From Glory To Glory

The Great Chain of Justification

2011-08-19T20:57:00.003-04:00

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified (Romans 8:28-30 NIV1984).

In our text, Paul first states that God is working for the good of those who love God. We have been called according to His purpose. What is His purpose? Paul states God's purpose in the next few phrases. It's easy to just read something in the text here that isn't there by saying, "God's purpose was this or that," but Paul tells us what God's purpose was. It was so that Jesus might be the firstborn among many brothers. That was God's purpose, to establish a people. Yet, it goes beyond that.

One of the main topics of Paul throughout the New Testament is our union with Christ. According to Paul, "he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17 NIV1984). Just as a husband and wife become one in marriage, through faith we become one with Christ. The Father imputes Christ's own righteousness to us. Jesus Christ forever stands in our place as our substitute, our high priest, our propitiation.

As Paul himself says about true Christians, "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph. 5:30 KJV). We have become one with Christ. Thus, whatever is true about Christ becomes true for us when we "unite ourselves" to the Lord through faith in the Gospel message.

Therefore, Paul says that we have been crucified with Christ (Gal.2:20), that we have been buried with Him and resurrected (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:13, Eph. 2:1, 2:5), that we have ascended with Him (Eph. 2:6), and elsewhere the Bible says that we are resting with Him (Heb. 4), and that we are reigning with Him (Rev. 1). Everything that is true about Christ except for His deity becomes true for us. The Bible adds, "because in this world we are like him" (1 John 4:17 NIV1984).

Since this is true, we are encouraged to "put on Jesus Christ" (Rom. 13:14 KJV). To be a Christian is to assume Christ's identity. That is what "Christian" means--"little Christ," or "Christ-like."

So in the Bible, whenever Paul or any of the other apostles say things about Christians, it is based on the fact that we have assumed Christ's identity. When the Father looks at us, He sees Christ. This is exactly what it means to be "conformed to the likeness of His Son." God's purpose was to have a people who would look just like His Son.

To say that God chose us, and because He chose us He knew us is the reverse of what the text says. It says that we were predestined because we were foreknown. In fact, all of this is written in the past tense. These things have already been accomplished in Christ. The last thing Paul states is that we have been glorified. Yet, glorification deals with the resurrection from the dead, which apart from some Old Testament saints has not yet occurred. Yet it is as good as done because Christ has been glorified. This is the key to understanding that all of these have to do with who and what we have become in Christ.

God foreknew Christ (Isa. 42:1, 1 Pet. 2:4,6). It was Christ that was chosen. When we believe in Christ, all that was true about Christ becomes true for us. Thus, in Christ Paul can say that we were foreknown. It has nothing to do with us individually, but it has to do with Jesus. It is positional truth. Thus, since Christ was foreknown, all that believe in Him are foreknown as well, and the result is that we take on Christ's identity, becoming conformed into His image (And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. Col. 3:10 KJV). We are called because Jesus was called. We are justified, because we look like Jesus. We are glorified positionally because Jesus was glorified.

You and I can not boast in anything but the Lord (Eph. 2:9). Everything that is Christ's is ours. In Vs. 32 Paul states, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Indeed He has given us all things in the person of Christ, who is our federal head, our substitute. Thus, in Ephesians 1:4, that "he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." In other words, in choosing Christ, He was choosing everyone who would believe in Christ. Christ would become what we are, so that we might become what He is: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21 KJV).

1 John - Are we justified or not?

2011-08-12T18:16:00.006-04:00

The common meaning of the word justified, is just as if I'd never sinned. Yet, do we believe that? If we stand justified before God, we are in right standing with Him. Christ's life and identity become our own. As Jesus said in John 8:46, "Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?" (NKJV). In the same way, since Jesus' identity has become our own...He has imputed not just a righteousness, but His own righteousness to us...then Paul can say in Romans 8:33, "Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies" (NKJV). Paul says there is no one who can charge God's elect with sin. Why? Because God has justified them. He has made them and sees them as being just as if they had never sinned.

In 1 John 1, the apostle John first states what it is he is speaking of:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—" (1 John 1:1 NKJV).

John states that the one of whom he is speaking was "from the beginning." John states that "we," here the early disciples, esp. the apostles, had heard Him, had seen Him, and had touched Him. This is concerning not just any person, but the very "Word of life."

"the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—" (Vs. 2).

The very life of God was manifested, or made visible, and John says that they have seen Him, that they are testifying and declaring to some group or person "that eternal life." Here, John speaks of eternal life as a person, rather than a gift. Jesus is the eternal life, or eternal living one, or eternal source of life. He was with the Father, and then was made visible to the early disciples.

"that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (Vs. 3).

John says, that which we, those who were with Jesus, who have seen and have heard Him, now are sharing what they heard Him teach. For what purpose? "That you also may have fellowship." Fellowship with whom? "Fellowship with us." With whom is their fellowship? "with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."

So first John states that he was an eyewitness to Christ, and that he also heard the things that Christ taught. He now states that he is sharing the things that he had heard Jesus say. Why? So that in hearing the things that Jesus said, whomever John is writing to may also join in the group. If they join in the group, then they will have a relationship not only with the group, but with God Himself.

"And these things we write to you that your[a] joy may be full" (Vs. 4).

And, John says there is another reason. That in being included in the group, which is what fellowship means: inclusion--then their joy would be full. The text reads both "our" joy, and "your" joy. I think "your joy makes more sense. This is a benefit of being included in the group. By being included in the group, relationship with God will be obtained, and it makes sense then that only in that can a person find joy to the fullest.

"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all" (Vs. 5).

John states that he and some others had saw God's gift made visible. They had touched Him. They had heard Him speak. He states the reasons for why he is going to share with those whom would read this letter the things that they heard from Jesus. Now, John states what they had heard from Jesus.

Right here, people make the mistake of only taking Jesus' words to the end of the sentence. However, John doesn't finish at the end of the sentence. John says, "These are the things that we heard Jesus say..." The first, but not the only thing that they heard Jesus say to them was that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. When we think of light, we think of absolute purity; absolute holiness; absolute righteousness; and so on. In God, there is no darkness. Darkness would be the opposite of what the light stands for.

"If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us" (Vs. 6-10).

Now, if we understand that John is saying to whomever he was writing this letter that "Here are the things we heard Jesus say," then it makes sense why John uses the pronoun "we." The "we" was the "you" to whom Jesus was speaking. Let me say that again. The "we" was the "you" to whom Jesus was speaking when He said what He said. Observe...

John says "This is what we heard Jesus say..." and then he begins to state the things that he and some others had heard Jesus say. The first thing "we" heard Jesus say was....

Yet, when Jesus said these things. He would not have addressed them to "we" but to "you." So John is giving a rather verbatim account of "This is what Jesus was saying to us." The "US" that was being spoken to then becomes "we."

John does not give an exact quote of Jesus' words here because this is not a Gospel account. His gospel account was another work to be written. In his gospel account, John would quote Jesus directly. Here he is paraphrasing what Jesus said to the people who He taught. "This is what He said to us..." Therefore, if we put Jesus' words given by John in quotations, it would look like this:

"If you say that you have fellowship with God, and walk in darkness, you lie and do not practice the truth. But if you walk in the light as He is in the light, you have fellowship with one another, and my blood cleanses you from all sin.

If you say that you have no sin, you deceive yourselves, and the truth is not in you. If you confess your sins, He is faithful and just to forgive you your sins and to cleanse you from all unrighteousness. If you say that you have not sinned, you make Him a liar, and His word is not in you" (Vs. 6-10).

Now, obviously, Jesus was speaking this to them before they were converted. If they had already been converted, they would have already understood these things, and would never have said that they had no sin. How could they have been converted and say they had no sin? Why would John be sharing theological truths for believers with unbelievers? How do we know that John is speaking primarily with unbelievers here? Because the purpose he gave for sharing what Jesus taught was so that whomever heard it might also have fellowship with Christians and with God. Why would John say that if he was only writing to those who were believers already?

Phrased another way then, John is saying this:

"This is what He said to us, and we are sharing it with you so that you might also become a Christian. He said that if we say we have fellowship with God, but our lifestyle doesn't reflect it, then we are lying. But, He said that if we truly walked in the light, which is the nature of God, then He said that His blood would cleanse us from every bit of our sin. However, He told us that if we were to say "I don't have any sin!" (like the Jews often did), then we were deceived and God's truth wasn't in us. But, He told us that if we would confess, or acknowledge our sinfulness to God, that God would forgive us our sins and would cleanse us from every bit of our unrighteousness (making us like Jesus, just as if I'd never sinned). He then told us that if we claimed that we had never committed any sinful acts then we were saying that God was a liar."

When we put John's words into their original context it becomes clear, and in total harmony with the rest of the New Testament, that he is not saying to Christians that Christians must confess their sins. If that is true, it refutes and contradicts his other statements that the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin, and that if we confess our sins He cleanses us from that sin and unrighteousness. Nowhere in the text does John add the qualifier "that is...until the next time you sin, then you have to do it all over again..." Not one scripture in the New Testament says that we have to continually be forgiven of our sins. In fact, the New Testament teaches exactly the opposite, that we have been justified and forgiven once and for all time, just as if we'd never sinned. That is how God sees us. It doesn't mean we don't sin, but it means that our sin doesn't "stick" to us. Hebrews states "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (Heb. 10:14 NKJV).

If we are being sanctified, we are certainly born again, and if that is true, then we have been made perfect forever. Therefore, just because John says "we", it does not mean that he is speaking of himself then presently, nor that he is speaking to Christians. John's comments are a reflection of what Jesus had spoken to him and the other disciples. That is the "we" that John is speaking of. It is the "we" that Jesus was speaking to at the time, before they were converted. Thus, Jesus' words were directed to people in general then. John and the other disciples were among the people that He spoke to. Here, John's comments are also then directed toward those who did not yet know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or perhaps even those who professed to know Him, but they said and did things that proved they were not genuine converts. One thing is for sure. John was NOT directing these words toward those he was convinced were genuine Christians.

How About Some Painful Honesty?

2011-04-15T17:55:00.006-04:00

Today, I ruffled a few feathers, albeit unintentionally. What did I do? I believe I told the truth. I established a model to demonstrate that the Bible's inerrancy serves as a model for us in dealing with issues. How so?

John the apostle states the purpose of his epistle was so that those who read it would not sin (1 John 2:1a).

That is the easy part. Don't sin. That is the part we love to harp on. Yet the Bible tells us another part as well, that we fail miserably.

So then John states that even though we should not sin, he knows that we will sometimes choose to sin, and therefore, there is forgiveness and reconciliation to be found in Christ (1 John 2:1b).

That's the hard part. It seems to me that whenever young people get "caught" at doing something that, in all painful honesty, most of us did as well, we jump on the hypocrite wagon and the shame begins. Furthermore, we never take any blame for not encouraging these young people to use any protection.

The popular view is that if we mention the need for contraception, we are somehow flaming liberals who have forsaken the right way. However, the Bible is painfully truthful in all that it says about every subject it speaks of. Information DOES NOT equal advocation. For example, the Bible tells us that David had sex with another man's wife, and then had him murdered. The Bible could have left that out, but it didn't. The Bible tells the truth about everything it speaks of. It is there for not only our example, but for our encouragement. Is this information about David reliable? Yes. Yet, does the Bible advocate David's behavior? No, of course not. Then information does not equal advocation. The Bible tells us not to sin, but realizes that we will. Why do we pretend that the line between acceptable behavior and sin is somehow unreachable? Our advice to teens is to "stay away from the line." Yet, even we ourselves don't always do that. So then, we stand in front of the youth group, or church, and pretend that we never sin, we never mess up. We go on about theories of sanctification that we ourselves cannot live up to.

I'm not excusing sin by any means. But I think we need to be HONEST about it. Have I done things since I was saved that are downright shameful? Yes I have. If you are honest, you have too. So then why do we wait until someone crosses that line to deal with it? Why do we wait until girls get pregnant to then tell them what all they did wrong! That's backwards to all logic!

EXAMPLE 1: Alcohol
Now I understand that Baptists, Holiness, and Pentecostals believe in abstinence when it comes to alcohol. I do not use it myself. Does that bit of information mean I'm endorsing alcohol? No. Information does not equal advocation. However, the fact is that the majority of the traditional church does not view alcohol as sin when taken in moderation.
The Bible does view as sin, drunkenness. Most Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Wesleyans and Reformed churches would agree that alcohol in moderation isn't sinful, while drunkenness is. What do we do when that line is crossed? We tell folks that they can repent and have their consciences cleared with God, that Jesus is their advocate, and their sin is gone.
STUPIDITY: Now what else can we gather from the Bible. Just because we fall short, doesn't mean we have to be stupid. So then, if a Methodist has "one too many", that doesn't mean that he should now be stupid and grab his keys and go driving!
Can we teach abstinence from alcohol, and still encourage young people not to drink and drive? If we're honest as the Bible is about things, the answer is a resounding YES. The problem is that we assume that everyone in our youth group is regenerated, which is stupid in and of itself, and thus, we need not worry about them drinking and driving because they paid so much attention to our sermon, they would never do that! As silly as that may sound, believe it or not, I know parents who actually think like that: "My Johnny would never smoke a joint!" Hello! Are you sane?

Example 2: TEENAGE SEX: The same principle applies in the area of teenage sex. We have no problem saying "Don't do it! Don't do it!" We use fear tactics (The Rapture will happen right at that moment, and you will be left here to have your head cut off!), and shame (God will absolutely forsake you and cast you into the bowels of hell because you did something wrong!") Of course, I'm exaggerating. I'm just tired of the blatant, blatant hypocrisy.

Why can't we just tell them the truth? i.e. "Look, am I going to stand up here and say that I haven't done wrong even since I've been saved? No. Is that an excuse? No, but it's the truth."

And then why can't we tell them that just because we mess up, we don't have to be stupid? i.e. "Look, are some of you, many of you going to fail? Yes. Do you have to be stupid? No. Don't drink and drive." and "Am I going to tell you that all the adults in this room were sexually pure before marriage? I would if I wanted to lie to you, but I'm going to tell you the TRUTH. The truth is No, they weren't. Is that an excuse? No. Is that the truth? Yes. But that doesn't mean you all have to be STUPID! Venereal disease and pregnancy don't discriminate! Saved, unsaved, they don't discriminate. Just because we mess up, doesn't mean we have to be stupid."

Some people will bash my character because they know they don't have any better solutions, other than to repeat the NON-EFFECTIVE methods of our parents. The same ones who scream about trusting kids to do the right thing, and (some versions) of sanctification, when asked, admit to the SAME moral failures I am speaking about. Yet, they choose to ignore reality and continue to propagate ignorance.

Young people need to know the wages of sin is death. Always has been, always will be. Yet, young people also need to know their is forgiveness and restoration in Jesus Christ. Young people also need to know that failure doesn't have to mean stupidity, and that for $0.75 they could have avoided that pregnancy or disease that they are now stuck with for the rest of their lives. How about some painful honesty?

Real Life Parables

2011-01-23T19:45:00.000-05:00

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:9-11 NIV)

Hebrews is probably one of my absolute favorite Biblical texts. It is such a frustration that so many people really misunderstand the message it brings. The purpose of the book is to show the supremacy of Christ AND His atonement above everything else.

In these verses, the writer says that "there remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God." What does he mean by that? Well, the short of it is that the Jews' acting out the Sabbath Day rest by doing no works pointed prophetically to another rest that was to come. Just as God had rested on the seventh day, so they were to commemorate that God had rested by resting themselves. Yet the writer says that this rest was prophetic of another - namely, that of Christ when He sat down at the majesty on high.

