In His Steps

Recently, I read In His Steps by Charles Monroe Sheldon. The book was first published in 1896 and has sold over 30,000,000 copies.[1]

Summary of Contents

The story is set in the late 1800’s in the midwest. A young man visits the community of Raymond. A community of well to do people. He came not looking for a hand-out but direction for employment and perhaps a little kindness. One morning he sits in on the service of the First Church of Raymond. After the pastor Henry Maxwell closed, the young man began to speak. The young man was troubled by hearing Christians sing,

“All for Jesus, all for Jesus,

All beings ransomed powers,

All my thoughts, and all my doings,

All my days, and all my hours.”

He was troubled by what they meant, because the words did not fit their actions. He said, “It seems to me there’s an awful lot of trouble in the world that somehow wouldn’t exist of all the people who sing such songs went and lived them out.” After saying these things, he collapsed and later died.

The pastor and others were convicted by the young man’s dying speech. The following Sunday, at the end of the service, Henry Maxwell asked for volunteers from the First Church who would take the pledge to not do anything for the next year without first asking, “What would Jesus do?” After asking, each volunteer is to follow what he/she knows Jesus would do, no matter the consequence. He challenged them to follow Jesus’ steps as closely and as literally as he taught his disciples to do.

There were about fifty persons who took the pledge; however, the narrative follows the lives of ten individuals who committed to follow Jesus’ steps: Henry Maxwell (pastor), Rachel Winslow (opera singer), Virginia Page (wealthy young woman), Mr. Norman (news paper owner), President Marsh (college president), Alexander Powers (railroad superintendent), Milton Wright (local store owner), Dr. West, and Jasper Chase (novelist) who broke his commitment and went back to the world. Others entered into the story the second year having been inspired by these disciples to follow Jesus’ steps. 

Evaluation of Contents

I had been led to believe that asking, “What would Jesus Do?” is a bad idea, because it causes people to create a Jesus who looks like oneself rather than the Jesus of scripture. However, this is not what I found in the context of Sheldon’s book. After taking the pledge, the characters seriously contemplated and asked, “How are we to know what Jesus would do?” The answer that they came to was two fold: First, they would know what Jesus did by studying his life and what he taught his disciples. Second, each of their situations are different than that of Jesus and his apostles; therefore, they needed to know what principles to follow. The group met together regularly to discuss what following Jesus Christ meant and Henry Maxwell (pastor) was their guide on what the scriptures taught. But it is the Spirit who would be their guide on applying the principles in each of their own life situations.

I believe that asking, “What would Jesus do?” before doing anything at all is what every Christian should be doing, but in order to do so, one must be studying what Jesus did and taught his disciples on a regular basis. This should be done in private study, contemplation and prayer, but it should also be done in community with other disciples seeking to follow in the steps of Jesus. Reading what Jesus did and taught must first be understood in the first century Jewish-palestine context in which he and his disciples lived. Second, one must understand what the universal principles taught in the text are. Thirdly, one must contemplate how those principles should be applied in his or her own situation.

Like the early church, the Characters in Sheldon’s book learned that seriously following Jesus is going to cost you something. The disciples in Sheldon’s story called it taking up the cross. Should we seriously follow Jesus Christ? Is marginal Christianity enough? Is marginal Christianity even Christian? I spent this advent season reading some of the things that the early church writers wrote. Christianity for the first 300 years of the church was illegal; therefore, Christians suffered greatly for following Jesus Christ. Marginal Christianity is not Christian. The characters in Sheldon’s book are fictional, but asking “What would Jesus do? before doing anything at all is a good one. This is something that I will be seriously considering in any decision I make going forward. Read “In His Steps” by Charles Sheldon.

---

[1]In His Steps, cdli:wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_His_Steps#cite_note-2. 

Are Today’s Hospitals Hospitality Houses Anymore?

The Greek word philoxenia φιλονεξία literally means the love of strangers. (cf. Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2) The adjective form philoxenos φιλόξενος means to be hospitable. (cf. 1 Tm 3:2; Ti 1:8; 1 Pt 4:9) Both noun and adjective forms are a two part Greek word philos-loving and xenos-stranger.1 The NASB New Testament uses the English word hospitality three times: two of which are in Rom 12:13 and Heb 13:2 but another instance occurs in 1 Tm 5:10. In the Timothy passage hospitality is translated from the Greek verb xenodocheo ξενοδοχέω. We have already shown that xenos means stranger; however, docheo means to receive. Hospitality in 1 Tm 5:10 is the act of receiving strangers.2 Therefore; hospitality in the context of these New Testament letters is the Christian duty bound by the law of Christ (love) to feed, lodge and protect strangers.

