Quest for Joy: Six Biblical Truths

Did you know that God commands us to be glad?

"Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart." (Psalm 37:4)

1) God created us for his glory

"Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth,... whom I created for my glory" (Isaiah 43:6-7)

God made us to magnify his greatness - the way telescopes magnify stars. He created us to put his goodness and truth and beauty and wisdom and justice on display. The greatest display of God's glory comes from deep delight in all that he is. This means that God gets the praise and we get the pleasure. God created us so that he is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.

2) Every human should live for God's glory

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).

If God made us for his glory, it is clear that we should live for his glory. Our duty comes from his design. So our first obligation is to show God's value by being satisfied with all that he is for us. This is the essence of loving God (Matthew 22:37) and trusting him (1 John 5:3-4) and being thankful to him (Psalm 100:2-4) It is the root of all true obedience, especially loving others (Colossians 1:4-5).

3) All of us have failed to glorify God as we should

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

What does it mean to "fall short of the glory of God?" It means that none of us has trusted and treasured God the way we should. We have not been satisfied with his greatness and walked in his ways. We have sought our satisfaction in other things, and treated them as more valuable than God, which is the essence of idolatry (Romans 1:21-23). Since sin came into the world we have all been deeply resistant to having God as our all-satisfying treasure (Ephesians 2:3). This is an appalling offense to the greatness of God (Jeremiah 2:12-13).

4) All of us are subject to God's just condemnation

"The wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23).

We have all belittled the glory of God. How? By preferring other things above him. By our ingratitude, distrust and disobedience. So God is just in shutting us out from the enjoyment of his glory forever. "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

The word "hell" is used in the New Testament twelve times - eleven times by Jesus himself. It is not a myth created by dismal and angry preachers. It is a solemn warning from the Son of God who died to deliver sinners from its curse. We ignore it at great risk.

If the Bible stopped here in its analysis of the human condition, we would be doomed to a hopeless future. However, this is not where it stops...

5) God sent his only son Jesus to provide eternal life and joy

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners..." (1 Timothy 1:15)

The good news is that Christ died for sinners like us. And he rose physically from the dead to validate the saving power of his death and to open the gates of eternal life and joy (1 Corinthians 15:20). This means God can acquit guilty sinners and still be just (Romans 3:25-26). "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God" (1 Peter 3:18). Coming home to God is where all deep and lasting satisfaction is found.

6) The benefits purchased by the death of Christ belong to those who repent and trust him

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out" (Acts 3:19). "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

"Repent" means to turn from all the deceitful promises of sin. "Faith" means being satisfied with all that God promises to be for us in Jesus. "He who believes in me," Jesus says, "shall never thirst" (John 6:35). We do not earn our salvation. We cannot merit it (Romans 4:4-5). It is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is a free gift (Romans 3:24). We will have it if we cherish it above all things (Matthew 13:44). When we do that, God's aim in creation is accomplished: He is glorified in us and we are satisfied in him - forever.

Carrying the Cross of a Difficult Pastorate

Charles Simeon was not your typical pastor. Although I wish he were. And his congregation, Holy Trinity Church on the campus of Cambridge University, was not your normal church. And I'm glad it's not. Zoom in and you'll see what I mean. Two hundred years ago, Cambridge students were required to attend church and, periodically, receive the Lord's Supper. Charles Simeon, a 1779 Cambridge freshman, was not a Christian but somehow understood the importance of communion. To prepare himself, he purchased the only religious book he'd ever heard of: Whole Duty of Man. And, before long, he fell to his knees crying out for God's mercy. It was a true conversion from which Simeon would never recover. Upon graduation, Simeon, with an assist from his influential father, was ordained and appointed Pastor of Holy Trinity Church at Cambridge. It was Simeon's dream job... but not for long. It's hard to imagine the isolation for an evangelical pastor in the halls of Cambridge during the late 1700's, just three years after his conversion. Alone with his newfound faith, he wrote: "I longed to know some spiritual person who had the same views and feelings. I even considered putting an ad into the papers that would read, 'I'm a young clergyman who feels himself an undone sinner. I've looked to Jesus alone for salvation and I desire to live only to make the Savior known. I'm hopeful there is someone out there whose beliefs agree with mine. But after three years I've found none.'" To make matters worse:
The congregation of Holy Trinity didn't want him as their pastor.
Church members boycotted his services and pew-holders locked their pews.
To provide seating, Simeon placed benches in the aisles but the wardens threw them out.
At times the church leaders locked the doors, preventing him from the services.
Rowdy university students protested Simeon's preaching with obscenities and riots, and Simeon was pelted with rotten eggs as he left church.
The faculty treated him with contempt. They slandered and ostracized him.