The Jews believed that the rest they were seeking was a rest from their physical enemies. To them, the Sabbath rest was a preview of that kind of political rest that they, as a nation, would one day experience. However, as the writer points out, those who were thought to have given Israel rest spoke themselves of that rest still being future.

Yet, they had not truly entered into rest with God, but only acted like they had. How so? The short of it is that they refused to enter that rest with God because they preferred to work. This is the consistent message of the New Testament, especially Galatians, Romans, and also here in Hebrews. As Paul said in Romans 9:31-32 (NLT) ~

"But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law,
never succeeded. Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the
law instead of by trusting in him. They stumbled over the great rock in their path.

The short of it is that because they refused to simply come by faith, and that alone, they fell short of truly achieving the rest God had planned for them: a spiritual one. So the writer explains that when we believe we enter into rest with God. This means we rest from our works just as God did from His. Too many people misinterpret this as talking about heaven, but that is not the case. It is the same old works/faith argument as made elsewhere. The warning is that we must not fall short of obtaining that rest. We can fall short of it, as did the Jews of that time, by still trying to justify ourselves by our own works, rather than just simply trusting in the over-achieving nature of the atonement of Christ.

My wife has been troubled as of late because I really fought hard to build our ministry to where it was. It literally took much sweat and tears and physical labor as well as all the expected spiritual struggle. Yet, it seems like we weren't accomplishing very much. The time came when I knew it was time to go. I struggled with it, but knew it was the right thing.

Funny thing about is that my dear friend, who stepped into my shoes as pastor of the church didn't have to do much of anything. Everything was just handed to him. He came in and BOOM! the church was full, and people were getting saved, and it seemed that everything that I had struggled to obtain, I had not obtained it, and everything I had wanted to obtain, he did obtain it, and that with no work. It just seemed like he waltzed in and there it all was waiting for him. This has been very difficult for my wife to deal with. I have no problem with it. I think it's great to see us give an opportunity for someone else to succeed.

I had a pastor one time that said God speaks to us oftentimes through our circumstances - a "real life parable," if you will. To me, this personal tale screams the message of Hebrews. Jesus Christ did all the work. He did all the sweating, bleeding, toiling. He did all the agonizing, and all that I had to do was just step into what He had already done, and BOOM! everything just fell right into place.

Just as my wife has had trouble dealing with things and fighting the temptation to be jealous, so it is with religious folk. They want to fight and scream about works. They cannot tolerate those who simply trust in Christ by faith. They want to drag us up the "rough side of the mountain." No thanks.

I believe that God has indeed spoke through our circumstances. God has shown me just exactly what He did for me. I entered into Christ, and into His labors, and therefore, I have ceased from mine. Could we ask for a more amazing salvation than this?

Judgment In Tha House!

2011-01-18T18:32:00.000-05:00

For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17 NIV)

Today I'm not trying to be offensive in my tone. However, I find it more and more difficult to tolerate those who persist in taking the Bible out of its natural context, and make it say things that the authors never intended to say.

One such passage is the one above. Dispensational preachers often quote the above verse to say that the Church must a)repent for the sins of the nation, and 2)that somehow this verse shows that God will bring His judgment against the Church if she doesn't do 1). However, let us examine this passage exegetically to determine what he is, in fact, trying to say. We will start at Verse 12.

12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.
>

First off, we should ask whether Peter's opening remarks are directed toward a carnal, unrepentant "Church." We must point out that Peter's remarks are directed first and foremost to the Church in his own time. The books of Peter are, after all, letters passed between 1st Century congregations. He tells them that they must not be surprised at the suffering and persecution that they are experiencing. If this is a carnal, unrepentant Church, then why would they be suffering?

Rather, he tells them that they should expect to suffer. After all, Jesus Himself said that the world would hate us, and that we would experience tribulation in the world. Nevertheless, Peter says that they were to rejoice in the midst of suffering. Why? Because, Peter says, they were not suffering arbitrarily. Neither was it because they had done anything wrong. No, just the opposite. They were doing something right. In living out their Christian convictions they were suffering the very sufferings of Christ. Again, does this sound like a carnal, unrepentant Church? Through this trying of their faith, Christ's glory would be revealed in them.

Peter says almost the identical thing in chapter 1: "So be truly glad. There is wonderful joy ahead, even though you have to endure many trials for a little while. These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold—though your faith is far more precious than mere gold. So when your faith remains strong through many trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honor on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world." (NLT) Peter says that their faith would be tried for a reason. The reason is to prove whether or not they possessed genuine, saving faith. We must ask the question, "Is it important for me to know that my faith is genuine?" Would it do us any good to think we were Christians when we were, in fact, not? Those whose faith is genuine will endure. Those whose is not, will not.

Vs. 14-16: If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

As in chapter 1, Peter says here that if they are insulted because of their faith in Christ, it is proof to them that the Holy Spirit is resting upon them, i.e. that they have genuine faith. If they are going to suffer, it could be because of just punishment for criminal and immoral acts. However, Peter says that because their suffering is due to their faith it is not only unjust, but that they should praise God because, once again, it shows that they are doing something right, not wrong. Thus, they should "praise God that they bear that name."

Vs. 17-18:

For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And,
“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

Now, taken IN CONTEXT, what is this judgment all about? First of all, we should point out that "judgment" here does not refer to the exercising of God's wrath in the typical way that we think of judgment. Luther correctly points out that judgment in the Biblical sense most often refers to setting things right. Notice the following points:

a) The entire purpose of the atonement of Christ was to fully satisfy God's wrath against us, which it did. Thus, Paul says in Romans 5:9 "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!" To say that we are saved by the work of Christ on the cross, only to fear God's wrath still upon us is to negate the atonement!

b) Notice Isaiah 42:1 (KJV) which says, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." Is this Messianic verse saying that Jesus will bring forth his wrath against the Gentiles? No. It means He will bring them justice, i.e. justification/salvation. He will give them opportunity to be saved as well as the Jews.
Here is another: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10) Is Paul saying that our salvation will be determined here at our judgment? No. Rather this "judging" means making a distinction. Notice also "Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me." (Gen. 16:5) Here Sarah is saying "May the Lord make a distinction between us as to who is correct.
Thus, God's judgment oftentimes means to make a distinction between parties, and to render decision, making things right. Thus, in agreement with the Isaiah passage above, Paul said to the Gentiles in Acts 13:46, "Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles." God was making a distinction between parties and would now set things right.

Secondly, when Peter says "It is time," the definite article is present. This means that the text actually says, "It is THE time." The word for "time" here is "Kairos." It is not general time, but a specific appointed time. Peter, in his lifetime was saying that the appointed time had come for the time of judgment. Although I disagree with many of his views, Don K. Preston correctly points out:

When Peter said "the time has come" he uses the word "kairos" a word meaning more than just time. It "frequently refers to `eschatologically filled time, time for decision.'" In other words, kairos means an appointed time. Just as in Mark 1:15 when Jesus said "the time [kairos] is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven is at hand" meaning that the prophetic calendar had reached the designated time for fulfillment. Thus, Bigg rendered 1 Peter 4:17 "For it is the time appointed for the judgment to begin." Peter uses kairos in other places.

This judgment was not against the Church, but in her favor! God would begin making things right for the Church, rendering a decision between parties. The parties concerned here are those who hold genuine faith, and those who "do not obey the Gospel." It would be evident that those who did not obey the Gospel would depart from the faith as Jesus had said in Luke 8:13. Make no mistake the God is judging the universe in the interests of His Church.

So then, we see clearly that Peter is speaking to the 1st Century Church, praising them for their good works, admonishing them to rejoice in suffering, and informing them that the time for God to begin avenging His people had arrived in their time. This was intended to be a message of comfort and solace.

One final note. We see the same exact thing in Revelation. The souls who had been martyred for their witness cried out to the Lord, "“How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”" (Rev. 6:10). Once again, we see that this judgment is on behalf of the Church against Her enemies. What is God's response ultimately? First the saints are sealed so as to be preserved through God's judgment in Chap. 7, and then in Chap. 8 it says that Jesus "...took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake." God's response is judgment on behalf of the Church against her enemies.

The Bible is consistent. It consistently shows that God's judgment is for the Church not against it! Yes, the Bible commands that all men everywhere repent. Not one verse of Scripture, however, teaches that anyone can repent "for" someone else. In fact, the Bible speaks more of the Church praying for judgment against her enemies than it does begging God for mercy for them. Even when that judgment comes, we can be sure that God will preserve His beloved wife through it all.

It is not my intention on sounding arrogant. However, I hope that I have helped to clear up this matter, so that the next time you hear a preacher dooming and glooming the Church and using the verse to support that claim, you will hopefully turn the channel.

Individual Election is In Christ

2011-01-17T17:32:00.000-05:00

Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
(2 Timothy 2:11 NIV)

Corporate election is a vast subject. Much good material on it is available at www.evangelicalarminians.org

It is often asked how election relates to us as individuals. Election relates to us as individuals based on our position or identification in union with Christ. In our text above, Paul tells Timothy that if we died with Jesus, we will also live with Jesus.

Now let's think about that momentarily...You might say, "How could I have died with Jesus?" "He lived so long ago!" One of the chief doctrines of Paul is Identification. I am absolutely convinced that the doctrine of Identification is the most neglected doctrine in the Church today. Everyone has a primary message in their ministry, and I am no different. My message is, and I think always has been, the message of Identification.

What does it mean to be Identified with Christ? Paul lets us in on this vital truth in several places. One of my favorites is 1 Corinthians 6:17, "But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit." Just as a man unites himself with his wife, and the two become one flesh, Paul states that when we join ourselves to the Lord Jesus by faith, we become one with Him spiritually. We become a part of His body, which is the Church. The Church has taken the place of the physical body of Christ, and Jesus is said to be the head of his "new" body, the Church. The Church then is the body that carries the head around where He wants to go.

When we join ourselves to Christ's body by faith, then all that is true about Jesus becomes true for us. He perpetually stands in our place. This is called Penal Satisfaction. Jesus became our substitute. He became what we are: sin, flesh and blood (2 Cor. 5:21, Phil. 2:7) that we might become what He is: righteous, holy, unblameable...

The Scripture says that Jesus ever-lives to make intercession for us. Intercession literally means to "stand in the gap." Jesus lives forever, and forever He stands in our place. He did not simply do this on the cross, but does it now in heaven. He is our High priest forever and our advocate. What is true about Jesus is true about me, because I am in Christ.

"I am crucified with Christ..." Paul says. How so? Because I am now in Christ's body by faith, then I can say that I was crucified with Him. Not only that but I was buried with him, resurrected with Him, ascended with Him, and now seated with Him in heavenly realms. Thus, Paul can correctly say that if we died with Him, then we will also live with Him.

Election is no different. It is Jesus Christ who is the elect One (Mt 12:18; cf. Isa 42:1, 6; 1 Pet 2:4). I am chosen "in Him," Paul says in Ephesians. Why did He choose me? Was it because of something I did? No. The question could also be asked, "Why was I crucified with Christ?" The answer is because I have joined myself to the Lord by faith through the empowerment of the Gospel. God chose that Christ would be all these things, and thus, since I am identified with Christ, then I am all these things as well.

Election is a positional truth in Christ. God did not choose Robert Mackey. God chose Christ. Since Robert Mackey is in Christ, then I can rightly say that God chose Robert Mackey. Furthermore, since I am in Christ, I can also rightly say what the Father has said about Christ is also true about me: "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."

If more Christians knew about Identification, it would put a complete end to our constantly trying to measure up so that God will like us. God's justice was completely satisfied on the cross, and God's satisfaction is fully justified in me because of the cross.

Faith is a Greek word that means "rest."

2010-12-28T15:10:00.000-05:00

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. (Colossians 1:21-23 NIV)

No, faith as a word does not translate semantically into the word "rest." However, for a believer in Jesus Christ, that is exactly what it does. Most Church folk in all honestly do not understand the true Biblical concept of faith.

I grew up primarily in a Baptist church that became a Charismatic church. Over time, Word of Faith ideology became the norm, and even to some degree what I call "hyper-Arminianism," an "old time" Holiness ideology that basically says that every time you sin, the Holy Spirit has to leave your body.

I do not question that these folks do not sincerely love the Lord, but they are ignorant of historical and Biblical doctrines concerning what the Gospel, faith, and the true nature of salvation is all about.

On top of that, we enter into a church world where we enter into a building that is crisp and neat. The people are crisp and neat. Suits, ties, dresses and hats, all put forth a false facade that we want everyone else to see. There's nothing wrong with wearing nice clothes, but dressing to the hilt to go to church is a tradition, one that is, fortunately changing a bit nowadays.

When you are in a church environment that exudes perfection, you will find eventually like I and so many others have, that you can not live up to it.

Paul says first that we were alienated from God and were his enemies because of our evil behavior. This is not an exception to the rule, but speaks of everyone who has been born except for Jesus. "There is none that understandeth. There is none that seeketh after God" (Romans 3:11). The problem is we do not understand the depth of our depravity. We are not good, no not one. We cannot do good things. We, by nature, cannot measure up.

Next, Paul says that God has reconciled us through the physical body of Jesus. This is not general reconciliation, but reconciliation that has been appropriated through faith. Why? Though Jesus reconciled the world unto Himself, Paul is speaking on a personal note here to believers, at least by profession. He says that they were (past tense) enemies of God, and then he says, "but now..." That "but now" is extremely important. It shows the nature of the relationship has changed. The truth is that even though Jesus reconciled the world unto God the Father, the world is still the enemy of God. Yet this had changed for the group Paul is addressing.

Before this, Paul had said that Christ is the "head" of the body. His body is His Church. It is in this context that Paul then says that His body was crucified, and through that death was reconciled to God. Thus, the death of Christ was the death of all who are in His body by faith.

Next, the purpose for which Paul says that Christ has reconciled us is this: "to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation." We read those words and tend to not take them seriously at all. We ignore them deliberately. Yet, Jesus Christ did, in fact, through His vicarious death, cause us to become holy in His sight. We do not have to become holy. God has declared us holy. He has also presented us to God as being "without blemish and free from accusation." In God's sight I am not trying to be these things. He says that I AM these things. I am holy, without blemish, and free from all accusation. It is a finished work, a done deal.

Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 5:27:

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

That He might present it to Himself...How many times have heard the preacher say, "Jesus is only returning for a bride that is without spot or wrinkle"? Yes, He is, and He is smarter than to leave that up to us. He has presented it to Himself that way already. It is something that has already been accomplished!

Now where people get tripped up is in the next part of the passage, precisely because they have messed up views about faith, and the finished work of Christ. I once asked my congregation, most of them who came out of Charismatic, Pentecostal and Holiness backgrounds, "How many of you, before coming to this church, ever heard anyone preach about the finished work of Christ?" NOT ONE PERSON RAISED THEIR HAND! Yet, THIS IS the Gospel message!!!!

Paul says that there is a qualification to all this: "if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." What exactly does Paul mean by this? While many point to a passage like this and scream about having to live right, (which translates into meriting our own salvation), that is NOT what Paul is saying at all.

Let's compare scripture with scripture, for Paul says a very similar thing elsewhere. In Galatians 5:4 Paul says "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Again I ask you, how many of you have ever heard this expression "falling from grace" to refer to losing your salvation? Yet, Paul is saying that if our confidence is in the law to save us, we have fallen away from what real grace is.

