Is Christianity Intolerant?
Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Friday, August 11, 2023
The concept (and the actual word) “acceptance” has been added to the definition in a way that subtly transforms the classic definition. This view promotes not that we must “endure” each other in the context of our disagreements, but that we must “accept” and embrace each other’s worldview as equally valuable and equally true.
There is growing cultural skepticism and criticism of all things “Christian”. At times like this, the issue of religious “tolerance” is sometimes raised and examined. Christians are often called intolerant, especially when examined under a new definition of tolerance that has emerged in our culture. How should we respond when people call us “intolerant” simply because we refuse to embrace a particular value or behavior?
First: Help People Understand “Classic” Tolerance
YourDictionary.com says that tolerance is “a tolerating or being tolerant, esp. of views, beliefs, practices, etc. of others that differ from one’s own”. And when asked what it is to tolerate something, the same source says that we ‘tolerate’ someone when we “recognize and respect (others’ beliefs, practices, etc.) without sharing them”. TheFreeDictionary.com says that ‘tolerating’ is “to put up with” or “endure” something.
Now did you notice something here? In order for ‘tolerance’ to exist and to be demonstrated, several things are required. Let’s take a look at the list of pre-requisites for ‘tolerance’:
1. Two or more people must exist
2. These folks must hold divergent views, beliefs or practices. In other words, they must DISAGREE.
3. These same folks must endure one another. In other words, they cannot eliminate each other even though they don’t embrace each other’s beliefs, but must instead find a way to peacefully co-exist.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
What Does Solus Christus Mean?
Written by D. Blair Smith |
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Solus Christus was needed in the sixteenth century and is needed in the twenty-first century in order to press upon us the fact that our relationship with God can be mediated by none other than Christ alone.Whatever age we live in, whether the age of the Reformers or the present age, we are tempted to pollute the beauty of Christ through our idols. John Calvin said it’s in our very nature: “Man’s nature…is a perpetual factory of idols…Man’s mind, full as it is of pride and boldness, dares to imagine a god according to its own capacity.”
The doctrine of solus Christus was highlighted during the Reformation as the Reformers identified the problem of a church that was casting shade on Christ; of a church that was arrogating to itself prerogatives that belong to Christ alone. This problem impressed upon the Reformers the need to purge anything that would throw shade upon the absolute brilliance of Christ’s supremacy in our salvation. The Reformers clearly identified this problem and brought a biblical and theological solution that provides application for our own day.
The Problem of a Strong Church
In the early sixteenth century, the church was at the center of people’s lives in Western Europe. Over the previous centuries, the Roman Catholic Church had devolved from the “Company of the Saved” to the “Salvation Company.”
What is meant by “Salvation Company”? Luther recognized that in his day people had become enslaved to the sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church, and instead of looking to Christ for their standing before God they looked to the Church. It was thought that because of Christ, Mary, and the saints there was a storehouse of grace in the Catholic Church. Priests were its sole dispensers and the faithful had to come to them.
In 1520, Luther wrote The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, where he attacked the sacramental system of the church. That system, Luther said, represented a captivity that had become its own Babylon, holding captive the people of God from cradle to grave: In the church one was baptized as an infant, confirmed as a youth, married as a mature person, and received extreme unction on one’s deathbed. Each of these sacraments, along with ordination, were seen as conveying grace when administered by a priest. The grace conferred was supplemented throughout one’s life by two further sacraments: regular confession of sin to a priest and the reception of the Eucharist through a priestly Mass.
From cradle to the grave, the Christian was dependent upon the Catholic Church, tethered to the sacraments in order to receive the grace by which one can be saved.
Luther looked to Scripture and saw only two sacraments. The effect of his teaching was to shift focus from the Catholic Church and its clergy to Christ alone—salvation not from a company with priests turning on the taps of grace, as it were, but salvation in a singular person: Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Stripped of this ornate sacramentology, one might ask where one went for grace? If the Catholic Church had it very wrong, what were believers to do? Where would Reformers such as Luther point them?
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Power of Slander: The Bible’s Teaching And Cautionary Example Of Slander Part 2
Written by Thomas D. Hawkes |
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Slander seems to arise out of bitterness and anger. When we feel wronged, no matter how slight it may be, if we allow bitterness to take root, our sinful nature will tend toward slandering and malice, the desire to do the other person harm. Hence, we are cautioned to deal with slander at its root, our own bitterness toward another. “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph. 4:31–32).Read Part 1
The Bible Strongly Cautions Us Against Slander
Slander is addressed clearly in both the Old and New Testaments. God prohibits it by name in Leviticus. “You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:16). Slander would be included in the prohibition of the ninth commandment as well, a particular kind of false witness against our neighbor. “And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deut. 5:20).