Why all this abuse? Because Simeon faithfully and consistently taught the truth of man's sinfulness and the bountiful forgiveness available in Christ. But how much can one man take? Even godly pastors have a breaking point! One day Simeon took a long walk into the woods to offer God his resignation: "I can't take it any more, Lord! I just can't!" Finding a stump to sit on, he randomly opened his Bible, hoping for divine confirmation. Instead, his Bible fell open to one, lone verse: "They found a man of Cyrene, Simeon by name, and forced him to carry Christ's cross." Charles Simeon, an exhausted and defeated pastor, finally saw his situation through different eyes. "Lord, lay it on me; lay it on me! I will gladly carry the cross for Your sake." Gradually the tide turned. Growing numbers of students, impressed by his courage, came to hear him speak. Pew-holders, amazed at his determination, reopened their pews. Fellow professors, curious about his tenacity and intellect, came to learn and admire. For 54 years he remained pastor of Holy Trinity Church. Finally, at age 77, Simeon was called into God's presence. He had become so loved that when he died all shops in Cambridge closed, university lectures were suspended, and mourners lined 4-deep all around the college, waiting to pay their final tribute to their faithful pastor. Some pastorates are more difficult than others. Yours may be one of them. But, like Simeon, be willing to carry the cross for Christ's sake.

Carrying the Cross of a Difficult Pastorate

Charles Simeon was not your typical pastor. Although I wish he were. And his congregation, Holy Trinity Church on the campus of Cambridge University, was not your normal church. And I'm glad it's not. Zoom in and you'll see what I mean. Two hundred years ago, Cambridge students were required to attend church and, periodically, receive the Lord's Supper. Charles Simeon, a 1779 Cambridge freshman, was not a Christian but somehow understood the importance of communion. To prepare himself, he purchased the only religious book he'd ever heard of: Whole Duty of Man. And, before long, he fell to his knees crying out for God's mercy. It was a true conversion from which Simeon would never recover. Upon graduation, Simeon, with an assist from his influential father, was ordained and appointed Pastor of Holy Trinity Church at Cambridge. It was Simeon's dream job... but not for long. It's hard to imagine the isolation for an evangelical pastor in the halls of Cambridge during the late 1700's, just three years after his conversion. Alone with his newfound faith, he wrote: "I longed to know some spiritual person who had the same views and feelings. I even considered putting an ad into the papers that would read, 'I'm a young clergyman who feels himself an undone sinner. I've looked to Jesus alone for salvation and I desire to live only to make the Savior known. I'm hopeful there is someone out there whose beliefs agree with mine. But after three years I've found none.'" To make matters worse:
The congregation of Holy Trinity didn't want him as their pastor.
Church members boycotted his services and pew-holders locked their pews.
To provide seating, Simeon placed benches in the aisles but the wardens threw them out.
At times the church leaders locked the doors, preventing him from the services.
Rowdy university students protested Simeon's preaching with obscenities and riots, and Simeon was pelted with rotten eggs as he left church.
The faculty treated him with contempt. They slandered and ostracized him.

Why all this abuse? Because Simeon faithfully and consistently taught the truth of man's sinfulness and the bountiful forgiveness available in Christ. But how much can one man take? Even godly pastors have a breaking point! One day Simeon took a long walk into the woods to offer God his resignation: "I can't take it any more, Lord! I just can't!" Finding a stump to sit on, he randomly opened his Bible, hoping for divine confirmation. Instead, his Bible fell open to one, lone verse: "They found a man of Cyrene, Simeon by name, and forced him to carry Christ's cross." Charles Simeon, an exhausted and defeated pastor, finally saw his situation through different eyes. "Lord, lay it on me; lay it on me! I will gladly carry the cross for Your sake." Gradually the tide turned. Growing numbers of students, impressed by his courage, came to hear him speak. Pew-holders, amazed at his determination, reopened their pews. Fellow professors, curious about his tenacity and intellect, came to learn and admire. For 54 years he remained pastor of Holy Trinity Church. Finally, at age 77, Simeon was called into God's presence. He had become so loved that when he died all shops in Cambridge closed, university lectures were suspended, and mourners lined 4-deep all around the college, waiting to pay their final tribute to their faithful pastor. Some pastorates are more difficult than others. Yours may be one of them. But, like Simeon, be willing to carry the cross for Christ's sake.
Blessings,

How to Know Truth and Evaluate Competing Worldviews...Continued from page 5

Of course, the other possibility is that the Bible came to be corrupted at some point after the seventh century. The problem with this is that we have a massive amount of New Testament manuscripts dating as far back as the second century and Old Testament manuscripts dating back even earlier that are virtually identical with our Bibles today. This rules out the possibility of the kind of Biblical corruption that Islam requires after the second century. And of course, for Islam to suggest that the Bible had become fundamentally corrupted after the second century would simply clash with history, causing Islam to fail the Test of Historical Consistency.


