General Theology
Open Thread
by Clay Staggs
A Baptist Church in Australia has posted a sign that says “Jesus Loves Osama.”
The full story is here. It has caused enough consternation that the PM of Australia has commented on it.
I have my own reaction to this, but I thought it might be more interesting to hear what the readers/commenters out there had to say. I’ll post my thoughts later.
What say you all?
2/8/07 ADDENDUM: I wanted to add my thoughts to this, now that Tim and Jimmy have so ably commented on the aspects of limited atonement that the sign presents. My impression was really more in line with what PM Howard pointed out. If you assume an Arminian mindset (which, as Tim & Jimmy pointed out, the sign does), then is it not incumbent on the Christian not to do anything to drive the unbeliever away from the Church?
Consider the non-believing family of an Australian soldier killed by the jihadists. What is their reaction to this sign to be? It seems reasonable to me that they react by saying that these church folks care more about the enemy than they do their own countrymen who have fallen at the hand of this enemy. If I were that family, I’d be thinking “so much for Christian compassion” and I’d probably conclude that my instincts that Christians are naive hypocrites were right.
So, in their Arminian world, they’ve alienated all those folks and Osama’s never even seen the silly sign since he’s in a cave somewhere in Pakistan, and is on record anyway as pretty firmly opposed to Christianity. So, even if you assume their worldview (which I don’t) then the sign still doesn’t make any sense.
Posted by Clay Staggs at February 1, 2007 02:07 PM
Clay, I know you are just baiting me, but I will grab the worm and run the line out. Get comfortable, because this will take awhile.
1)Question: Did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world? Well, yes and no. I think it’s safe to say that Jesus’ death/resurrection was efficacious for elected unbelievers. His death/resurrection was a sufficient covering for the world’s sin, including Osama bin Laden, but when he died, he only died for a specific amount of chosen individuals—the “elected” or “righteous.” In doing so, he made his death worthwhile and powerful. If he didn’t, then either every last soul will be in heaven, OR he theoretically could have come to earth and ascended with no one choosing him. It could have been a worthless accomplishment. So, in relation to Mr. bin Laden (call me a gentleman), we can say that God loves Osama, insofar as he is part of the predestined Church. If not, then it would be safe to say that if Mr. bin Laden is unrepentant unto death, then God essentially “hates” Mr. bin Laden. There has always been two lines of humans (from the garden of Eden)—the righteous and the cursed. (Cf. also Rom. 9:13…”Jacob I have loved, Esau have I hated.)
2) This verse (Sermon on the Mount, Mt. 5:44) doesn’t convey what God thinks of Mr. bin Laden. Jesus is giving a dictum/description of what a believer does in a) response to a harsh, mean world and how b) a believer is to be perceived by a watching world. Jesus is asking his Church on earth to look weirdly different from every other earthly institution. There is no comment on the certain eternal status of those that run contrary to the saints.
3) A spokesman for the Aussie church said “”Osama is the head of terrorism. We are saying that Jesus Christ loves everyone in the world, even this man. … All we are doing is sharing the gospel.” The Gospel is, indeed, “good news” and great relief from punishment that is well-deserved. However, it is simultaneously exclusionary and offensive to all who are hard-hearted and blind. One of the first parts of the Gospel is that it exposes evil and wickedness. Discomfort from this notion either drives one to a Savior (by the power of the holy Spirit) or it drives them to live a self-satisfied life—either through hedonism, pseudo-religion, or other humanistic pursuits.
Without context, a sign like this is decidedly anti-Gospel—because it forfeits all the necessary descriptions of man(and the eternal solution found in Christ) Perhaps, a better clarification would have been for the spokesperson to say that the great ruinous and catastrophic evil of terrorism is not beyond the scope and breadth of the God’s forgiveness. However, if Mr. bin Laden persists in this form, without showing any external sign that he comprehends the singular and exclusive saving work of Christ, then he will “enjoy” certain heated damnation.
I wouldn’t be too hard on our Aussie Baptist brother, but I think this is an excellent example of how core doctrinal beliefs truly can make you go awry—even with good intentions.
Interesting. First, one has to wonder how much concern the minister has for Osama’s soul; I suspect none, which brings me to my second question,how much of this is an attempt to portray himself as super-spiritual and draw attention to himself.
His point of view is Armenian,i.e. God loves everyone whether they are His people or not. Jesus loves his “enemies” so much that He died for them but the correct Biblical view is that atonement is limited and grace is irrestible, so that those He died for, certainly not everyone, are no longer His enemies but are covered by His grace and are His. He needs to read Romans 8 and 9; no, wait; they don’t recognize those chapters as scriptural (or simply ignore them.)
Thus I would propose that neither the minister nor I know whether “Jesus loves Osama” but from all indications, Osama doesn’t belong to the Lord. My feelings are expressed in Psalm 58:10-11, which says: “The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will say, ‘Surely the righteous are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.’”