God hates slander so much that he warns us that he will destroy the slanderer. “Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy” (Ps. 101:5). Jeremiah denounces the slander common among the people of God. “Let everyone beware of his neighbor, and put no trust in any brother, for every brother is a deceiver, and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer” (Jer. 9:4).
In the New Testament, Jesus lists slander among those sins that defile the person who practices it. “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person” (Matt. 15:19–20). It is interesting to note that while our slander may injure the person we target, it has a worse impact on us, defiling us.
The wives of deacons are to be found free of slander. “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers,” (1 Tim. 3:11). We are to resist the temptation to slander and put it away entirely from our practice. “So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Pet. 2:1).
The sins of the tongue, like slander, are so heinous that we are warned about our misuse of our words. “No human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so” (Jam. 3:8–10). Full of deadly poison. Is that not the story behind slander? We curse those whom God intends to bless.
Slander seems to arise out of bitterness and anger. When we feel wronged, no matter how slight it may be, if we allow bitterness to take root, our sinful nature will tend toward slandering and malice, the desire to do the other person harm. Hence, we are cautioned to deal with slander at its root, our own bitterness toward another. “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph. 4:31–32). Slander is bitterness incarnated, the fruit of malice. Slander is the sign that forgiveness, kindness, and tenderheartedness are no longer controlling the person. Hence, God wants his children to have nothing to do with slander.
A Case Study of Slander: The Slander of Jesus
We can easily see the deadly power of slander when we realize that Jesus was slandered to death. Think about that. The only perfect man who ever lived was killed through slander! The religious leaders of Jesus’ day wanted him killed. They were threatened by his holy life, a life that made their lives seem flat, lifeless, and unrighteous by comparison. They were threatened by Jesus’ success with the crowds as they were drawn to his teaching, that left the Pharisees with fewer admirers. Most of all, they were threatened when he exposed their hypocrisy, for Pharisees depend on their external displays of uprightness to justify their lives. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence,” (Matt. 23:25).
They needed some believable accusation against Jesus that they could use to destroy him. But imagine their real frustration. He never did, or said, anything wrong. How to get him convicted of a crime to justify their hatred, destroy his reputation, and remove him—permanently—from his ministry so they could be in control again? Slander. It was the single most perfect and economical solution.
During his ministry in Jerusalem the Sanhedrin intentionally sought false testimony against Jesus so they could justify ending his life.
Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, “This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’” And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” (Matt. 26:59–62).
Note the cleverness of the slander. It takes something that is partially true and twists it, making an innocent statement from Jesus into something sinister, sinful. What had Jesus actually said?
“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body” (John 2:19–21).
See how they twisted the words of Jesus? Jesus never said, “I am able to destroy the temple,” but rather, “Destroy this temple.” He said in effect, “If you destroy this temple, I will rebuild it in three days.” Of course, he was speaking of an entirely different temple, his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, which he did raise up in three days.
The powerful religious leaders of Jesus’ day used slander to falsely accuse Jesus and have him executed. They used a religious sounding rationale to conceal their bitter desire to murder him. Certainly, they would claim that they were protecting the people of God from a blasphemer. Their motives were “pure”!
Here we find an important axiom: slander is more powerful than an upright life. If Jesus, in all his perfection of uprightness of life can be slandered to death, then no one is immune from the destructive power of slander.
Beyond the obvious, that the Sanhedrin were threatened by the ministry Jesus, what moved them to such deep, irrational hatred for one so inoffensive? It became clear, even to Pontius Pilate, that the Jews hated Jesus from simple jealously. “So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, ‘Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?’ For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up” (Matt. 27:17–18). They despised him, not because they believed he was a worse man than they were, but because they envied him as a better man than themselves.
The Bible lays out this dynamic of the wicked hating those more righteous than themselves. “Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless and seek the life of the upright” (Prov. 29:10). The blameworthy hate the blameless, so much so that they want to kill the upright. Jesus decried the undeserved nature of the hatred that he received from those who slandered him to death. “But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause’” (John 15:25). There was nothing bad in Jesus that justified their hatred. It was the evil in their own hearts that gave rise to it.
David cried out, protesting the wrong done against him, when he had done no fault. His innocence did not stop his enemies from lying, slandering him, demanding he repay what he had not taken. “More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause; mighty are those who would destroy me, those who attack me with lies. What I did not steal must I now restore?” (Ps. 69:4).
Jealousy is the dynamic that leads wicked people to utterly despise those more upright than themselves. “One whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked” (Prov. 29:27). This aptly explains the violence of the hatred that the Pharisees felt for Jesus.