Real grace is God's ability, not ours. The Gospel message is about what Jesus did in our place. It is based on what He has already accomplished. Thus Paul plainly states that if our confidence is in the law, and our good works, that Christ is made of "none effect." Putting our confidence in the law to save us is the same as putting our confidence in ourselves, because the law is based on our ability to perform, and none can. Paul says our faith cannot be in ourselves. It cannot be in the law. It cannot be in anything other than Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished. As Paul states in Romans 11:6, "And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace." Grace would no longer be grace. It is impossible to be both grace and works. They are like oil and water, they do not mix.

In conclusion, yes we have to persevere in faith. Yet the truth is that if we are truly converted, real faith perseveres in us, not the other way around. True faith comes from God, and Jesus Christ is its sole object. It is not faith in faith. It is not faith in our ability. It is faith that what Jesus Christ accomplished is absolutely all that is necessary to save you to the uttermost. That faith is there because Jesus Christ is there living His life in you, through you as you. He is living within you. It is He that has the faith in Himself. It is He that is doing the works. It sure isn't you, it's Him! Thus, Paul's qualifier has a qualifier of its own. He doesn't merely say that we are to just plod along in our faith, but he tells us what that means by saying, "and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." We are not to move. We are to be anchored. Anchored in what? We are to be stubbornly anchored in our hope. Our hope in what? We are to be stubbornly anchored in our hope held out in the gospel. What is that hope? It is the confidence that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ has accomplished everything necessary to secure our salvation. Hence, the very moment that we cease to place our confidence in what Christ has already done, and begin to place it upon our own ability, we have moved away from the true message of the Gospel.

Thus, I discovered that I still do not measure up! But it doesn't matter because Jesus Christ is the one who has done it all, and is still doing it all within me! Our faith is not in our ability, or our performance. True faith is the faith of the gospel. It is faith in Jesus Christ. Either Jesus is saving me, or I'm saving myself. I can assure you that it is not the latter.

The Arminian TULIP

2010-12-25T01:48:00.000-05:00

Calvin's "TULIP":
T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

Well, first of all Merry Christmas everyone! I had a thought today that I wanted to share with everyone...something to chew on. As we are constantly defining and redefining our faith, and for those of us who hold to it, Arminianism, there is something that I think is worth considering.

During an online debate one time with a Calvinist who was much more learned than I at the time, he pointed out to me that all of us limit the atonement, and I found myself actually having to agree with him.

Only Universalists actually believe in Unlimited Atonement. We define Unlimited Atonement as being universal in scope, but efficacious only in those with faith. By this, we actually mean that the atonement positionally is universal, but is ACTUALLY limited. It is limited to those who have faith.

With this said, is it possible that, perhaps, we agree with TULIP more than we might want to admit, we just DEFINE what TULIP means differently? Being a Baptist Arminian, I find myself saying that I agree with "T", but disagree with Calvinists on the extent of its effects. I agree with "P", but disagree with Calvinists as to its cause. If I'm being honest, I have to say then that I agree with "L" also, but disagree with Calvinists that the atonement is limited to the "elect," but rather it is limited to those who have faith.

This only leaves one letter, and that is "I". Of course, I believe that grace is resistable, but I'm starting to wonder if I somehow also believe in "I", but simply define it differently as well...? I have to think about that one some...

Seeing that Arminius was Reformed, and well respected by his peers, I wonder if this is not also the way that he saw his own beliefs. I own his complete written works, and have never read where he said this outright, but I wonder if this is the thought in the back of his mind.

This is an inner conflict of some sort with me, as I wonder if we also believe in the concepts of TULIP, but just define them differently.

What does it mean to abide?

2010-12-13T21:35:00.000-05:00

I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ² Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. ⁴ Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. (John 15:1-4)

Here Jesus speaks a parable. He says as much in 16:25. Jesus says that He is the true vine. As Jews, the disciples would have understood as Israel was called the vine of the Lord in the prophets, i.e. (Isaiah 5, Jer. 2). Jesus is the true vine, the true Israel. It is He that all the promises of Israel are fulfilled.

Secondly, Jesus states that as the vine, the branch cannot survive without Him. "Without me, ye can do nothing." The "nourishing sap", or life eternal that comes from Jesus Christ comes only from and through him. All that came before Him were thieves and robbers. This shows us that there is no life to be found outside of Christ, and certainly that it does not come in any way through our own selves. What we possess, we possess because we are attached to the vine by faith. Thus, Jesus plainly states that we cannot bear fruit unless we "abide" in Him.

What does it mean to abide? The NIV translates the word as "remain." The idea here is that if we remain in Jesus, we will bear fruit. In another parable, about the sower, Jesus also speaks of those who do and do not bear fruit. The seed was sown on all different types of ground. However, none bore fruit, but one: that which was sown on good ground. The others might have seemed to be flourishing, yet never produced fruit, i.e. the seed sown on rocky soil.

To bear fruit here is to show forth evidence that one has been truly converted. There is no way that the God of all the universe can come and dwell in a person and that not be evidenced by some kind of fruit. The word, "meno" means:

1) to remain, abide

a) in reference to place

1) to sojourn, tarry

2) not to depart

a) to continue to be present

b) to be held, kept, continually

Only those who continue in Jesus, or kept by Jesus, will remain in Jesus. The idea here is not to show that Christians who don't live good enough will be cut off, but rather it shows true and false conversion.

There are those who profess Christ, Jews who professed to be "Israelites indeed," but Jesus said, "Your father is the devil..." Moreover there are those in the Church who make a profession of faith in Christ, yet they never bear fruit. They never demonstrate the consistent evidence of faith in their lives, or that conversion has ever truly taken place.

Peter says that we are to examine ourselves to see if we truly belong in the faith, and that we can have assurance that we do, unless we fail the test. The "test" is what the Bible declares someone who is truly connected to the vine should look like. There must be fruit.

Thus, Jesus states that every branch in Him that does not bear fruit...This raises a question. How can a branch be in the true vine and not bear fruit? Again, if we look at the parable of the sower, Jesus states that they "have no root in themselves." Thus they are only SUPERFICIALLY connected to the vine by profession only. This has nothing to do with those who are truly grafted into the vine.

Thus, Paul refers to the same idea in Romans 11 by stating that those unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ were broken off because of unbelief. These were obviously unbelievers that had never produced fruit. That is the idea. He further warns that those who are high-minded only stand by faith. It could be, says Paul, that you are indeed not truly connected to the root. If you are not connected to the root, then you will also be broken off. How do we know if the branch is connected to the vine? That branch consistently and perseveringly bears fruit.

Those who explain this chapter as having to do with losing one's salvation, are not comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. The idea presented here is consistent with the other things shown in the parables and the rest of the New Testament. The Bible deals with true and false conversion, not about losing one's salvation.

Matthew 24 - Transition or Not? Pt. 5

2010-11-16T16:18:00.000-05:00

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Hebrews 9:28)

As I stated in the previous post, it would behoove us to consult antiquity for an answer as the truthfulness of the Second Coming of Christ, and whether or not a transition is warranted in the Olivet Discourse.

What did the earliest Christians believe about it? If we can find some similar structural patterns, we can determine whether or not these ideas are justified. This is not an argument as to whether Historicism or Preterism are superior, but how do they compare? Looking at both views together will give us a fuller picture as to what the Early Church believed about Jesus' words, just as looking at the Gospel accounts together accomplishes the same purpose.

The Historicist view of Matthew 24 is summarized as follows:

Vs. 3 - "As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

The key to how Matthew 24 is interpreted boils down to how one structures this question posed by the disciples. Did the disciples ask one, two or three questions? How one answers this determines the path one will follow throughout the rest of the passage.

Historicism sees the disciples asking two fundamental questions: 1) about the destruction of the temple, and 2) about the Second Coming (which is accompanied by the end of the age.)

Historical Preterism sees this as one question that is broken up into three aspects, but all refers to both the destruction of the temple, and the Second Advent at the same time.

Vs. 21 - "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."

Both Historicism and Preterism properly place the first section of Christ's discourse as relating to the destruction of the temple, and place the "great tribulation" account in the past, as also dealing with this same event.

Generally, both views are virtually synonymous to this point.

Vs. 26-27 - “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Historicists see Jesus here contrasting the temple account with His Second Coming. In effect, they see this as an admonition from Christ Himself not to get the two confused. In other words, there are signs which will point to the temple event, but there are no signs necessary for the Second Coming. It will be plainly visible for all to see "as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west."

Preterists diverge on this point. Most believe that Jesus is speaking figuratively of the temple event still. Jesus is saying that He will not be found on earth, but they will plainly see His coming in judgment through the destruction of Jerusalem.

Vs. 29 - "Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

Historicists diverge on this point. However, this verse is generally seen as a transition from which Jesus is speaking of the temple event, to His Second Coming. In this verse, the entire Gospel age transpires.

The traditional interpretation here is that "after" means "at the end of..." Historicists recognize that the Great Tribulation against Israel is the beginning of "birth pains," or tribulation in general for both Jews and the Church. This tribulation endures as a characteristic throughout the Gospel age. Thus, at the end of the tribulation which was started at the temple event, the entire Gospel age has transpired and the Second Coming occurs.

Others view this as being symbolic of the "darkening" of the Church that would begin immediately after the Great Tribulation.

Preterists generally see this in a similar light, but that the "darkening" that occurs is to Israel, and not the Church.

Vs. 34 - "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

Historicists generally see this the same as Preterists. However, some are in agreement with Futurists in that "genea" (generation), means "race."

Vs. 35 - "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

This is the point, generally, where Historic Preterists see the transition occuring. Jesus has answered the disciples question, and is now voluntarily giving them insight into the fullness of what His "coming" really means.

In summary, both views hold these things in agreement:

1. Jesus' discourse ultimately deals with two scenarios: a) the end of the Jewish age, and b) the end of the world as we know it. Jesus intermingles the two ideas, and one is to some degree or other, a picture of the other.

2. Jesus' discourse transitions at some point from discussing the first scenario to the discussing the second.

The views are almost identical in many places. Even where the views diverge, structurally they are the same, for they both generally follow the same path. The only difference is in where the milestones in the path should be laid. Though they lead in two different directions, they ultimately arrive at the same location and that is the Second Coming of Christ.

What are we to do with this? The Early Church didn't have an argument over a transition. They simply had an argument on the general characteristics of the Gospel age, and the timing of it all. However, the transition in Jesus' discourse, and especially His referring to His Final coming were without question.

I believe Modern Preterists err by leaving the transition out. Though a sensible argument can be presented from the text, as stated before, does it reflect what has traditionally been accepted as being without question by the Church?

It is not enough to say, "I believe in the Second Coming." When every verse pointed to mysteriously becomes about the temple event, then what we have is an empty confession with no Scriptural backing. At least Hyperpreterists are honest enough to admit the obvious. If we're going to follow this path, we must follow it to its consistent and obvious destination: no second coming.

However, with Historical Preterism, such a conclusion is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Furthermore, I believe the Historicist's position could actually be adopted to some degree by the Preterist Postmillennialist. Is it not true GENERALLY, that the Gospel age is characterized by tribulation, even though this will not always be the case???

Matthew 24 - Transition or Not? Pt. 4

2010-11-16T15:57:00.000-05:00

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Hebrews 9:28)

When it comes to developing particular ideology concerning something as important as the cardinal doctrine of Christ's Second Coming, it would behoove us to at the very least consult antiquity on the matter.

Everyone in the Church likes to think that their doctrine is Apostolic. However, if so many people tend to believe so many things, the truth is that we are all wrong on some points, and are correct in others.

Thus, the closer to the apostles that we can get, the closer to the right ideas we can get. This is not to say that the Early Church was correct about everything they believed. However, it is sheer folly to think that they were so close to the purest form of doctrine, and yet somehow were so misguided about everything.

When we take an honest gander at the Early Church, we find that although no system of eschatology was fully developed by any stretch of the imagination, there were two views that were indeed prevalent. Those two hermeneutics were Historic Premillennialism and what we now call "Historic" Preterism.

Without a doubt, Historic Premillennialism was the most prevalent view of the Early Church. We should as honestly as possible, and without as much bias as possible, ask the question, "What did the earliest Christians believe about the Second Coming of Christ?"

This carries with it extreme logical reasons. It is the same idea as with Moses. We all know and understand that, until Moses wrote it down, ideas such as the Creation, to which Moses was not a first-hand party, were passed down orally. It is a credit to the truth of Creation that virtually every culture in the world has some variation of the creation account.

Therefore, the earliest Christians believed much of what they believed because that is what had been handed down to them by previous generations. Although something is true ultimately because it is supported in Scripture, one cannot seriously think that one is more "super-spiritual" than anyone else when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Even Luther, who developed the idea of Sola Scriptura, never intended for people to read the Bible in a vacuum. Luther intended for men to interpret the Bible through the lens of the orthodox Church.

In the next post, I will, as briefly as possible, compare these two oldest views of the Olivet Discourse, and find comparisons that we should consider before making a decision.

Here is the ultimate reality for anyone who is honest: The Bible can logically be interpreted a great many ways that make logical sense. Even hyperpreterists can present a logical argument from the Bible. My mom used to say to Jehovah's Witnesses that came knocking at our door, "You can make the Bible say that it's a sin to cut wood, for the Bible says 'What God has joined together let no man put assunder.'"

So it ultimately comes down to a matter of stubborn conviction. It comes down to saying "This is what I believe, and why I believe it. Period." Yes, the Bible can perhaps be interpreted differently, and certainly is. However, we must ultimately come down to the place where we find the best argument and hold on to it for dear life. If not we are "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine."

Matthew 24 - Transition or Not? Pt. 3

2010-10-30T08:59:00.000-04:00

"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11)

Now that we have looked at some different "comings" of Christ, we should again notice the text above. The text states emphatically that Jesus had just been "taken from you into heaven." Thus, logically when the angel proclaims that Jesus "will come back", it begs the question, come back where? Obviously if we are true to the text, the place to which Jesus would come back is the opposite of where He left. He left from His disciples to heaven. He would come back then, FROM heaven. It is also relevant to note that the angel does not say that Jesus will come back "to you." He simply says that Jesus will come back, and from deductive reasoning it is obvious as to where Jesus is coming back to.

In Revelation, the first chapter, we have a statement being made concerning a coming of Christ. It reads as follows:

"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen."

The same verse in Young's Literal Translation is as follows: "Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!"

Here is Matthew 24:30 from Young's: "and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;"

The reason that Young translates the word "earth" here as "earth," as opposed to "land," is because although the same word is translated as both, it should normally be translated as "earth" when it is immediately connected with the word "heaven." Thus, "earth" is the opposite of "heaven" and that makes more sense than to say "heaven and land."

Nevertheless, unless one is blind it is easy to see that these verses are very similar. We know that from the context in Matthew 24, Jesus' words are directed to four of His disciples who are sitting with Him on the Mt. of Olives. His words, in context, are relevant for that generation of men. Furthermore, we understand that by the use of this phrase "coming upon the clouds of the heaven," that a reference to judgment is being made using Old Testament language that these first Jewish disciples would have been familiar with. Even though Jesus states that "they shall see the Son of Man," it begs the question as to how they would "see" Him. Using the Old Testament as a backdrop, they would see Him the same way Egypt "saw" Him. They would see him in His judgment against them through a foreign oppressor. The terms "power and much glory" here do not refer to pomp and circumstance, but to our equivalent of the terms, "shock and awe."

Thus, I disagree with those who try and make a case that this "coming" the Final one. I also disagree with those orthodox preterists who try and make this Christ's coming to the Father. It is clear that this is not what is being referred to here.

So how do we interpret John's use of the phrase, and to which coming does it refer? The context of the Revelation is to show God's servants things that were to "shortly come to pass." Taken at face value, which is correct here, this coming could not have been the Final one necessarily.

