Spirit” is neuter in gender, not neutral. The word “spirit” may be translated, depending on context, as “wind” or “breath” as well as “spirit.” It does not follow that because spirit is a neuter word that the object represented by the word is. One of the words used in the New Testament for child is tekna (τεκνα). Tekna is also a neuter word. Sometimes it refers to a female and at other times to a male child. No linguist would translate an antecedent or subsequent pronoun referring to tekna as “it.” Checking the Greek has to go beyond a quick reference to Strong’s concordance. By the way, there are also Greek masculine words with feminine endings. At any rate, the Bible translators are correct in assigning an English masculine pronoun to references to the Holy Spirit. This we will, the Lord enabling, show in a future post. If you don’t know Greek don’t use it in an argument. If you don’t know what you are talking about it is better to not say anything than to show your ignorance to the whole world.

Handling Antagonists

How can you tell if someone is interested in discussing a difference of opinion or just wants to dump his or her views on you? How can you tell if a person is truly interested in learning or is entering the discussion as a teacher, a know-it-all? More than that, how does one deal with such a person?

I received two responses from the same individual to a blog article I had written some time back on the basis of the Trinitarian belief. The first of these started with, “Sorry, but your Trinitarian belief is incorrect.” Not much to discuss, is there? Judgment has been passed. I (or at least my understanding of the subject) has been tried, condemned, and declared anathema. What do I say, “Is too”? Mr. Obdurate isn’t going to listen. His mind is made up. I’m wrong and that’s all there is to it.

Can this person enter into a civil and gentlemanly discussion at this stage of the game? I do not think so. He has thrown down a gauntlet and is daring me to pick it up. He is picking a fight rather than looking for light and for a reasonable answer. It is his prerogative to not believe what I have written. A better course of action would have been to ask me to provide additional support for my belief in the Trinity. Then we could enter into a discussion of the pros and cons of our respective positions. But he did not do that. He just spoke ex cathedra and declared me to be in error.

What is my response to be? I guess I could answer in kind, but that would shed no light and only generate ill feelings. I could respond to his reasoning with logical counterpoints but that would probably be met with arms akimbo and an equally closed mind. And I could ignore him. I could do a combination of these responses but that would be counterproductive.

The one thing I will not do is post his thoughts on this blog. Why not? Many blogs will allow just about anyone to say anything, pro or con. This particular blog does not fall under that category. I am not afraid of opposing viewpoints and have allowed some readers to post views differing from what I believe. The purpose of this blog is not to allow just anyone to vent or push his or her own understanding of the Word of God, but to (as much as is humanly possible) present a clear and orthodox understanding of Scripture and Christian doctrine. This man’s views are unorthodox and from an historic Christian perspective, heretical.

What I will do is to present portions of his response and show the weakness(es) in his thinking. That way, those interested in having their convictions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity made more concrete will also have more knowledge to answer those whom you may encounter that think like this man or are leaning toward his views. My antagonist is welcome to read my posts and learn why the Church has insisted that orthodoxy include belief in the Trinity. He is also free to continue to disagree. He is free to discuss, to offer remonstrances, or to ignore me. He is not free, in this forum, to push his present views.