Travel in the first century was difficult. If you were wealthy you might have animals to assist in travel but the majority had to traverse the highways and byways afoot caring few supplies. They would arrive hungry, tired and possibly sick or injured. The Christian who received these traveling strangers would need to prepare food for them and care for the sick and injured while they convalesce. It is no surprise that these convalescent houses got the name Hospital. The hospitals that we have today are a far cry from these first century convalescent houses but my question is: Are today’s hospitals hospitable in the context of the Greek word philoxenos?

On December 11, 1997, I graduated from nursing school. Over 21 years ago I became a Registered Nurse and began working at the bedside with the sick and injured. There was a strong push when I was in nursing school for nurses to call the ones that we care for clients rather than patients. This had to do with nurses wanting to be considered professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. Not long after I became a nurse the drive to use the term client was dropped but the desire for nurses to be considered professionals did not stop. Today’s nurses seek advanced degrees and leave the bedside in droves, driven by a desire to be considered equals among the other professions in America. This has caused a devastating affect on the purpose for nursing. The purpose of nursing is for the other, a nurse is to be above all else hospitable; receiving and loving strangers. In addition, one of the biggest drives in hospitals these past few years has been customer service. This has further driven nurses away from the purpose of nursing. Hospitals have become money making machines. Everything about today’s hospitals is about bring in as much revenue as possible while keeping overhead as low as possible. I think a reformation is in order but where do we begin? Perhaps we should begin where the first century Christian began: With the Son of God Jesus Christ.

________________________________

1 W. W. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), Hospitality.
2 Ibid, Stranger.

What is Christmas but the Incarnation; God into Human Flesh?

Do you have a favorite Bible story? Perhaps it is the birth of Jesus Christ; Luke 2:1-20 is often recited in Christian homes on Christmas Eve. However, this is not my favorite Bible story, but another Christmas passage is my favorite Bible story. My favorite Bible story is the prologue to The Gospel According to John. Did you know that John 1:1-18 is a Christmas story? It is indeed a Christmas story and a very strong Christmas story for three reasons:

1. In the beginning the Word was both with God and the Word was God. (1:1-5)
2. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (1:6-14)
3. The man Jesus Christ is the incarnate Word. (1:15-18)

To be a Christian means that you believe in the essential doctrines taught by the church and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ:

1. God is Trinity: There is one God who exist simultaneously in three divine persons; the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus is both fully God and fully man in one person.
3. Jesus death on the cross was a sin sacrifice.
4. Jesus bodily rose from the dead.
5. There will be a bodily resurrection of all the dead at the judgment on the last day.

Every heresy throughout the history of the Christian church denies at least one of these essential doctrines. The second essential, that Jesus is fully God and fully man became an issue when Christianity became predominantly Graeco-Roman in its persons. The writers of the New Testament were Jewish, or in the case of Luke at least associated with Jews; therefore, the gospels were written from a Jewish worldview; and not a Graeco-Roman worldview. When someone asks, “Who is Jesus Christ?” If the question is asked from a Graeco-Roman worldview the answer that one would expect to hear has to do with his nature, but if the question is asked from a first century Jewish worldview the answer that one would expect to hear has to do with His function.1 Historical heresies that have to do with the person of Jesus Christ: Docetism,2 Arianism,3 and Nestorianism4 all sought unbiblical Graeco-Roman answers. However, the first century Jewish/Christian understanding had to do with his function; therefore, this is how we should understand the incarnation.

In John 10:31 the Jews pickup stones to stone Jesus because He made himself out to be God. Jesus did not say to them “I Am God,” but because he declared his function to be the same as the Father’s the Jews understood His statement to mean that He is God. (cf. Jn 10:33) When Phillip asked Jesus to show the disciples the Father, Jesus said: “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

God is all-powerful, all-knowing and morally perfect. Man has limited-power, limited-knowledge and morally imperfect. It is our sin that separates us from God. Jesus came so that we may have life and have it abundantly. (Jn 10:10) Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, (Jn 1:17) He has shown God to man (Jn 1:18) because eternal life is knowing God. (Jn 17:3)

What is Christmas but the Incarnation; God in human flesh? “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (Jn 1:18) This Christmas come to know God through the incarnation; the Word who was with God and was God became flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God. (Cf. Jn 1:1-18)

---

1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3^rd3d., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 638.