However, this again begs the question. If we continue to point out verses that depict Christ's coming, and almost always say that it cannot be the Final coming of Christ, then to where do we turn in the Bible to defend this belief? Either we have to practically deny the Final Coming, and in doing so throw out 2,000 years worth of belief by the Church, or we have to understand the text with certain presuppositions.

It could (and has) been argued, that if a late date is taken for the book of Revelation, the intended meaning will naturally change. How could the book of Revelation be speaking of the destruction of the temple if that event has already occured? Thus, the Amillennial take here is worth mentioning for the sake of argument...(To be continued...)

Matthew 24 - Transition or Not? Pt. 2

2010-10-27T16:44:00.000-04:00

In the text above, Luke writes that the angels spoke to the disciples as they gazed upward watching Jesus ascend into heaven. No doubt they were very sad to see Him go away. I would have been. These are just ordinary men we must not forget.

The angels told the disciples that first, Jesus WILL come back. This is an important note here because the disciples are on earth, Jesus is now in the sky. The angels declare that Jesus will come back to the earth. Secondly, the angels declare that Jesus will come back in the same way, or the same manner. Jesus departed from their sight ascending in a cloud. Logic tells us that the "same manner" would be then that Jesus comes back descending in a cloud. Lastly, the angels proclaim that the manner in which Jesus would come back is in a specific manner. It is the same manner in which they saw Him go away. They saw Him go away physically. Thus, Jesus will come back physically.

Some confusion enters the picture when we observe Daniel 7. In Daniel 7 it is as though Daniel sees not the departure of Jesus, but the other end of it: the arrival in heaven, although I personally do not believe Daniel's vision happens at the same time as the ascension. Nevertheless, Daniel's text is as follows:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14)

Thus, here we have two "comings" that happen "with the clouds." One, in Acts, is clearly a reference to Jesus coming to earth, while the other, in Daniel, shows Jesus coming, not to the earth, but to the Father in heaven.

There is yet another mention of Jesus' coming. In Matthew 24:30 Jesus told his disciples, "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."

The word "nations" can also be translated as "tribes," and the word "earth" can also be translated as the word "land." In Revelation, those who "dwell on the earth" are juxtaposed against those who "dwell in heaven." Furthermore, the text in context is further qualified by verse 34: "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

Thus, Jesus' coming being spoken of here is yet another kind of coming. It is a coming of judgment against Israel in which the temple was destroyed. It is forced from the context that Jesus is using Old Testament figurative language. Notice these other similar verses in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 4:13 "Look! He advances like the clouds, his chariots come like a whirlwind, his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us! We are ruined!" God's coming against Old Testament Jerusalem in judgment through Babylon is termed as a coming with clouds.

Isaiah 19:1 "The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it." God's coming in judgment upon Egypt is spoken of God coming upon the clouds.

The key idea in these verses is to notice that God comes upon a cloud, but He isn't seen physically. Thus, Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse carry this same idea inherently.

Thus, if we look at all the "comings" of Christ through the Bible, and consider that Christ is the principle agent through Whom God performs all His acts, even the creation, it is easy to see that there are many comings of Christ:

1. The coming of Christ upon Israel through the Assyrians.

2. The coming of Christ upon Egypt

3. The coming of Christ upon Jerusalem through the Babylonians

4. (The inter-testamental coming of Christ upon Jerusalem through Antiochus Epiphanies.)

5. The coming of Christ to the Father

6. The coming of Christ upon Jerusalem in 70 AD

7. The final, physical, visible coming of Christ to earth

We could even consider Sodom and Gomorrah a coming of Christ, for Jesus compares His coming to that very event, and even the flood of Noah.

We must, therefore, look very carefully at the direction and context of which coming is being referred to in the text. However, I am very cautious about this because in my opinion, many who are orthodox preterists indeed confess the second coming, but virtually every verse in the New Testament is explained as Jesus' coming in judgment upon Israel in 70 AD. So it's like, "I believe in the Second Coming of Christ. I have no Scripture really to support that, but I don't want to be a heretic..."

(To Be Continued...)

Matthew 24 - Transition or Not? Pt. 1

2010-10-26T16:07:00.001-04:00

I grew up mostly in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. Thus, I was taught, and my entire family believed in Dispensational eschatology. It scared me to death, and led me to make a move toward Christ at the ripe old age of five years old.

However, when I REALLY started to follow Christ, I was about 23. I became passionate about this new old Book I had discovered called the Word of God. As I studied, I began to see many things that didn't add up, especially when it came to my favorite subject, eschatology.

Finally, an opportunity came to sit in a class on Revelation with a former pastor. I had no idea what I was getting myself into! This is NOT what I was expecting. What I learned through that course was the Amillennial/Idealist view of Revelation. It absolutely floored me. For once, not only did Revelation make sense, but all the loopholes were beginning to close, and the Bible began to open up to me.

Basically, that pastor taught the interpretation of William Hendriksen, and used the "scene" method put forth by Michael Wilcock. This teaching absolutely changed my life for good. I was so passionate that I began to try and share it with others, because I thought they would become as excited about it as me. However, I soon found out that most Christians don't even open their Bibles, and were lost about everything I was trying to tell them.

From that point I began to really look hard at the book of Daniel. Once again, I found that there were some inconsistencies to a degree. Not only that, but I began to realize that the view I held demanded a negative view of the future of the Church. Like the Dispensational teaching I had turned away from, Amillennialism teaches a somewhat negative view of the kingdom and the Church. I felt this to contradict the positive view of the Church, and my beliefs about the Kingdom of God that I had always held. The thing that led me to Preterism, was actually to investigate the erroneous beliefs of a minister friend of mine that denied a physical resurrection and denied the Second Coming of Christ. This led me to cautiously investigate Preterism. Preterism is the belief that most Bible prophecy was not only fulfilled in the 1st Century, but also that the Bible was relevant directly to that generation, and not to ours.

Even more so the Bible began to make even more sense to me, and I found that my hunger began to be appeased more and more. Although I do still hold many Amillennial views of certain things, (and thankfully so does David Chilton, so I'm not alone...) I shifted toward Orthodox Preterism/Postmillennialism. I figured out that what Hendriksen did was to take the Preterist view, and simply apply it to the church in every age. Thus, now I had what it really meant, and one way to apply it.

Sadly I discovered that conjoined with Orthodox Preterism was this view of the minster friend of mine: Hyperpreterism. Just as moderate Calvinists constantly have to deal with Hyper Calvinists, I found the same to be true with Preterism.

It was breaking my heart because I thought that my friend, (even though I still disagree with him), was in some far out fanatical cult. I do believe he knows Jesus Christ as Savior, but he is deceived on this point of doctrine.

Thus, I found the teachings of Dr. Kenneth Gentry, who teaches that both the coming in judgment upon Israel, and the Second Coming of Christ are both discussed in the Olivet Discourse.

I've been preaching now for 17 years. I am non-denominational because, for one reason, I've never found a denomination that believes like I do about every point. Thus, my experience has been to allow God to show me in His Word what He wants for me, and then to investigate as to whether or not any other prominent ministers held the same view as what the Lord was showing me.

I have found myself to be heavily aligned with Wesley in most things, Calvin in a very few things, etc...So on my journey to find a person who held a viewpoint most like mine I found Chilton, and then Dr. Gentry.

One thing I have refused to let go of is the belief that Jesus Christ will physically return and this old body of mine will be raised out of the ground. As I began to investigate whether or not the Church had always held this view, (because I was shocked to find out that the Church had not always held to Dispensationalism), I found that the Church had consistently, more than any other doctrine, had agreed and professed across spans of time, across denominational borders, across geographical boundaries, the belief that Jesus Christ would come again and that we would be raised from the dead.

Though I believe in Sola Scriptura, I will be the first one to say that if our belief contradicts what the Church as a whole has professed for over two thousand years, then we better be about changing our view. The Church has been wrong about some things, but there is no way that the ENTIRE Church has been wrong this whole time about something so fundamental to the Christian Faith. (to be continued...)

What is a Preacher?

2010-10-25T15:07:00.000-04:00

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" (Romans 10:14-15 NIV)

This is one of my favorite texts. There is so much in these short sentences. Paul says in order to be saved, i.e. "call on the Lord," a person must believe. Before a person can believe, a person must hear preaching. Before a person can hear someone preaching to them, they (the person preaching) must be sent. What is it they are preaching? "Good News," i.e. the Gospel.

So what is a preacher anyway? Is a preacher a man (or woman) who stands behind a pulpit wearing a suit? Is he the guy down on the street corner yelling at those who walk or drive by? What is a preacher? It is a professional clergyman, or theologian?

No. A preacher according to the Bible is anyone who has been born again. Though all may not be called to "5-fold" ministry, all are called to be preachers.

Yesterday, I mentioned Acts 8. It says that the Church had begun to be persecuted, and the Church fled, except for the "preachers." The apostles stayed behind in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the Word tells us that: "Those who had been scattered [the Church] preached the word wherever they went."

The word "preach" simply means to proclaim. We are all told in Romans 10, the same exact chapter as the text mentioned at the beginning, that to be saved involves confessing Jesus as Lord. To confess Jesus as Lord also involves confessing Jesus as Lord to others. In Revelation 12:11, describing the Church, the Bible says: "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death."

This "word" of their testimony, means the message they were preaching. It is the message of Jesus Christ, the Gospel.

In the Great Commission, Jesus commanded his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. This commandment was first geographical, meaning it applied to the men He was speaking to. Yet, it was also generational, meaning that Christ's words were intended for them, not as apostles chiefly, but as the first 11 members of the Church. This is easy to see, for in Matthew's version, Jesus tells the apostles that they are not only to make disciples, but also to "teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." One thing He had commanded them, was to make disciples!

Thus, the Great Commission is for the Church, and the Church, according to Paul is "not one member, but many." In fact, it could be argued that the majority of disciples are won for Christ, not in mass preaching events, but by one on one evangelism by ordinary folks.

Thus, to tell someone about Christ and His love is preaching. To hand someone a salvation tract is preaching. Even to some extent living a Godly life is preaching. As one church sign read, "Preach the Gospel always, use words when necessary."

Shepherd and Sheep..Equal, but Different

2010-10-24T21:34:00.000-04:00

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13 NIV)

There is a great deal to be learned from this text. First, it shows us the duty of the shepherds of the Church. The Shepherds, or elders, or pastors, or whatever their office might be, are not elevated from the Church, but a part of the Body of Christ. They have a peculiar function, however, and that function differs from the rest of the body.

Here in Ephesians, Paul tells us that it is the duty of ministers to "prepare God's people for works of service." It does NOT say that they are to do the works of service, but to prepare God's people for works of service. Thus, God's people are listed as a group, the sheep, opposite the shepherd. The shepherd is, of course, also a sheep, but he is the under-shepherd given to watch over the flock of God.

Peter said in 1 Peter 5:1-4:

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

The elder is also a shepherd. He is to "feed the flock of God." In fact, the word used here for "feed" is the verb form of the same Greek word used for "shepherd," or "pastor." So it says to "feed," "shepherd" or "pastor" the flock of God. The flock of God, then here is used as Paul used the phrase, "God's people" in Ephesians. They are listed as a group as opposed to the elders.

In Acts, a harrumph arose over the gentile widows being neglected. The apostles stated in response to the need, "But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4).

Thus, clearly a pattern emerges. The elders or shepherds of the church are to "give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." This is how that they will "feed the flock of God," and "equip God's people for works of service."

Most people don't understand the particular functions of each office of the church. We see the apostles evangelizing, and doing everything else, but their ministry still revolved around the things mentioned above. The elders they ordained over the churches, on the other hand, also had the same duty to feed the flock of God.

Therefore, the shepherds of the Church are for the CHURCH. They are to teach God's Word to CHRISTIANS. The Christians then go out to do works of service in their everyday lives, and as a church to work in concert as they can to get the message out.

The reality, however, seems to be that most church folk expect the pastor or other "shepherd" oftentimes to do everything, to lead everything, to think of everything. That is not the case.

If a pastor is praying and studying and delivering sound doctrine to his flock, then he is doing what God called him to do. Those who feel their church could do more, should be the first ones to get busy doing it. I'm not griping, but just being honest. Especially for those of us who are bi-vocational, it is overwhelming sometimes just to do what "little" it seems that we do.

If you have a desire to reach out in a certain way, don't wait on the pastor. Reach out, and then invite others to join you. That's the way Jesus did it. That's the way the apostles did it.

I'll leave you with one important scripture. The Bible tells us clearly in Acts 8 that the Church was persecuted, and so fled from Jerusalem. However, the apostles stayed behind: On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1). What was the Church to do without their shepherds? The Bible says, "Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went" (Acts 8:4).

So the Bible tells us plainly that it was the Church, without Her apostles/shepherds, that went and preached the word "wherever they went." Don't blame the pastor. Get out and do the work!

A New Heaven and a New Earth

2010-10-23T14:48:00.000-04:00

"Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth." (2 Peter 3:13)

There are as many opinions of what Peter meant by his comment as there are of how it all will end...Frankly, I have found myself torn over how to take Peter's words. I have come to the conclusion that there is merit to the many views of what Peter's words actually mean.

There are three ways I think in which we can understand Peter's comment here. First, there is the "Global" aspect, meaning a "literal" understanding of the term "New heavens and a new earth." All futurists, and most Amillennialists hold this view. It is certainly orthodox.

The second, is the "Covenental" view. When viewed from Isaiah's use of the term in Isaiah 65:17, it becomes clear from the context that Isaiah is speaking in terms of a change in order and covenant. Thus, Isaiah's new heaven and earth is figurative language for understanding that God, through the New Covenant and establishing of His kingdom, would "make all things new."

The third, is the "Personal" view. Whatever applies to the corporate body of the Church, in turn applies to the individual members. Thus, Paul says "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). All things include the heaven and the earth. Thus, life for a believer radically alters his/her world view and outlook on everything. Truly all things do become new upon faith in Christ.

Why do we as Christians feel it necessary to limit the scope of the atoning work of Christ? Is redemption not global in scope? Is it not covenental? Is it not personal? Why not view each of these as all being true at once? They certainly are. They are all aspects of the same picture.

The first creation is certainly also a symbolic portrayal of the new birth, the conception of Christ, and the passing away of the the Old Jewish age into the New Covenant. Why could it also not be understood to be a picture of the newness that is made complete at the Second Advent of Christ?

Concerning salvation, for example, we understand the clear message that all who are true believers in Jesus are "predestined to be conformed into his image." This is a redundant theme throughout the New Testament. We fully believe, therefore, that Christ's work of salvation and sanctification brings us from looking like Adam, to looking fully like Christ. This work of conforming is spiritual, ideological, and physical as well. Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Thus the redeeming work of Christ is a total work for the total man. It is not limited, but complete in nature and extent.

We are being sanctified, or conformed into Christ's image spiritually, soul-ishly, and physically. They are ALL true at once. Is our healing spiritual? yes. Is it physical? yes. It is not limited, but complete. However, all orthodox believers would never deny that, although the sanctifying work of God is absolutely a surety, it is nevertheless progressive and will not be absolutely complete until the very return of Christ on the last day.

We understand that Christ's redemptive work was complete in all aspects. He is transforming humanity, one soul at a time, and at the same time, His creation is being renewed from the curse. We mustn't, nor shouldn't limit God's ability nor plan to wait until a cataclysm erupts to effect change in both His created man, and His created order. If the change in humanity is effectual over time, then so is the change in the created order. However, just as with the personal aspect, we should understand that this process of "making all things new" has its ultimate fulfillment in the consummation of all things at the returning of Christ Jesus. Keith Mathison, author and theologian supports this view, and I agree with him.