In his book Moby Dick, Herman Melville writes of the natural jealousy that those in power have for their social inferiors, who are yet their moral superiors.
Now, as you well know, it is not seldom the case in this conventional world of ours—watery or otherwise; that when a person placed in command over his fellow-men finds one of them to be very significantly his superior in general pride of manhood, straightway against that man he conceives an unconquerable dislike and bitterness; and if he had a chance he will pull down and pulverize that subaltern’s tower, and make a little heap of dust of it.
This is a good description of the irrational hatred that the Pharisees had for Jesus, the root of their envy. Seeing a man better than themselves they developed “an unconquerable dislike and bitterness,” for him. They applied all their energy to make his life, or so they thought, “a little heap of dust.” Until, of course, the dust cleared, and Jesus stepped out from the ground very much alive. So, they attempted to cover their sin with another lie, a slander against the disciples and Christ: “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep’” (Matt. 28:13).
The Bible clearly leads us away from slander, encouraging us to see not only the evil of slander, but the evil in the heart of the slanderer.
Dr. Thomas D. Hawkes is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and serves a Director of Church Planting for the ARP Florida Presbytery, and as Lead Pastor of Christ ARP Mission in Fernandina Beach, Fla.
Related Posts: -
The Covenant of Grace
R.C. Sproul writes, “The covenant of grace, rather than annihilating the covenant of works, makes provision for someone else to fulfill the covenant of works for us…We are still justified by works—the works of Jesus, not our own.”
Previously, we saw the importance of understanding a covenant as an agreement in Scripture, and that the Covenant of Works existed with Adam before the Fall with the promise of life for obedience (which we qualified typologically as temporal, not eternal—earthy, not heavenly). All these details were to fully appreciate God’s plan for Jesus Christ to fulfill the Covenant of Works as eternal God and earn Christians eternal life. Now the Confession transitions into the Covenant of Grace stressing that the only possibility for anyone’s everlasting security is Solus Christus (in Christ Alone).
WCF 7.3: Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,(e) commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved,(f) and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.(g)[1]
After the Fall, the Covenant of Works is still binding on all Adam’s posterity, but it only condemns. Adam became “incapable of [maintaining] life.” E. Clark Copeland explains, “… that the covenant of grace brings to consummation the covenant of life and confirms its principle of perfect obedience to the Lord God is confirmed through the Scripture in the command to be perfect as He is perfect, and in man’s accountability at the judgment …”[2] The Covenant of Grace is gracious in terms of what it bestows to us, but it is a reward for perfect obedience in relation to Jesus Christ on our behalf.
Still, the Confession teaches that this salvation does have a condition: the requirement of faith (see WLC 32).[3] Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), and thus to be saved. Copeland writes, “The gospel offer is made in covenant terms.”[4] Wayne Spear instructs, “In one sense, then, the Covenant of Grace may be said to be conditional. Its command is to believe, and the promised salvation is given only to those who believe … those whom God has chosen from eternity are enabled to fulfill the condition of the Covenant of Grace.”[5] Indeed, faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). God ordains our salvation, and He meets His condition by making us “willing and able to believe”—so it is all His sovereign grace.[6] Still, as Watson emphasizes, “Faith is the condition of the covenant of grace; without faith, without covenant; and without covenant, without hope.”[7]
Some add a distinction of the “Covenant of Redemption” as the Trinity’s eternal commitment to the Covenant of Grace for the redeemed realized in time. However, A.A. Hodge instructs that our standards
“…say nothing of two covenants…but assume that there is but one covenant contracted by Christ in behalf of the elect with God in eternity, and administered by him to the elect in the offers and ordinances of the gospel and in the gracious influences of his Spirit…The Confession of Faith in these sections teaches how that same covenant is administered by Christ to his people.”[8]
So the Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 31 reads, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.”[9]
WCF 7.4: This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.(h)[10]
The Greek word for “testament” is usually translated as “covenant” in Scripture, but it is appropriately rendered by the Confession here reflecting Hebrews 9:15 with Christ passing on our inheritance to us through His “last will and testament” enacted by the cross.[11] O. Palmer Robertson points out that “the theme of Hebrews 9:15ff is covenant inauguration,”[12] and explains that the idea of “testament” here relates to Christ agreeing to take on the death penalty of the Covenant of Works and so put it and its curse to death, thus bequeathing us His righteous life in the Covenant of Grace (see Rev. 21:7).
WCF 7.5: This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel:(i) under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come:(k) which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,(l) by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called, the Old Testament.(m)[13]
Read More