2 Docetism: a belief the Jesus was a spirit and not a physical being like man.

3 Arianism: a belief that Jesus was man and not God.

4 Nestorianism: a belief that Jesus was two persons, one God and one man.

Plantinga, Alvin, Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015.

Biographical Sketch of the Author

Alvin Plantinga is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He has a Ph.D., from Yale University. His interest: epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion.  He has written several books on these subjects: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism. New York Oxford University Press, 2011. Are Science and Religion Compatible? New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.1

Summary of Contents

The main topic of this book is a question: Is Christian belief justifiable, reasonable and rational? He begins by professing that God is the all-powerful, all knowing, perfectly good creator of all. The argument ensues that if such a God exist he is beyond our minds to conceive. He then proceeds to say that many concede that there is such a thing as Christian belief but think that it is unjustified. He the divides the objectors into two groups: De facto objectors vs. De jure objectors.

The de facto objector claims that Christian belief is false or improbable. For example, “the problem of evil” is a de facto argument against God. The de jure objector says that belief in God is arrogant, unjustified and irrational. He then goes on to argue that the only promising candidate for a de jure objection is Freud’s claim that Christian belief does not have warrant for sufficient knowledge. By showing that the Christian faith does have sufficient knowledge all de jure objections fail.

He then presents what he calls the Aquinas/Calvin model to demonstrate that the Christian has sufficient knowledge about God and the gospel to warrant faith. He then deals with objections to this model. Then he spends the last three chapters of the book regarding possible defeaters of the Aquinas/Calvin model: Historical biblical criticism, religious pluralism and the problem of evil. He concludes that none of these are actually defeaters for Christian belief.

Critical Evaluation

First, let me say that I really enjoyed reading this book because its logic affirms the conversation that the Lord Jesus Christ had with the Pharisee Nicodemus and the writings of the apostle Paul. I am not saying that Alvin Plantinga is on par with the wisdom of the apostle Paul or what he has written is inspired writing; however, the logic that he uses in this book and the way he explains it in a modern context images the way the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans in their first century Jewish-Gentile church context. He spends the majority of the book arguing that the Christian faith is warranted and the logical argument that he gives is cohesive with the word of God. 

De facto arguments simply say that there is no proof of God; there are however, several natural arguments for the existence of God: cosmological, contingency and ontological to name a few. But the main focus of this book is regarding the de jure argument that Christian belief lacks warrant. The de jure argument doesn’t argue that your belief is false like the de facto argument but says that your belief is unwarranted because it is without knowledge. Is this a valid argument?

In this book Plantinga argues that Christian belief does have warrant because it is a belief that has knowledge. He makes this argument based on a claim made jointly by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. Aquinas and Calvin both agree that there is a natural knowledge of God. Calvin takes this further saying that it is a sense like our physical senses: smell, taste, hearing, seeing and feeling. Calvin calls this: “sensus divinitatis” sense of divinity. This sense of divinity has been suppressed in man because of sin; therefore, a new birth is needed. He also says that man has an affective disorder. Man was created in the image of God with an intellect and a will. Sin is a turning of the human will away from God which affects our minds. Therefore, sin is an affective disorder of the human will.

Here is a summary of the Aquinas/Calvin model proposed by Alvin Plantinga:

We humans have fallen into sin, a grievous condition from which we cannot extricate ourselves. Jesus Christ, both a human being and the divine Son of God, made atonement for our sin by way of his suffering and death, thus making it possible for us to stand in the right relationship to God. The Bible is (among other things) a written communication from God to us human beings, proclaiming this good news. Because of our fallen condition, however, we need more than this information: we also need a change of heart. This is provided by the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit; he both enables us to see the truth of the great things of the gospel and turns our affections in the right direction. 