So where does that leave us? The Koran does not allow for a corrupted Bible before the seventh century. History itself shows that the Bible could not have been corrupted after the second century. So there is no time left in which the Bible could have been corrupted. And since Islam depends on the notion that the Bible has been fundamentally corrupted, we see that Islam as a worldview cannot fit reality.

What About Tolerance?
With all this talk about different worldviews failing to fit reality, you might wonder what happened to tolerance. It sure doesn't sound tolerant, does it? But what is tolerance?
Our modern notion of tolerance is that you can't say that someone else's beliefs are wrong. If you do, you are being intolerant. But that is not what tolerance has always meant. The historic meaning of tolerance is that you should be willing to live peacefully and respectfully with those you believe, and even say, are wrong.

If you think about it, our modern "redefined" understanding of tolerance doesn't even make sense. If you can't say something is wrong or false, there is nothing left to tolerate.
But even more than this, our modern understanding of tolerance undercuts itself. It does the very thing that it claims ought not to be done. It says, essentially, that it is wrong for you to say that someone else is wrong. This, of course, fails the Test of Logical Consistency, and thus cannot be an approach that fits reality.

The historic meaning of tolerance is actually a reflection of the teaching of Jesus himself, and this is how we ought to approach others and the worldviews they hold.

The Call of Jesus
This leads us, finally, to the call of Jesus. John 1:17 states, "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." One of the implications of this verse is simply that grace and truth must be held together when evaluating different worldviews, and when relating to the people that hold them.

If we hold onto truth without grace, we beat people up with our words and we fail to follow the Jesus who was called "the friend of sinners" and who humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross. If we hold onto grace without truth, we find ourselves no longer in touch with reality, but rather blinded by a pretend world that doesn't match the real world as it actually is.

The Apostle Peter shows the need for both when he says in 1 Peter 3:15, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have [referring to truth]. But do this with gentleness and respect [referring to grace]."

May it be so with each of us.

How to Know Truth and Evaluate Competing Worldviews...Continued from page 4

It should be noted that the Naturalist has a high price to pay for the worldview he embraces. The Naturalist must say that the things that we all value in life—love, relationships, beauty, justice—are mere illusions. A consistent Naturalist will admit this.

But the Naturalist has a deeper problem. How can mere matter and energy have an illusion? Of course, it can't. At this point, we realize that Naturalism fails the Test of Logical Consistency as well, requiring illusions which Naturalism cannot allow.


How to Test a Worldview - Islam
What about Islam? Islam depends on the notion that the Bible has been fundamentally corrupted. Islam has to claim this because, while it affirms that the Bible as originally written is the Word of God, there are core contradictions between the Bible as we have it today and the teachings of Islam.

For example, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, and without this teaching Christianity falls apart. But Islam teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, and without this teaching Islam falls apart. Again, the Bible teaches that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, and without this teaching Christianity falls apart. But Islam teaches that Jesus did not die on the cross and rise from the dead, and without this teaching Islam falls apart. So there are clear contradictions between the core teachings of the Bible as we have it today and the core teachings of Islam. And the only way Islam can maintain that the Bible is the Word of God and avoid these kinds of contradictions is by claiming that the Bible as originally written came to be fundamentally corrupted at some point in time.

So then, the question becomes "When was the Bible corrupted?" One possibility is before the Koran was written in the seventh century. The problem with this possibility is that the Koran itself refers to the Bible as a reliable document at the time in which the Koran was written.

For example, Koran 5:47 says "Let the People of the Gospel [i.e., Christians] judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what God hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel." This is a call issued by the Koran in the seventh century for Christians to listen to what God had revealed in the New Testament. This call only makes sense if the New Testament had been faithfully preserved through the seventh century, because only then could they "judge by the light of what God hath revealed."

Likewise, Koran 5:68 says "Say: ‘O People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians]! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law [i.e., the Old Testament], the Gospel [i.e., the New Testament], and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.'" Again, this assumes that the Bible is reliable at the time of the writing of the Koran because you can't "stand fast" by what has essentially been lost through corruption.

So, the Koran itself assumes that the Bible had been faithfully preserved, at least through the seventh century when the Koran was written. Of course, for Islam to suggest that the Bible had become fundamentally corrupted before the seventh century would lead to a contradiction, causing Islam to fail the Test of Logical Consistency.

How to Know Truth and Evaluate Competing Worldviews...Continued from page 3

This leads to the fundamental question we have to ask when evaluating a worldview, "Is this worldview consistent with reality or not?"