Both salvation and the redemptive history in which it occurs is both spiritual, emotional, physical, and is both immediate, progressive and final in its outworking. Jesus Christ is the One who WAS, IS, and IS TO COME. He is both the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, He is both the Author, and Finisher of our faith. These are all true all the time.

Thus, the term "New heavens and new earth," denotes the transforming nature of Christ's work within us, within the redemptive history as pertaining to the change in Covenants, and also His redemption of the creation itself in quite a literal manner. To shrug off one of these concepts, and there are probably many more, is to limit the scope and effectual power of the finished work of Christ. I choose to believe that Jesus has left no task undone, and no stone unturned.

I can now look back on the New heavens and the new earth as it came into being with the New Covenant. I can look back on the New heavens and the new earth in my own life as Christ has changed me from glory to glory. (In fact, it is this very idea from whence my blog derives its name...), and I can look forward to a New heaven and a new earth in the future.

Even a futuristic view of the New heavens and new earth has two concepts. First, there is a view of holding a positive eschatology that reflects the belief that the outworking of the Gospel in our time will be to us what the outworking of the Gospel was to the apostles as reflected in the book of Acts. Whether the New heavens and new earth come about because our world is radically altered through the preaching of the Gospel, which results in a complete change in the world order as we know it, or whether it results from a literal fiery burning that occurs at the Second Advent, we still have it to look forward to nonetheless...as Peter also said.

Defending the Altar Call, Part 3

2010-08-04T19:17:00.001-04:00

"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." (Isaiah 55:6 KJV)

Part of the justification for infant baptism from Lutherans, etc. that I have heard is that basically, "C" is true.

What I mean is that if "A" is true, that is the person is elect...

and "B" is true, that the Holy Spirit will impart faith to that person...

Then "C" is true, that it doesn't matter what age baptism is administered...

Of course, I couldn't disagree more. I'm not Lutheran, nor Calvinist. However, it's worth pointing out that there is SOME justification given for practicing something that is unscriptural, or at least has no Scriptural precedent.

The Altar Call, or invitation is also given because people believe that "E" is true:

If "A" is true, that God grants faith and repentance through the preaching of the Gospel...

and "B" is true, that God will not strive with man forever...

and "C" is true, that the person is under conviction...

and "D" is true, that a person has a free will...

Then "E" is true, that the person should respond to God's dealing with them.

Is an altar call necessary for salvation. No, not necessarily. However, if the person is being dealt with by God, and they walk away when they had an opportunity to respond to God's dealings, then that person may or may not have another opportunity to be born again.

What is necessary for salvation anyway

1) Repentance - Repentance consists of three aspects: Contrition, Conviction, and Conversion. Contrition is a sorrowing for sin...Conviction is a true knowledge of self that one's self is in fact a sinner...Conversion is the acknowledgement of sin, and the inward turning of the heart toward God away from sin.

2) Faith - Faith consists of three aspects: Intellectual, Emotional, Volitional. Intellectual faith is believing the historical truth of the Gospel, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that He was buried 3 days according to the Scriptures, and that He rose again on the 3rd day...Emotional aspects of faith are often discouraged, however, there can be no denying that emotion is God given, and that faith has an emotional effect...The Volitional aspect of faith is found in repentance. True faith and true repentance always go together. The Volitional aspect of faith is believing UNTO salvation. It is an inward trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and remission of sins.

By offering an invitation, a person has the opportunity to respond publicly. Everyone Jesus called, He called them publicly. He said if we were ashamed to confess Him before men, then He would be ashamed to confess us before His heavenly Father. It is also an opportunity to demonstrate that 1) God is drawing the person, 2) They are experiencing contrition, conviction...3) An opportunity to communicate with God concerning their sin for, perhaps, the first time. 4) the opportunity to confess with their mouth Jesus as Lord of their lives.

Romans 10:9-10 "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation."

It is true that the heart believes "unto righteousness." Therefore, it could be argued that the person is justified before even responding to the invitation. However, Paul also says that the person must confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus. Giving an invitation, and leading a person in prayer to God is an important step in making sure that they understand what all is involved in salvation. Believing without repentance, or "apologizing" for sin, but not truly believing are not acceptable. The invitation is a responsible step to avoid false conversions.

Sometimes altar calls are done sloppily, especially by those who practice "free grace" theology. To tell a person "You are saved," just because they respond to an altar call is irresponsible, and has led to a great many people being decieved.

With that said, there is always going to be false conversion whether an invitation is given or not. Why not go the extra step to carefully explain the way of salvation to a person, and allow them to respond with God's dealings? As the Bible says, "Seek ye the LORD while He may be found, Call ye upon Him while He is near."

Defending the Altar Call, Part 2

2010-08-02T18:11:00.001-04:00

"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." (Isaiah 55:6 KJV)

There are other reasons given in opposition to the invitation/altar call, mostly doctrinal. In this post, I would like to address one of these...

No Precedent: Some opposers say there is no precedent in Scripture for giving an altar call. However, that is not what I see at all. In the book of Acts, the call of Peter on Pentecost was "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ and thou shalt receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The Bible tells us that that very same day there were added 3000 souls to the Church. Now, it doesn't outrightly say Peter gave an invitation, but I don't know what else you'd call it. To enter the Church, they had to respond to Peter's Gospel presentation, which included them being baptized. Thus, 3000 souls responded to Peter's message that very day by confessing Christ and being baptized. If it were not an on the spot invitation, i.e. if they simply prayed with them and bid them "good luck," how did they possibly know 3000 souls were add to the Church THAT DAY?

If one places oneself there when Peter was preaching, it is evident that Peter went immediately to a water source and stood there just like John the Baptist waiting for folks to respond to his message. This act of Peter standing in the water is no different than standing either in the water today, or at the altar, or wherever one happens to be.

Later we read that Phillip was sent by God to a Eunuch who was reading Isaiah 53 in his chariot. Phillip began at the same scripture and preached Christ unto him. Phillip's message also included baptism. Thus, the Eunuch asked Phillip, "What hindereth me to be baptized?" Phillip answered, "If you believe with all of your heart, you may." The Eunuch confessed, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God." And so he was baptized. The apostles clearly practiced believer's baptism. It's humorous that most of the naysayers on this account practice infant baptism which has NO Biblical precedent whatsoever.

The point is that all one has to do is to look through the book of Acts, and one will clearly see an immediate response to the Gospel presentation. That response is almost always to a demand that if one will be saved, he must repent and believe the gospel, and demonstrate this faith through being baptized. The apostles never baptized unbelievers. Since the people were baptized pretty much immediately, there had to have been an immediate response given to the Gospel message.

To do otherwise would be the equivalent of telling someone they have a terminal illness that they cannot do anything about. However, you have the cure for them. Just when they want to take the cure and be healed, you walk off and say "Eh, well, they'll figure it out..." No! We have the cure, and the cure is the cross of Calvary! The cure is the finished work of Christ! We should not tell people there is a cure, and then not give them an opportunity to avail themselves of it.

Defending the Altar Call, Part 1

2010-07-30T11:11:00.000-04:00

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near (Isaiah 55:6 KJV)

There are some people who are opposed to the use of an ivitation at the end of the service, i.e. the altar call. Why are folks opposed to such an invitation? Well, there are several reasons. In this and the next few posts, I will talk about such reasons, and I then hope to lay out a view in support of giving an altar call, and doing it the right way.

History of the altar call

Many people lay out as one defense against the altar call the man who is credited for popularizing it: Charles Finney. Finney was a 19th century evangelist who played a large role in the Second Great Awakening here in the states. Finney, to be sure, held some erroneous doctrines. One thing that I must say, however, is that hardly anyone, even his opponents, would deny that many people were in fact brought into a genuine relationship to Jesus through his ministry.

Oftentimes we fail to remember that when we were lost and undone, we had no clue as to what doctrine was, let alone pick up on when a person was departing from orthodoxy. The basic message can still come through: i.e. I am a sinner...I am guilty before God...I must repent and turn to Jesus to be saved...

This objection is ill-founded. The Church in every generation has sought to make the Gospel message more relevant, more effective, and more widespread. Finney was convinced that those who were being pricked by the Gospel would make a response if offered the opportunity.

Although his doctrine is neither Calvinistic, (even though technically he was a Presbyterian), nor Arminian, basing an objection simply on this point doesn't hold much weight.

There are those, for example, opposed to Calvin, his lifestyle and doctrine. Calvin reportedly was the cause of many, including his own wife, put to death because they disagreed with him. Should we thus oppose everything Calvin taught or did? No. Many are opposed to John Wesley, his lifestyle and doctrine. He married a woman, only to basically ignore her until she left him. Should we say that his innovation of open-air preaching and circuit riding on horseback should now be anathema because of Wesley? No.

The issue goes from Finney to theological reasons for being against altar calls, but the step of pointing to Finney is just a fear tactic to get peoples' attention. The one thing that cannot be denied is the practical effectiveness of his methods. Thus, other ministers after him adopted the practice because the effectiveness of it could not be denied. To these men, the practice was a return to the on the spot demand for repentance found in the book of Acts. Such ministers included D.L. Moody and others. Even Billy Graham, who has friends and foes alike, has continued to use this method.

Interestingly enough, many reformed ministers are now beginning to adopt Wesley's open-air preaching method. They are now lauding it as a "Biblical" and "effective" means at reaching the lost with the Good News. Sites such as http://www.gostandspeak.com/, are exhorting believers to return to the "forgotten power of publicly proclaiming the Gospel." However, their own predecessors vehemently opposed Wesley's efforts, not to mention his own Church organization.

Perhaps a hundred years from now, altar calls will spill over from the Evangelicals to other forms of Christian faith. It is somewhat doubtful, however, because the additional reasons given for opposing the practice have to do with various views on how one is actually saved.

At any rate, in this post I would argue that simply trying to incite fear in others because of some of Finney's beliefs is a moot point.

Denominations: Of God or Man?

2010-07-26T09:22:00.000-04:00

I pastor a Non-Denominational church. This, however, does not mean that I am against Denominationalism. It simply means that our set of beliefs does not fit into any one denomination. It also reflects our belief that a local church should be autonomous.

Many people say, "Why can't there just be one church?" Ultimately, there is only one Church, the Church Universal, made up of all those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Historically, there actually was one church. After the early church, this became the Roman Catholic Church.

To be a member of the RC church, you would not have been allowed to own a Bible, to read the Bible, or to interpret the Bible. No one was allowed to worship God based on their own convictions.

Thankfully, Martin Luther led the Reformation to give all of us liberty from the RC Church. We now enjoy owning a Bible, reading our Bible, and interpreting our own Bible, and worshiping according to our own convictions...(at least in the U.S.!)

When Calvin fled to Geneva, he departed from several things that Luther taught. However, that was the spirit of the Reformation, to readjust one's convictions based on new light shed from the Scriptures. The Anabaptists broke from the Reformers based on their conviction that baptizing believers was what the New Testament taught and reflected. The refused to baptize infants, or those who had not made a public profession of faith in the Lord Jesus.

Thus, denominations have allowed us to join ourselves to others who share our same convictions, and have thus preserved Christian doctrines for generations. We should actually be thankful that denominations exist. Until the day comes that we do know the "ONE" truth that is out there, denominations allow us to follow God according to the best truth that we know. Thus, there can be harmony among disagreement, and even the disagreement allows us to constantly redefine what we believe and why.

Acts 13:48 ~ Ordained unto eternal life

2010-07-20T18:45:00.000-04:00

Most people I know who are presently Calvinists did not start out that way. They had to be taught Calvinism. They had to be convinced that the simple message of the Bible, that God loves and desires to save all without exception, was wrong. Why is this? It's because when we look at God's Word from a certain pre-conceived idea, instead of just letting the Bible speak for itself, we come to a different conclusion.

Years ago, a Jehovah's Witness told me that Jesus was "less" than the Father. He pointed out that Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I." This bothered me at the time because I didn't know the Bible that well, but I knew that what he was saying was not true. Only later, when I read the Bible for myself, would I come to understand what Jesus was really saying. The first time I heard a Calvinist speaking about salvation, I remembered that Jehovah's Witness, and said to myself, "Nah, that can't be true."

When I did begin to study the Bible, I (fortunately) spent a lot of time in the Old Testament, something that many Christians fail to do I think. Even though I didn't understand much of it at the time, I read it anyway. One of those passages was Isaiah 49:6,
"Indeed He says,
‘ It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

That was pretty simple to me. I understood that it was always God's plan then to save the Gentiles. I then had an "aha!" moment when reading through the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 19:10, Jesus said, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." I read that carefully. I'd heard men preach on that verse. However, I noticed something. He didn't say that He came to save those who ARE lost, but those who WERE lost, as if it had happened in the past.

Again, that seemed pretty simple to me. Humanity was lost in the Garden of Eden, and now Jesus had come to save that which He had lost. Adam handed all over to Satan, and now Jesus came to pay the ransom. Jesus didn't just lose the Jews in the fall, He lost humanity. Jesus was saying that He came to reclaim that which belonged to Him. Those whom He had created in His image. Yet another verse that showed me that God intended to save the Gentiles.

Then I got to Acts 13:48. It says that Paul and Barnabus were preaching the Gospel to the Jews. They mocked and blasphemed. Thus, Paul said that he would begin now preaching to the Gentiles...

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Another "Aha!" moment. I'd seen that scripture before in Isaiah! Here Paul is quoting it and applying it to himself! I thought it applied to Jesus! It did apply to Jesus, and so I realized that Jesus fulfilled many scriptures after his ascension through the Church and especially the apostles. Mark 16:20 says, "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."

Again, this seemed pretty simple to me. God's plan to save the Gentiles had begun with Peter preaching to Cornelius. However, God had called Paul specifically to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Now Paul was letting us know that right here is when he would begin to fulfill his call. Jesus would fulfill the scripture in Isaiah 49 not only through Paul, but the Church.

Then I read verse 48 of Acts 13...This was kind of a tough one. It says, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

I saw this being true in two ways, and still do. First of all, Paul had JUST SAID that he had been sent by God to be a light to the Gentiles, and to bring salvation to the ends of the earth. Thus, those who were ordained to believe were the Gentiles. This meant that as many as believed, being Gentiles, had been ordained to do so. Isaiah 49 said that God had ordained for the Gentiles to be included in His plan of salvation.

The second way in which I saw it being true is when I got to Acts 16. Lydia heard Paul preach the Gospel. The Bible says, "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."

This let me know that God had to open Lydia's heart to believe. She could not just simply "choose" to be saved anytime she wanted to. No. God opened her heart through Paul's Gospel. He gave her the ability to believe right there.

Thus, to be ordained to eternal life meant that God had opened the Gentiles' hearts through the Gospel so that they could be saved. I later learned that John Wesley taught it this way. John Wesley said:

As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;" as he expresses it in a clearly parallel place, speaking of the same kind of ordination, Acts 16:14 , &c. It is observable, the original word is notonce used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sum is, all those and those only, who were now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest: it was his will that they also should have been saved: but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were they who then believed constrained to believe. But grace was then first copiously offered them. And they did not thrust it away, so that a great multitude even of Gentiles were converted. In a word, the expression properly implies, a present operation of Divine grace working faith in the hearers.

Thus, if a great man like John Wesley had come to about the same conclusion, I believed that I was on the right track. Only later did I ever hear of Calvinism, and would have never believed that the Calvinist tries to build a doctrine of Eternal Predestination upon this verse of scripture. I never had any reason to even think that.