From this argument it stands to reason that the Christian belief has warrant. I know it to be true because what Dr. Plantinga describes in this model actually happened to me. I know that the gospel is true because I have been given a change of heart by the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit. Formally my sense of divinity was clouded by my desire for sin. I now see the truth of the great things of the gospel because my affections have turned towards God although I am still tempted by sin. 

One thing that Plantinga does not address is the level of knowledge that the Christian has. The apostle Paul said, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12, NASB) I have knowledge of God and the gospel because my affection has changed but sin keeps me from seeing clearly and having full knowledge; nevertheless, my faith is not without knowledge. The caveat that I can see to this model is with regard to the de jure objector; he is not going to except these things unless he has a change of heart by the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit especially if his worldview is modern.

---

1 University of Notre Dame. 2018. “Alvin Plantinga // Department of Philosophy // University of Notre Dame.” Department of Philosophy. Accessed December 6. https://philosophy.nd.edu/people/emeritus/alvin-plantinga/. 

English Bible Translations

One summer, when in grade school, my mother put me in a vacation Bible School at a United Methodist Church in Garland, Texas. Later, as a 6th grader, we went on a weekend retreat to Tyler State park for what was called confirmation. The following Sunday we were all (6th graders) formerly made members of the church. I personally had no idea what that meant. As part of our confirmation we were all given copies of the Good News Bible (GNB). This translation was completed by the American Bible Society in 1976. It is intended to express the meaning of the original text in conversational English and is said to be a good translation for those who read/speak English as a second language.1

When I was older, as a birthday present from my father he gave me an NIV Study Bible (New International Version). It was large; therefore, I felt big when carrying it to church. This translation sought to be a halfway ground between British English and American English. This translation also tries to express the meaning of the original text in a more functional approach.2 As far as the study Bible is concerned Duvall and Hays say that this has to do with marketing and has nothing to do with translation.3

In May of 2003 I began following the Lord and committed to reading his word every day. I went to lifeway and got two English translations by recommendation. I got a copy of the New Living Translation (NLT) for my personal devotion and a copy of the New King James Bible (NKJV). The NKJV was used by our head pastor of the Baptist Church we were attending. The NLT is a thought-for thought translation from 1996.4 The New King JamesVersion tries to update the English language of the King James Version using modern English.5 The KJV and NKJV used a different underlying Greek text than the other translations in use today. The KJV was translated using the Textus Receptus. Other English translations use the Electic Greek text. The Electic text is comprised of a greater number and older manuscripts than the Textus Receptus. Textual critics used those older and more numerous manuscripts to come up with a better Greek text.6

Since April of 2012 I have been using the New American Standard Bible (NASB) during personal devotion and study. The NASB is the translation that our pastor preaches from. Also, when I began seminary in March of 2015 I was told to use either the English Standard Version (ESV) or NASB for my classes. Both of these translations adhere closely to the original text in form and word using the Electic Greek text but from a different group of translators.

A Few Things to Consider:

• Autographs: the original documents of the Scripture. 
• Textual Criticism: the technical discipline that compares the various copies of a biblical text in an effort to determine what was most likely the original text.
• Bible translation: involves moving the meaning of a text in one language (source language) to another language (receptor language).
• English Bibles Before the KJV 1611: Wycliffe Bible, William Tyndall’s New Testament, Coverdale Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishop’s Bible. The KJV was translated in 1611 and was revised several times until 1769. The 1769 version is what you will find in print today.
• Two Main Problems with the KJV: 1) The translators used an inferior Greek text from what we have available today. 2) Many of its words and phrases are archaic or obsolete for English speakers today.
• Approaches to Bible Translation: 1) The formal approach tries to stay as close as possible to the structure and words of the original text. 2) The functional approach tries to express the meaning of the original text in today’s language.7
• See Translation Spectrum:8 

Conclusion:

Pick a translation based on need. When I was a child the Good News Translation was probably a good one to give to me. As a new follower of Jesus Christ, it was probably better that I read a thought for thought translation like the New Living Translation but as a mature believer seeking to journey deeper into God’s Word, a more functional translation is recommended. There you have it, Bible translations in a nutshell.

---

1 J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Journey Into God’s Word(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 77.

2 Ibid,77.

3 Ibid, 75.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid, 76.

6 Ibid, 75-76.

7 J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 23-38.

8 J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Journey Into God’s Word(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 80.