It seems to me that there are at least three tests by which we can determine whether a worldview is consistent with reality. First is the Test of Logical Consistency, which asks "Is this worldview consistent with itself?" If this worldview represents reality, in order to be consistent with reality it has to be consistent with itself. Second is the Test of Historical Consistency, which asks "Is this worldview consistent with history?" History tells us what the world has been like up to this point. So if a worldview is going to fit reality, it will have to be consistent with history. Third is the Test of Experiential Consistency, which asks "Is this worldview consistent with life as it presents itself to us?" If a worldview is going to fit reality, it is going to have to fit the data that life lays out before us.


Though I do not want to oversimplify the various worldviews in our culture (there is always more to learn), I do want to show that worldviews tend to have core, decisive elements that allow the average Joe on the street to evaluate them in light of the tests just mentioned.

How to Test a Worldview - Postmodernism
Let's take a few examples. First, Postmodernism. Postmodernism is perhaps the most pervasive, fundamental worldview in our culture today. The essence of Postmodernism is the notion that everybody decides for himself what is true and what is right. You hear Postmodernism when you hear people say things like "That's true for you, but not for me," or "You have your truth; I have mine," or "That's just your personal belief."

The core truth claim of Postmodernism is that there is no overarching truth that applies to everybody. And this core truth claim, by the way, is the overarching truth that applies to everybody! Of course, in claiming that there is no overarching truth that applies to everybody, it is making an overarching truth claim that applies to everybody. This, of course, is a contradiction, causing Postmodernism to fail the Test of Logical Consistency. Thus, Postmodernism cannot fit reality as it actually is.

I find this utterly fascinating! The worldview that governs so much of our culture at a fundamental level could not possibly be true. And you do not have to go very deep to see it.

How to Test a Worldview - Naturalism
Another example is Naturalism. At its core, Naturalism says that matter and energy are all there is (thus, it is essentially Atheistic). You hear this worldview when you hear people say things like "Everything has to have a ‘scientific' explanation," which is often code for "Naturalistic explanation." So everything in life has to be explained in terms of the properties of matter and energy alone.

One of the problems with Naturalism is that it just doesn't fit our collective experience of life. Life presents itself to us as including things like relationships, commitment, love, hate, etc. But Naturalism does not have room for these things. Atoms cannot love; energy cannot hate. Naturalism paints a picture of reality that clashes with the world as we know it. So Naturalism fails the Test of Experiential Consistency and thus cannot fit reality.

How to Know Truth and Evaluate Competing Worldviews...Continued from page 3

This leads to the fundamental question we have to ask when evaluating a worldview, "Is this worldview consistent with reality or not?"

It seems to me that there are at least three tests by which we can determine whether a worldview is consistent with reality. First is the Test of Logical Consistency, which asks "Is this worldview consistent with itself?" If this worldview represents reality, in order to be consistent with reality it has to be consistent with itself. Second is the Test of Historical Consistency, which asks "Is this worldview consistent with history?" History tells us what the world has been like up to this point. So if a worldview is going to fit reality, it will have to be consistent with history. Third is the Test of Experiential Consistency, which asks "Is this worldview consistent with life as it presents itself to us?" If a worldview is going to fit reality, it is going to have to fit the data that life lays out before us.


Though I do not want to oversimplify the various worldviews in our culture (there is always more to learn), I do want to show that worldviews tend to have core, decisive elements that allow the average Joe on the street to evaluate them in light of the tests just mentioned.

How to Test a Worldview - Postmodernism
Let's take a few examples. First, Postmodernism. Postmodernism is perhaps the most pervasive, fundamental worldview in our culture today. The essence of Postmodernism is the notion that everybody decides for himself what is true and what is right. You hear Postmodernism when you hear people say things like "That's true for you, but not for me," or "You have your truth; I have mine," or "That's just your personal belief."

The core truth claim of Postmodernism is that there is no overarching truth that applies to everybody. And this core truth claim, by the way, is the overarching truth that applies to everybody! Of course, in claiming that there is no overarching truth that applies to everybody, it is making an overarching truth claim that applies to everybody. This, of course, is a contradiction, causing Postmodernism to fail the Test of Logical Consistency. Thus, Postmodernism cannot fit reality as it actually is.

I find this utterly fascinating! The worldview that governs so much of our culture at a fundamental level could not possibly be true. And you do not have to go very deep to see it.

How to Test a Worldview - Naturalism
Another example is Naturalism. At its core, Naturalism says that matter and energy are all there is (thus, it is essentially Atheistic). You hear this worldview when you hear people say things like "Everything has to have a ‘scientific' explanation," which is often code for "Naturalistic explanation." So everything in life has to be explained in terms of the properties of matter and energy alone.

One of the problems with Naturalism is that it just doesn't fit our collective experience of life. Life presents itself to us as including things like relationships, commitment, love, hate, etc. But Naturalism does not have room for these things. Atoms cannot love; energy cannot hate. Naturalism paints a picture of reality that clashes with the world as we know it. So Naturalism fails the Test of Experiential Consistency and thus cannot fit reality.