Thus, the verse isn't that difficult after all if one begins in the Old Testament and follows the CONSISTENT message all the way through. So then, I still believe that God desires to save all men without exception.

Have YOU been born again???

Conditional Election

2010-07-19T18:02:00.000-04:00

So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. 45 Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45 NIV)

For some reason, many folks tend not to read this scripture which blatantly states that God fulfilled His promise to Israel concerning the land. The promise was clearly conditional as well. In Deuteronomy 28, Moses warned Israel that if they forsook the covenant "The LORD will make the pestilence cling to you until He has consumed you from the land, where you are entering to possess it" (Vs. 21 NASB).

In the same way, our election is conditional. Jesus said in Luke 13:3, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Jesus warned that those who did not believe would be condemned. Faith and repentance are the duties of a Christian. They are mandatory to enter the kingdom of God. Unless one is born again, Jesus said, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

Furthermore, a person cannot forsake Christ, and expect his/her self to still be "elect." Whether the person was ever truly converted or not, the principle of "he that endureth unto the end, the same shall be saved" still applies...

Clearly, one of the main themes of the New Testament is that the Jews considered themselves to be elect because they were Abraham's descendants. They thought their election was unconditional. Jesus and the apostles taught plainly that it was NOT.

Paul said in Philippians 3:3, "For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put NO confidence in the flesh."

Election is conditional upon true repentance, and true faith. The evidence that this has genuinely taken place is continued obedience.

The Word and The Spirit

2010-07-18T09:46:00.000-04:00

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. (Isaiah 59:12 KJV)

The New Covenant is marked by two forces operating within our lives: the Spirit, and the Word. A church that is all Word, and no Spirit is legalistic. A church that is all Spirit, and no Word, is shallow, emotional, and built upon an unstable ground doctrinally.

God promised in the New Covenant that His Spirit would be upon us and His Word within us. Salvation is God's Word, Jesus Christ within us. Being Baptized in the Holy Spirit is having God's Spirit upon us. One saves us, the other anoints us for service. The key is to balance the Spirit and Word in our Christian experience.

I've been in churches that were quiet as a mouse and have been edified greatly by the relevant Word that was being preached. I've also been in Pentecostal churches where I found myself crying inexplicably. I am a fairly unemotional person in this way, and so to "feel" the presence of the Lord showed me that I was still missing something more in my walk with the Lord.

Why can't a person be intellectual AND spiritual? No one likes a person who is religious, but people are drawn to those who are spiritual. I've been ministered to the most at times, by the most simple people one could imagine...uneducated, country people...but people who had the power of God in their lives.

Truly, our faith does not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the demonstration of power and the Spirit. This does not disqualify the need to be transformed by the written Word of God, but at all times we must remember that we are carrying a living Jesus, One who sets people free. We do not worship the Bible. We worship the One whom the Bible testifies about: Jesus Christ.

No Confidence in the Flesh

2010-07-16T21:57:00.000-04:00

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3 KJV).

Jesus in John 4 told the woman at the well that the hour had come when the TRUE worshippers of God would worship not on a mountain in Samaria, nor in Jerusalem, but they would worship God in spirit and in truth, and that God had been seeking such to worship Him. The true worshippers of God are those who worship God in spirit and in truth.

If we worship God in spirit, this means that the essence of our worship is spiritual. That is, of a new nature that God had placed within us. God is not impressed with our flesh, our works, our human effort. To some extent, God is not even impressed with our obedience. God is impressed with Himself. It is His faith, His salvation that is given to us.

Paul explains that Abraham received the outward sign of circumcision to display the faith that he had while yet uncircumcised. Thus, circumcision was merely an outward expression in the flesh of an inward faith. Paul explains that in the New Covenant, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Cor. 7:19). Paul further explains that believer's baptism accomplishes the same purpose as circumcision did in the Old Covenant. It is an outward expression of an inward faith. Thus Paul asks, "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Romans 2:26). Since Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and His righteousness is imputed to my account, my uncircumcision is then counted for circumcision. Thus faith in Christ is having one's heart circumcised.

In Philippians 3, Paul states, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." Paul defines, as Jesus did, the true worshippers of God, the true Israel, as being those who worship God in spirit, and have no confidence in the flesh. In other words, our pedigrees, legacy, heritage, our piety, devotion, discipline mean absolutely nothing. There is nothing about us that is good. There is nothing about us that contributes to our salvation. It is a merciful act of God from beginning to end.

I used to preach against the perseverance of the saints, until I realized something. No matter how "backslid" I ever got, I never could admit that God had left me. In fact, the fact that I was miserable was all the more evidence to me that God was still there. I've never met a person, even one in complete apostasy, who would actually admit that God had left them. God never leaves us nor forsakes us. If God is within us, it is He who is doing the work, and it is He that will complete in us what He began. We worship God in spirit and put no confidence in the flesh. Not any outward work that is done by us will help to save us. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Even the repentance and faith that we have comes from God. To "do" something to be saved other than move our heart inwardly toward God is tantamount to salvation by works. That is what Paul meant when he said, "we put no confidence in the flesh." He didn't say, "we put a little bit of confidence," but, "we put NO confidence in the flesh."

We are born of God, not of the flesh.

The idea of Corporate Election

2010-07-15T21:47:00.000-04:00

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:1 KJV)

One thing about corporate election that no one seems to talk about is the idea that it is Jesus Christ Himself who is the chosen, and elect one. The Church is His body. If Jesus is elect and chosen, it goes without saying that His body is chosen as well.

The idea behind corporate election is that is positional truth. Arminians believe correctly that Paul addresses three main themes more than any other in his letters: 1) The true Israel - Paul defines the true Israel, the true worshippers of God as those who worship Him in spirit and truth (Rom. 2, Rom. 9, Eph. 2, Philp. 3) 2) Justification by faith alone - Paul addresses the idea that we are not saved, and have never been saved by works. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. Paul preached justification by faith alone by using Old Testament examples, such as Abraham to show that the true Old Testament faith was never Judaism, but faith alone. 3) Identification - The third most discussed topic by Paul is that of identification of the believer with Christ.

Paul could say that he, and we also, were crucified with Christ, were buried with Him, were resurrected with Him, were ascended with Him, and are seated with him in heavenly realms. Much of the concept of Christian maturity is connected with the believer's ability to identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The question is...when could Paul say these things were true about him? He could not say these things when he was lost, but only after he was saved. After Paul was converted, he came to the revelation of his identification with Jesus. Arminians, such as myself, believe that corporate election is part and parcel with the doctrine of identification. Our election becomes true for us upon conversion, just as the rest of our identification with Jesus. Thus, in Christ, I am seated in heavenly realms. This is not ACTUAL truth, but positional. It is true about Jesus Christ, and therefore, I can count it as being true for me. He continually stands in my place as my great intercessor.

Thus, to say that I am elect, means that I am simply identifying myself yet again with Jesus, just as being seated in heavenly realms is true for me because of my identifying myself with Jesus. It wasn't always true for me, but it was always true for Jesus. Thus, now that I'm saved, I can count it true for me. The Bible declares that it was Jesus Christ, the true Israel, who was chosen from the foundation of the world. Now that I have been converted, I can also say the same thing about me. It was never an idea of God choosing us because He knew we would choose Him. It was never about Him choosing me at all. It was about Him choosing Christ, and granting what was true for Christ to become my own. Jesus became what I was so that I might become what He is. He became sin who knew no sin, that I might become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.

It was not always true for me that I was the righteousness of God. In fact, it is not true now...that is...of ME. However, it true about Christ, and thus it is true for me through Him. Thus, my election is no different. I am not elect, and never have been...but Jesus is, and so it becomes true for me when i place my faith in Him.

The Free Will of Man

2010-07-14T21:17:00.000-04:00

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live (Deut. 30:19 NIV)

Despite popular sentiment, the early church taught that exclusively that man had a free will for the first 400 years of the Church. This doesn't mean that our free will isn't fractured by the fall, nor that we can just simply choose to be saved.

Paul tells us that the Gospel is the Power of God UNTO salvation. The Gospel is not man's power. It is God's power enabling man. Believing is the act of receiving faith and repentance from God through the Gospel and exercising that back toward God. Thus, the idea of simply asking Jesus into your heart, with no true repentance, sorrowing for sin, and turning to Christ alone for your sin dilemma results in nothing but a profession of faith, but not salvation.

God has chosen fruit to come from trees, milk to come from cows, and salvation to come from the Gospel. The Gospel is God's means of imparting divine life to the human soul. We must be begotten of the Word of God in order to be saved. Our free will being impaired just simply means that we cannot and WILL not choose to be saved anytime we want to. We are only begotten through the conviction that comes through the Gospel. There is, however, a difference between conviction and conversion. Conviction involves the Holy Spirit opening up our spiritually blinded eyes to see ourselves for how we really are. It also involves a sorrowing for sin. David said in Psalm 38:18, "But I confess my sins; I am deeply sorry for what I have done" (NLT). Lastly, conviction that is acted upon by faith results in conversion. Conversion is the turning and surrendering of our will to God. We were born, the Bible says, not of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. He carries it out from beginning to end.

It's been said that the only real role that our free will plays in salvation is similar to a man drowning in the ocean. If someone from a ship tosses him a life preserver, would anyone believe that the drowning man saved himself? Of course not. Thus, our will enables God's faith to act upon conviction to bring conversion. This is not an "easy believism." This is Biblical salvation, which DOES involve a man or woman's free will.

A good grilled pork tenderloin recipe for idiots

2010-03-24T15:16:00.001-04:00

I bought a pork tenderloin at Food City a while back, and now that it is starting to get warm, I decided to finally break it out. I also bought some baker potatoes big as Wilson footballs. Here's an easy way to grill for the clueless. I'm learning a lot about cooking on the grill from a friend at work:

1. Heap the charcoal in the center of the grill. Don't spread it out like the bag says.
2. Get Hickory chips right off a limb or in the grocery store. Doesn't matter.
3. Preheat your oven for 400 degrees
4. Wash potatoes, and then slather in cooking oil and salt, and then roll in aluminum foil
5. Place in oven and bake them for an hour and a half total, but after an hour is up, start the charcoal.
6. Start the charcoal and let it burn down. This will take about 30 min. or so
7. While the charcoal is burning, cut the tenderloin down into 4-5 inch sections, and place into a freezer back and pour Dale's seasoning over it. Place in the fridge, but don't marinate over about 45 min. cause it'll be too salty
8. Soaking the Hickory chips in water for 30 min. while the charcoal is burning will make it last longer and smoke more.
9. Place the Hickory chips around the edges of the charcoal and some right on top of it
10. Place the tenderloin on the OUTSIDE EDGES of the grill, and turn it often. Slow cooking it will get it done without burning and the smoke will hit it longer.
11. When the taters are done, just turn the oven down to warm. It'll be alright
12. Cook the tenderloin about an hour and check one to see if it's done. Should be
13. If desired, now's the time to slather the Sweet Baby Ray's bbq sauce on it for about the last 20 min. or so
14. Eat till your face falls off!

The Saddest Question Ever

2010-02-17T07:31:00.000-05:00

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)

I called my mom the other day, and mentioned to her excitedly that I may very well have an article I wrote on Romans 11 on "All Israel Will Be Saved," published on a very well-known eschatological website (thepreteristsite.com). She asked me what the URL was, and so I told her, "The Preterist Site dot com." She asked me to repeat it several times, and I found myself saying over and over, "Pre-ter-ist..." "Pre-ter-ist." It was this moment that led to my mother asking me one of the saddest questions I've ever been asked: "What's a Preterist???"

The answer, by the way, is that the word "preterist" is a Latin word that means "past." Orthodox Preterists believe that all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled except for the final judgment and the Second Coming of Christ. Now why would that be a sad question? My mother was saved at an early age. She has been faithfully serving God for over 60 years and has been faithfully in church since she was in diapers. My mom was reared in the mountains of Topton, North Carolina in a Southern Baptist church. She has been in an inter-denominational Charismatic Church since that time. My mom is a studious Bible student. She has more books than anyone else I know, and probably has forgotten more about the Bible than I'll ever know. Like myself, Mom is an eschatology buff. She is a staunch Dispensational Premillennialist. More about this in a minute...

Around 16 years ago, I began preaching. I preached all that I'd ever known, Dispensational Premillennialism. Only thing is, I didn't really know it was called that because I had never been told. For the first few years of my ministry, I just thought that was the Bible, and everyone believed this way. I had no idea that there were other views out there about eschatology. Everyone had conveniently forgotten to mention it.

I had the opportunity to sit in a class offered by a former pastor, and that class opened my eyes to many, many things. In fact, I got angry. Why did I get angry? Because I realized at that moment that I wasn't a Dispensationalist by choice, but by constraint. How so? Because no one had ever mentioned to me before that there were even any other views out there! I felt robbed.

Had I grown up in a Presbyterian, or Reformed church, I know exactly how a class on eschatology would have been presented, because every one of their books are written the same way. They all start out with a good introduction. A class on eschatology in a Reformed church would have started out with the minister listing and briefly explaining all the different views on eschatology, and then the minister would have stated his own personal view. The minister then would have taught the class not in a dogmatic fashion, but by defending his view by COMPARING AND CONTRASTING his view with all the others. In this way, he would be demonstrating exactly WHY his view was the more superior one. Then I would have been able to make a THOUGHTFUL and INTELLIGENT decision on what view to espouse and why. However, I never got that opportunity, because I was only ever taught one thing, and one thing only.

So here's the question...How can a person honestly say that his or her view is the most correct one, when they don't even know other views exist, or what they even are???? Short answer: They cannot! So how is it that a woman who has been a faithful student of the word and has spent over 70 years in the Evangelical Church has never heard of Preterism? You see, she has never been told either. All she's ever known is one thing only.

This experience has totally vindicated my argument against the Evangelical churches that they often blind people to the truth by failing to mention the whole argument to begin with. Do they not know? Maybe. Do they not care? More like it. Can they not defend their position? There ya go.

It doesn't bother me that mom is Dispensational, and at her age, why change now? What DOES bother me is that she could spend her whole life in church and not find out what a Preterist is until she's in her seventies. So then, "What's a Preterist?"...It is simply the saddest question that I think I've ever been asked.

Overcoming Sin - Genesis 4:7

2010-02-10T07:37:00.000-05:00

If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:7 NIV)

Let me state for the record that I believe that man has a free will to some degree. Arminius stated as such that man has the freedom to make choices, but that doesn't mean that man has the innate ability to do any spiritual good.

Wesley stated that man could only do moral good by what he called Prevenient (preceding) Grace. In Reformed theology, a variant of this is called Common Grace.

However, some take this verse of Scripture to a Pelagian extreme and basically say that mankind can simply choose to sin or not to sin. This ideal is contrary to the whole of what the Bible says, however.

While it is true that we can certainly choose not to do certain things, for example, I choose not to steal or murder, that is not the same thing as saying that I have "conquered" sin. Muslims and others often live such moral upstanding lives even to embarrass some Christians in their behavior. However, this does NOT deal with the sin problem!

2 Corinthians 5:21 says, For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The Bible is clear that the only way we are made righteous is because Jesus Christ was made to be sin for us. Our sin was transferred to Him, and He was crucified as our once for all sacrifice for sin. Furthermore, Jesus is said to be "standing at the door" in Rev. 3:20.

There are traditionally 3 ways in which this verse has been understood, since the Hebrew is a little vague in its meaning.

1) One way this verse has been understood is, as the King James renders it, "his desire shall be unto you, and you shall rule over it." By the word "his", is meant Abel, not "sin". This idea is similar to what Gen. 3:16 says that Eve's desire would be "to her husband." Adam would now "rule" over Eve. By "doing what is right," God was referring to how Cain approached God with his sacrifice. It had to do with his attitude and motivation. After all, the Bible says that "He rejects the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

In this view, God was telling Cain that if he would approach God in the same way as Abel, he would also be accepted, and then Abel's desire would be unto Cain, and Cain would have overcome this sin he had committed. In other words, Cain had no reason to be jealous that his "little brother" had shown him up. God would still accept Cain as the firstborn, if he would humble himself to God. It is in this way that Cain could overcome this specific sin, but not sin in general.

2) In Hebrew, the word for "sin" is the same as for "sin-offering." In this view, God is demonstrating His mercy to Cain by saying, "If you do well, you will be accepted. However, if you do not do well, and you sin, a sin-offering is lying at the door and this will bring a covering for your sin." Again, this view lines up well with the picture stated above of Christ becoming our once for all sin-offering, and also the fact that He is said to be "standing at the door."

3) If we take the verse at face value, we must first put it into context. The verse before says, "Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?" The verse after says, "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."

Now it makes sense that God not only knows that Cain is angry enough at Abel that he COULD kill him, but also that Cain WILL kill him. Therefore, God is saying to Cain that if he approaches Him like Abel did, he would also be accepted. However, if he chose to harden himself against God, then "sin", that is, Cain's inward thoughts of murdering Abel, was lying at the door, but that Cain must overcome this temptation to kill Abel, and indeed was able to do so.

Any way we look at this verse, it is clear from the Bible as a whole, that the only way we can overcome sin at all is by God's grace, and furthermore, that the only way we can truly overcome sin is by faith in Jesus Christ.

What this scripture shows us is that we have a moral obligation and ability to choose to do what's right in any given situation if we so choose. This is true of sinners and saints alike. It deals with a moral issue, not a salvific issue! The term Total Depravity is often misunderstood to mean that man is Totally Evil. This is not so. Neither does it mean that man has no control over his behavior. Total Depravity simply means that man is incapable of doing any spiritual good, or anything good that would be considered meritorious by God. Man cannot simply "choose" to be righteous. Man can only be made righteous by faith alone in Jesus Christ. To say otherwise is to say that it was useless for Jesus to die on the cross. This whole time, we could have just simply chosen not to be sinful, and therefore, there was no need for a substitute for our sins. This is simply and absolutely NOT true!

Furthermore, this story is symbolic of Israel's rejection and the Church's acceptance which Paul discusses in Romans 9-11.

Have you humbled yourself to God, and have you come to Him on His terms? In Cain and Able we see two ways of approaching God. One is by works, the other faith. Paul plainly states in Titus 3:5 (NIV), "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." It all comes down to this: You MUST be born again!

That little book we call the Bible

2010-02-02T16:13:00.000-05:00

Proverbs 2:11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. (ESV)

I have recently been working on a series of short super-basic teachings about the Bible for my wife. It amazes me that there are so many people who are indeed spiritual, who love God, but who have so little knowledge about the Word. Nothing against my wife, of course...sorry honey!

Of course, the Bible is so very deep, but just to get a basic grasp on it is a challenge at times. I know from experience that the more I learn about God's Word, the less I know.

I believe that in this hour, there is a hunger arising in God's people not for a "deeper revelation," but for a return to basic structure. There is a need and a desire for those in the ministry to get back to teaching basic truths about the Scripture.

I believe that in this hour, God is laying it on the hearts of young ministers like myself to return to the "ancient paths, and walk therein." This does not mean a continual walking in traditions of men, as some have used this verse. What it does mean to me, is to return to the crux of the Great Commission, i.e. to make disciples.

So much of the Church is full of spiritual people who love God, but who do not know even the most basic principles of salvation. A few years ago, I taught a Sunday School class at a church that didn't normally have it. I taught basic things such as Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance, Faith, etc. They acted so confused for the longest time, and had a hard time understanding such basic things as that.

I have thus been scaling back, more and more and more, to try and teach at almost a kid's level. It's not because people are stupid. It's because many people have never had that firm foundation built underneath them. I am thankful that my years growing up in the Baptist churches have equipped me for such a task.

I believe that more and more as we utter the basic truths of Scripture, they will be received like "apples of gold in settings of silver." A priceless gift is the gift of a firm foundation! As people grow more and more tired of hearing all the same old stuff that never brings life, I believe there will be an increase in number of those who long once again to hear the old, old story of Jesus and His love!

The un Importance of Doctrine in the Evangelical Movement

2010-01-23T18:01:00.000-05:00

Isaiah 29:13 says,

The Lord says:"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men."(NIV)

In prophesying of Israel, Isaiah sees the condition of the people. God has blinded them. He says, Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. They had all but forsaken the Bible for the Talmud, a man-made document.

There is a bitter aftertaste that legalism has left in many a mouth. The thought is with many that Jesus Christ has set us free from one kind of bondage, only to place us in another. However, as we see, Israel wasn't worshiping God from the heart. All they knew was religion. In another place we see this as well. The Scripture tells us that He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel (Psalm 103:7).

Moses knew God intimately, as a friend speaks to another friend. However, Israel never knew God in this way as a whole. They only knew God by his works or acts. To Israel, God was something far off, distant. To Moses, God was Someone near and dear.

There is a difference in knowing God, and knowing ABOUT God. Rules tell us how to go about trying to be like God. Conversely, Relationship teaches us to be in union with God. There is a BIG difference.

However, I must say that in downplaying legalism and rules, we have also downplayed the importance of doctrine in our evangelical churches. It is for this reason that we have, like Israel, walked in such a superficial and shallow understanding of WHO God is. We might understand things ABOUT God, but without doctrine, we can never understand the PERSON of God.

Doctrine is a word that simply means teaching. Several places in the Bible it is mentioned, and the importance of it. Without doctrine, like Israel, we can only walk in a very shallow experience with God.

Isaiah 28:9 asks a very basic question: Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? ANSWER? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

Hebrews 5:12 says a similar thing: For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. Thus, doctrine/teaching is associated with maturity!

It would seem that many an evangelical church is going the opposite direction than is intended for us to go. We are to go on to maturity according to Hebrews 6, and yet it seems that we are tending to go back to the crib.

It is true that rules tend to make us cringe. The freedom which the New Covenant provides us is a treasure that we should hold on to with all of our might. However, to confuse doctrine with rules is to make a grave error.

We should all know and understand what we believe and why we believe it. Without doctrine, we begin to do as Israel did.

In Isaiah 29 that I mentioned first, Israel was guilty of anthropomorphism. What is that? It is defined this way: To endow with human qualities; To attribute human characteristics to something that is non-human. The Bible itself does this to a degree to help us in understanding God. However, Israel had made up their own ideas about God outside of a Biblical context. As Jesus stated, But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9).

As in Isaiah, God says that they had been teaching the commandments of men in place of doctrines. Is that not what we are doing? If there are no doctrines preached, then what must we substitute in their place? There has to be something, and that something is the same thing that the Pharisees had substituted for doctrine, and that is the commandments of men. i.e. legalism, religion.

No, religion can never bring life, but doctrine brings life. Why? Because doctrine is from God, commanded by God, and brings us into union with God. Notice that the word doctrine in Matthew 15:9 is set in opposition to commandments of MEN. This means that doctrine is NOT of MEN, but of GOD. I would plead with all my Evangelical brothers and sisters not to neglect doctrine in your ministry. Doctrine does not have to be something that divides us. Rather, it serves as a set of clothes that helps us to identify and understand one another, fostering respect, rather than confusion. Furthermore, it sets parameters for us so that we will not err from the faith.

2010-01-22T07:50:00.001-05:00

I've been commenting from a unitarian perspective on Trinitarian questions about God. As I've stated before, I'm not opposed to Trinitarianism. I just don't think that it is the most accurate way to describe the mystery of God.

Q4. If God is unitarian, why is it that there are so many places in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished from each other in the same verse?

Example, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Also see passages such as Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2 where all three Persons of the Godhead are referred—in the same verse.

A4. First I think it would be helpful to come to some conclusions based on this line of thought, looking at the verse mentioned - namely, 2 Cor. 13:14. Paul mentions three attributes along with the three personages or manifestations of God. Grace is mentioned with Jesus Christ. Love is mentioned with God, and fellowship is mentioned with the Holy Spirit. It is a common misunderstanding that Unitarian or Oneness believers do not believe in the Father and Holy Spirit. They do. They simply believe that "these three are one" (1 John 5:7).

So grace is mentioned with Jesus Christ. The question must be asked, does the Father not have grace? Does the Spirit? Love is mentioned with God. Does Jesus not have love? Does the Spirit? Fellowship is mentioned with the Holy Spirit. Does this mean that the Father doesn't have Fellowship with us, but only the Spirit? Of course not. Furthermore, notice it doesn't say anything about the Father here. Therefore, it doesn't mention the "godhead" at all. Is Jesus not God? Is the Holy Spirit not God then? How can "God" be different than Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit?

The answer is simply this. Just because Paul mentions "God" separate from Jesus Christ doesn't mean that Jesus Christ is not God. Neither does it mean that the Holy Spirit is not God. The Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one God. To say these are separate here you would be forced to say that "God" is a separate individual than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, because that is what Paul said.

Furthermore, each attribute matches the particular emphasis of God. The Bible says that "grace and truth" came by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the expression of God's grace to mankind. Love is mentioned with God, because God is Love. Fellowship is mentioned with the Holy Spirit, because "without the Spirit of CHRIST you are none of his."

So then, God is love. He expressed that love for us by coming to us in Jesus Christ. That's grace. He provided relationship to us and eternal life by placing His Spirit, His own self within us. These are all attributes that describe the one God, not three different people.

I could describe myself in the exact same way: The love of the father, (which I have for my children), the grace, or mercy, of the son, (which I show toward my parents), and the fellowship of the spirit ( in my relationship to God). Does this mean I am now three different people??? No. Neither do I believe that Paul means it in this way.

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands to baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Father is not a name, neither is Son, neither is Holy Ghost. Now, all through the book of Acts, when praying, or working miracles or whatever, they actually say "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no other NAME given among men, whereby we must be saved. Jesus is the ONLY name given to us by God in which to address Him, and be saved. Whosoever shall call upon the NAME of the Lord shall be saved. What "name" do we call on then??? Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is the name of the Lord, then Jesus Christ is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, because these are all "the Lord."

The Great Debate - 3 in 1, or 1 in 3? Part 3

2010-01-11T07:36:00.000-05:00

I've been commenting from a unitarian perspective concerning some questions raised from a Trinitarian point of view about God. It's been forever since I posted! Life happens!

Q2. If God is unitarian, how do you explain passages such as Genesis 19:24 where Yahweh (“LORD”), rained brimstone and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven?

Note: there are many places in the OT where God is presented as multi personal (e.g., the person plural personal pronouns used of God, i.e., “Us,” “Our,” in Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8 [also see John 14:23]; Yahweh to Yahweh and Elohim (“God”) to Elohim correspondences in passages such as Gen. 19:24; Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 48:12-16; and Hos. 1:6-7).

A.2. There are several scriptures listed here. I will address the first one first and then hit on a couple more. The scripture quoted here is Genesis 19:24. In the NIV, it reads this way, Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.

Reading this scripture by itself, out of context would seem to indicate that there are 2 different "LORDS" involved. However, when one reads the story, one finds that the LORD actually came to Abraham and visited with him. This appearance of God as a man in the Old Testament is called a theophany. There are several. The question that needs to be asked here is who was running heaven? If God was speaking there to Abraham with His two angels, and then went into Sodom to see it for Himself, who was running the universe in the meantime? Of course that's silly, but it's meant to be. David said about God, Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there (Psalm 139:7-8 KJV).

God is omnipresent. This means He is everywhere all at the same time. He stays with me, but goes with you: But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him? (2 Chron. 2:6 KJV). God is everywhere all at the same time. While He was speaking to Abraham, God was still on the throne in heaven. He's God!

Jesus actually applies this same concept to Himself in John 3, although some modern translations leave it out. To Nicodemus, Jesus said, And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13 KJV). Now here is Jesus in the garden at night speaking to Nicodemus, yet He says that He's in heaven! Notice also that Jesus is speaking of Himself, yet refers to Himself as yet another person, the Son of Man. Why didn't He just say "No one came down from heaven but me?" In John 6, Jesus also says, For the bread of God is he (not "me") which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world in verse 33, and again in verse 40, And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Verse 46, Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verse 62, What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? So here Jesus is speaking of some guy using the title, Son of Man, who came down from heaven. Is Jesus speaking of a different person? No. He's speaking of Himself. Just because pronouns are used, doesn't mean that Jesus is speaking of someone other than Himself.

To address the plural pronoun issue in Genesis 1:26-27, And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I'll let a Trinitarian answer that one. The word for God here is Elohim, which is a generic sort of word for any diety. The plural tense here denotes a plurality of majesty. Charles Ryrie says the following, The fact that the noun is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular affirs this. This plural of majesty denotes God's unlimited greatness and supremacy (Basic Theology, pp. 46).

What's also interesting in this is that God said Let us make man in our image. Then He proceeded to make one man.

The last issue will be to look at Psalm 45:6-7: Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.

This passage, as with some of the others is prophetic. The Psalmist is prophetically speaking of Jesus as Messiah. He is speaking of Jesus coming to reign in His kingdom. Therefore, the verse applies to Jesus when He died and rose again. Thus, David in saying "O God" the first time is speaking of Jesus, God in the flesh, while the "your God" is speaking of God in heaven. It is the same concept here as in Genesis 19:24. God is on earth and God is in heaven.

In John 14, Jesus says that both He and the Father will come and dwell in those who love Him. Yet how can this be that Jesus, who is in a physical body can come and dwell in a person? Through the Holy Spirit, the Trinitarian will say. But Jesus said that HE would come and dwell. Paul says He is Christ in you, the hope of glory. If Jesus is refrained to a physical body only, how can he dwell within a person? The answer is also in John 14. Jesus said, And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

2009-12-30T15:52:00.001-05:00

2009-12-30T08:35:00.000-05:00

John 6:44 Revisited

2009-12-26T13:47:00.000-05:00

John 6:44

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Whenever we approach a text, especially dialouge, it is important to consider some factors. First, we should consider original audience. Who is THE person(s) being spoken to? How would they have understood what's being said to them? Second, we should consider author's intent. What is the one speaking or writing trying to say? Sometimes a person may actually say one thing, but mean another. This is certainly to be found in John 6, where Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Third, we should factor in other things that were going on at the time that might have special bearing on the situation, such as culture, history, apostolic explanation, semantics and so on.

One thing we must remember is that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone. That means that whatever things the apostles taught were not in addition to what Jesus taught. Rather, the apostles doctrine was solidly and firmly built upon the doctrine of Christ as the ultimate foundation. Therefore, none of the apostles are adding to Jesus' words or contradicting them. Rather, the apostles were to explain Jesus' words, especially since Jesus said that He never spoke to the Jews unless it was in parables. This factors in a situation to begin with. Why did Jesus speak in parables to them? He tells us in Mark 4:12 that this was in fulfillment of the prophets that they could not understand on purpose.

Paul builds on this cornerstone in Romans 11:25 when he says:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Paul explains to us that God's judgment had been placed upon Israel, so that only a small number of them would be saved for a season. This was His just judgment upon them for their continual disobedience which finally culminated in the rejection of Christ. Yet, it was also in the plan of God to bring it out this way, so that the whole world could be saved. Peter tells us in Acts 2:23 that God had handed Jesus over by His "determinate counsel and foreknowledge." In this way, we know that Israel's rejection of Jesus was both due to their own choice and also the plan of God.

ORIGINAL AUDIENCE - Who was Jesus speaking to in John 6? The text plainly tells us that Jesus was speaking to Jews there in Palestine. In vs. 36, Jesus said that they had seen Him, yet they did not believe in Him. In Vs. 40, Jesus said that it was the Father's will that all who had seen Him, AND believed in Him would have eternal life. Clearly, they had seen Him, but they did not believe.

In Vs. 39, Jesus said that all that the Father had given Him would come to Him, and that He would raise them up at the last day. The question should be asked here if Jesus' statement was general for all time, or for that time concerning the Jews. In Chapter 17, Jesus plainly states as an accomplished fact that those that the Father had given Him had indeed come to Him and that He had kept them.

John 17:6

I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

Again, in Vs.12, Jesus states emphatically that those whom the Father had given Him were there at that time with Him in person:

While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Notice that in Vs.6, Jesus states that He HAD revealed the Father to those whom the Father had given Him. He says "you GAVE them to me." It was already accomplished, and they had obeyed God's word. Then in Vs.12, Jesus states that "while I was WITH THEM." Here Jesus again states that those the Father had given Him were a group of disciples at that time, in Palestine that He physically walked around with.

In fact, Jesus goes on to pray and says in Vs.20:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

If those that the Father had given Him included all the elect for all time, then how could Jesus pray for all those who would yet believe through their message???

Jesus is speaking of the first group of disciples that God had indeed sovereignly drawn to Jesus. Yet, this is limited by Christ Himself to that time and that place. In John 6, then it clears things up that when Jesus says "all that the Father giveth me will come to me," and "no man cometh to me except the Father which sent me draw him," are speaking of those original disciples.

AUTHOR'S INTENT - What does it mean to "come to" Jesus? Jesus uses this term to refer to not only belief in Him, but considering in Vs.36 and 64 that Jesus says that they saw Him in person, then in Vs. 44, "coming" to Jesus must mean the same thing. They came to Him in person. Moreover, in Vs. 64-65, it says Jesus

had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him (Judas). He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

In Vs.28-29 of John 6, Jesus tells them that they should believe. In Vs.32, Jesus says that He had been given to them, even though they didn't believe. In Vs. 51, Jesus says that His life was to be given for the world, yet in Chap. 17, Jesus juxtaposes "the world" with "them you have given me." In Vs.40, Jesus says that everyone who not only saw Jesus but also believed in Him, could and would have everlasting life. We find out in Vs.63 that the means by which a person could have life had indeed been given to them: His Word. The spirit which quickens is the very word which He spoke. His word was life, yet He says they did not believe.

The text, to me, shows plainly that even though they did not believe at that time, and it seems they did not, at least in part, because God would not reveal Himself to them at that time,(even Luther believed the grace of God was not irresistable), that doesn't mean they could never be saved. In fact, Peter's message on Pentecost was to those who had cried out just 50 days before for Pilate to crucify Jesus, yet now, many of those same unbelieving Jews, were now "pricked in their hearts." Neither does it prove that God unilaterally hardened their hearts, versus hardening their hearts because they did not believe.

To say that Jesus' statement applies to everyone now is a misnomer. It is true that in general terms, a person cannot be saved without the enabling of God. Yet, it is also true that the means by which a person can be saved is given to them by God through the Gospel. The Gospel is the "power of God unto salvation." The Gospel is "spirit and life, and it is the spirit that quickeneth." "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

God's prevenient grace (that power of God that enables men to believe) enables those who hear the word to believe if they choose to. Did the lame man who was laid at the gate called Beautiful work to be healed? Of course not. Yet, he did reach out his hand in faith to take hold of Simon Peter's hand did he not? Yet Peter says that it was by faith the man was healed. With salvation it is the same. Just because we reach out by faith to take hold of God's rich salvation in no way means that we had any involvement in saving ourselves. That would be nonsense.

The Reason For the Season

2009-12-25T07:04:00.000-05:00

Today is Christmas. For weeks now, most of the world has been preparing for this day to come. The irony is that most of the world doesn't really understand to this day the true meaning of Christmas. They might understand a baby was born in a manger, but that's about all.

As I think on the reasons for Jesus coming into the world, I think of all the messages over the years that I've heard as "the" reason for Christ's birth. Many would like to put a "primary" reason above all others for the reason that Jesus came.

Some would say that Jesus came to save our souls, and not our bodies. Yet, they believe that God at least sometimes heals the sick and that we have a dire need for a new body one day. How then is Jesus able to accomplish those things? I've heard that Jesus came to bear witness of the truth. Yet doing this alone doesn't save us, but rather would just leave us all in even greater condemnation. I've heard that Jesus came to establish the government of heaven upon the earth. Yet, without citizens, that government doesn't accomplish very much. I've heard that Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Yet, Christians don't believe that salvation is the be all - end all of the plan of God.

When one ponders the awesomeness of the plan of God that He had from the foundations of the world, it's difficult to imagine that it just sifts down to one particular thing that Jesus came to do. He said Himself that He had come to do all the things listed above, yet one must look at the plan of God as a whole to see the full picture.

I think the most effective thing to do is to ask the question "Why?" WHY must Jesus die for our sins? WHY must Jesus save our souls? WHY must Jesus establish His government? WHY? The answer, of course, is that Adam fell. This is the root. Adam fell, and in Adam, not only mankind, but the whole universe came under a curse. Now, the wonderful creation to which God uttered the words, "it is good," is not "good" anymore. Will God stand by and just let sin prevail and ruin His masterpiece?

From a wide-angled lens, Jesus came.....to redeem all of His creation from the fall of Adam, and the subsequent curse. This is ultimately why Jesus came to do all the things He did. The Bible testifies that He is the Last Adam. He came to reverse what the First Adam began. He finished the work He was sent to do. Jesus Christ came and did a TOTAL work for the TOTAL creation!

This Christmas season we should ponder on how all-encompassing the view we hold of God's plan of salvation really is. This is why I, over time, began to change my position on views of God, and especially eschatology, that limit the scope of God's redemptive work. No, I'm not a universalist, but to think that from the foundation of the world, God had this plan in His heart, only so that the vast multitudes could still perish, so that the planet could just be abandoned, the Church could mess things up so bad that God just has to come and whisk Her out to keep Her from messing up things any worse, so that evil prevails...This doesn't sound like a victorious plan to me.

I choose to believe the oppossite is true. Jesus is the victor! He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords! He reigns high above all heavens over all principalities, powers and might! He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. He is God in flesh who will NEVER fail us nor forsake us! I believe that through Him, "all the nations of the earth will be blessed!" I believe, as David said, "all flesh shall come to thee." I believe that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father."I believe that the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. I believe Christ's gospel will reign to the uttermost ends of the earth that He commissioned His Church to preach to. Why would He send us out on a mission that He did not believe we could accomplish? I believe that Jesus came to redeem, not only mankind, but ALL of His creation from the effects of the fall, and that He will accomplish it, because in the mind of God, IT IS FINISHED!

So the message of Christmas is this: the Gospel, and what is the Gospel? GOOD NEWS! Not doom, gloom, despair and agony on me. The Gospel is GOOD NEWS! Even the term "Good News" implies the outcome is successful! So Merry Christmas indeed!

John 6:44 - I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way

2009-12-23T07:27:00.000-05:00

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

I recently read an excellent post written from the Arminian perspective on John 6:44. I am also a "modified" Arminian, so I was interested in this article very much though I didn't necessarily agree on every jot and tittle. Turns out that another person who read this article referenced it on a radio program hosted by famous Calvinist theologian, James White.
Reading Mr. White's rebuttal, I was quite dissapointed. First of all, Mr. White could and should have simply stated his own case for John 6, and addressed some points made by the author of the article, whose name is Tim Warner. (The article and rebuttal can both be found ->here.) Instead, he broke down Mr. Warner's article and kind of just ran through each statement with a kind of "that's stupid" attitude. Mr. Warner's argument, however, made some legitimate points.
First of all, no Christian denies that Jesus came to save the Jews first and foremost (Matt. 15:24, Matt. 10:6). During the time of Christ's ministry, the Gospel was only available to the Jews. Mr. Warner points out this blaring fact and correctly asserts that it has a vital bearing on the words of Christ.
Mr. Warner correctly argues that Jesus' words were spoken at a particular time, in a particular place to a particular crowd, and taken in context, those words were relevant for the situation at that time. What was that situation? That God's judgment had come to Israel, and part of that judgment was that only a small fraction of the Jews at that time would actually be saved. Though they heard the Gospel, God would not enable them to respond to it. Jesus even states this fact Himself in Matthew 13:15. In fact, Jesus plainly states that they themselves had closed their own eyes not to be able to see. In that scripture as well, Jesus is addressing the unbelieving Jews at that particular time who were fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy.
Secondly, responsible hermeneutics is to compare scripture with scripture and to interpret difficult passages in light of plainer ones. This Mr. Warner does, though as I said, I don't agree with all of it. It seems that whenever an Arminian does this, a Calvinist brother's favorite word: "eisegesis" pops up. Eisegesis is reading something into a text based on a pre-conceived idea, not comparing similar ideas in Scripture, which Mr. Warner was doing.
Although I will not break John 6 down in this post, I would like to eventually address it. What strikes me as most laughable is that this same exact, and correct method of interpreting many (but not all of) Jesus' words in the Gospels is used by Reformed brethren as well. Being an Amillenialist, Mr. White errs in his own eisegesis by insisting that the "all that the Father gives me" means all the elect for all time. Even if Jesus was referring to all the "elect," it certainly wasn't for all time. Partial preterists and Postmillenialists who are mostly Reformed, use this exact same method of interpretation through the Gospels as well.
For example, the Olivet Discourse and other comments by Jesus, for example, "this generation shall not pass..." have to do with just that: "that generation," and no other. In fact, Lorraine Boettner, a Reformed theologian uses this exact same method of interpretation when addressing whether or not the typical Calvinist Amillenialist's assertion that only few people will ever be saved is true. He says:
But, it may be asked, do not the verses, 'Narrow is the gate, and straightened the way, that leadeth to life, and few are they that find it,' and 'Many are called, but few chosen' (Matt, 7:14; 22:14), teach that many more are lost than saved? We believe that these verses are meant to be understood in a temporal sense, as describing the conditions which Jesus and the disciples saw existing in Palestine in their day. The great majority of the people about them were not walking in the way of righteousness, and the words were spoken from the standpoint of the moment rather than from the standpoint of the distant Judgment Day.
Surely, Mr. White would not accuse Mr. Boettner of holding to a eisegetical, dispensational theology! Yet when this same assertion is made of Jesus' comments in John 6, somehow Mr. Warner gets accused of looking through a "dispensational lens."
The bottom line is that the testimony of Scripture about Jesus is that He is "the savior of all men, especially of them that believe" (1 Tim. 4:10).

Lordship Salvation - What do you mean, "born again?"

2009-12-22T07:51:00.000-05:00

I recently read an excellent article by William Webster on what is termed "Lordship Salvation" (found by clicking -> here.) The debate between Lordship Salvation and the opposing view, called "Free Grace" theology is currently raging like a wildfire in the Church right now. Frankly, it's a little refreshing to at least see people debating over something rather "new" for a change.

Let me say up front that I am not a Calvinist. Yet it is not necessary to be a Calvinist to uphold the doctrine of Lordship Salvation. I will say forthrightly that I believe this teaching to be nothing less than true Biblical salvation as presented in the Scripture. The core issue, according to Mr. Webster, is correctly asserted to be one's definition of what constitutes "true, saving faith."

Growing up, I had a pastor that used to ask a question almost every Sunday at the end of the message. I have been asking that same question for years since I've been preaching: "What does it mean to be born again?" The answer is this: "It means I no longer live to serve myself, but now I live to serve Jesus Christ. I've had a fundamental change in my reason for living."

Anyone who underestimates the miraculous and absolute transforming power of the new birth, does insult to the Gospel of Christ. Simple logic would beg the question, "How could the Almighty God of Heaven come to live inside a person, and at the same time, there not be any evidence of that in a person's life?" To me, it's ridiculous to even consider the possibility of that being true.

What does it mean to be born again, if it really doesn't mean anything practical in a person's life at all? Is saving faith simply mental assent? Do not the devils themselves believe and tremble at His name? It is not enough to simply believe historically that Jesus died on the cross, or that He is willing to save me. The core issue is understanding that true saving faith is a divine gift from God and accompanied by genuine repentance from sin. This is the apostolic message, "Repent, and believe the gospel!"

What strikes me as being particularly ironic is that Mr. Webster states that "There are those who claim that lordship is a betrayal of the Reformation in that it undermines the vital Reformation principle of 'faith alone'." Yet, those who argue this point, tend to come (but not always) from a denominational system that has always prided itself in claiming to be outside of Catholicism and Protestantism from the beginning, connecting themselves with the Early Church: Baptists. Now, I promise you I have nothing but love for the Baptist Church, but my point is that it is ironic that those who, historically, were outside of the Reformation, and were even to some degree opposed to Luther himself, would now argue that they really have the "true Insight" as to what Luther "really meant" when he taught "faith alone." Yet, Luther and Lutherans today will be the first ones to let you know that "faith alone" has NEVER meant simply "believing" something is true. Faith alone, has always been founded on a well-defined definition of what that "faith" actually is.

Martin Luther, whom Mr. Webster never quotes for some reason, eerily and in my opinion, prophetically saw days like this coming. In his own words, Luther states "So that no one will say after my death, 'If Luther was alive, he would teach and believe this article differently because he did not think it through sufficiently,' I state the following once and for all: I, by God's grace, have diligently examined these articles in the light of passages throughout the Scriptures..." (read full article-> here.)

In excellent fashion, Luther himself defined for the Reformation what true faith is, and ultimately and bluntly stated that true faith "kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers." (Read full article->here.) Isn't it ironic that the "Father" of the Reformation defines faith in a way quite diametrically opposed to those who are claiming that somehow lordship salvation undermines the Reformation principle of "faith alone!" They claim to defend a faith that they they don't believe in.

Whether or not that faith comes from God by pre-determinism or by prevenient grace, the point is the same: true faith, saving faith, produces a supernatural change in a life. Period. We don't just think that we become a new creature, we actually become a new creature, and Jesus isn't just the Savior, He is the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

My First Post!

2009-12-21T15:48:00.001-05:00

Welcome to my blog! This is my first posting and I'm excited to become an official, yet reluctant blogger. It's kind of ironic. I write all the time and think all the time of stuff to say. (I'm a pastor.) Yet, I'm busy and always feel like I never have time to simply sit down and type away. This blog will be primarily concerned with my personal and theological thoughts and struggles.

This weekend I celebrated my 12th wedding anniversary. It comes and goes. A date that isn't very important to the rest of the world becomes of primary importance to a couple doesn't it? That all-important date on the calendar that husbands repeatedly, (hopefully!), throughout the year look at again and again so they don't forget it.

Actually, I'm blessed in that, my wife's memory is not so good due to a car crash. No. I'm not happy about that, but it does have its benefits! I know it sounds awful, but the deal is that I always remember our anniversary, and my wife is usually the one that forgets the date. Wait a minute...Is that good?

When one starts out in a unique blended family situation as I did, it is a particular joy to know that for 12 years, my wife and I have stuck it out...something people don't seem to be willing to do anymore. Yes, we've threatened and at times it didn't seem we had a hope in the world of making it, but here we are still together. For me, it can only get better from here on out.