Mike

Something to Ponder

2006-11-03T00:26:00.000-08:00

"So many youth ministries quickly become irrelevant to teens because pastors get kids excited with cool video clips and cutting-edge music, but then when a parent gets cancer and the teenager is lying in bed wondering what life is all about, he or she discovers there's nothing to sustain them."

~ Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds.

Just a thought for your Friday/weekend.

In Christ alone,
mike

Happy Reformation Day

2006-10-31T15:05:00.000-08:00

Happy Reformation Day!

Hopefully you are aware that this day, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses to the door at Wittenberg which ultimately led to the Reformation. Spend some time reflecting on the truths of the Reformation.

In case you were wondering, last week I had my most difficult midterm (Exegesis of Hebrews) and I spoke at the high school youth group. Consequently, I kept pretty busy. I'm hoping to return to the Eschatology series within a few days.

What about Halloween? A question pretty common in Christian circles.
I have heard and can think of so many different arguments For and Against Halloween that I'm going to conclude for the time being that it is a matter of conscience. If you cannot participate in clean conscience, then please don't. If you can, please use it for God.

Having said that, depending on who you are, have a happy Reformation Day, Halloween, or even All Saints Day (it pains me to say that)! In honor of Luther's work, here is A Mighty Fortress is Our God by Luther:

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God's truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

In Christ alone,
mike

Eschatology Part 6 (Rev. 20:1-3)

2006-10-24T19:28:00.000-07:00

Revelation 20 is certainly one of the most used passages to support the Premillennial understanding of eschatology. So far all that has been said is that the Premillennial interpretation of the passage does not make sense in light of a few factors. However, it is not enough to simply say “View A is wrong because of X, Y, and Z.” That doesn’t actually prove anything. We now need to look viability of an alternative interpretation.

First, Revelation 20:1-3:

1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Notice that Satan is bound for 1000 years. This is the millennium that is so often referred to. The question is whether this millennium occurs before or after the second advent of Christ. Premillennialists, as the name suggests, believe that Jesus comes back and then this period starts. You can almost here the argument. Jesus returned in Chapter 19 and then we hear about a millennium in Chapter 20. Furthermore, this millennium is supposed to be characterized by Satan being bound and cast into a pit and sealed over. This doesn’t sound like our current era where Satan is described as a prowling lion.

We have already addressed the problem of the Premillennial understanding of Revelation 20 following temporally after Revelation 19. We will not repeat that here. However, for our passage it is absolutely critical that we understand what it means for Satan to be bound. At this point, the claim by the Premillennialist seems strong. Satan is clearly supposed to be bound for the millennium. He doesn’t look bound to us. Therefore, the millennium is still future.

Notice what is true of Satan during this time, bound by chain and sealed in a pit.

First, let us address the claim that if Satan is truly bound, then we would not expect to see him working, prowling around as a lion seeking to destroy us.

There is a very interesting line in one of the least read books of the New Testament:

Jude 6: And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day

If you noticed that this sounds remarkably similar to being bound by chain and sealed under a pit/abyss, then you are not alone. The point of Jude 6 is not to explain exactly how God has dealt with the angels who have abandoned Him. However, I think that the point can clearly be made: If we are to be consistent, doesn’t this mean that we must believe that demons are totally incapable of doing in work in the current era since God has said that he keeps them in eternal chains under gloomy darkness? I have not been able to find many premillennialists who believe that this is the case. If demons can still be active in this world by chained and kept under gloomy darkness, what reason do we have to believe that Satan himself could not be active in the world while bound and sealed?

Well then, one might ask, what is John talking about here? If this binding of Satan and sealing in a pit doesn’t mean that he has become inactive, then what does it mean? I think John tells us exactly what is meant: “…so that he would not deceive the nations any longer.” The literal purpose given by John for this binding is that Satan would not deceive the nations any longer.

Is this what has happened? Consider the Abrahamic Covenant. God promised to bless Abraham and his descendants in order that they might bless all the nations. However, is this what happened? Not really. Except for an occasionally individual, perhaps a family, and sometimes a city, the nations (Gentiles) were largely unaware of God and were foreigners to His promise. The God of this world had blinded/deceived the nations. However, something radical happens with the first advent of Christ. Jesus comes and tells his disciples to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel because all authority on heaven and earth had been granted to him. In Acts 1:8 we learn from Jesus that the Apostles shall be His witness “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” This is exactly what begins to happen. In Acts 8 a God-fearing Ethiopean is saved. God sends Phillip to remove the veil from his eyes. In Chapter 10 Cornelius and his family is saved. Peter says, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.” Later, “Peter [was] amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles.” Following Peter, we see Paul taking the Gospel to all of the known world and Gentile after Gentile being saved. Satan’s dominion of deception over the nations is no longer.

Furthermore, do we have reason to believe that Satan has already been bound?

Matthew 12:

26And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

Interestingly enough, the word for “binds” here is the same word used in Revelation 20. Notice what is happening. The Pharisees are accusing Jesus of casting out the demon in the power of Satan. But Jesus says that if a house is divided against itself, then it will be laid to waste. Rather than doing so in the power of Satan, Jesus casts out the demon against the power of Satan. For this reason he asks, “How can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man.” Jesus, in this narrative, claims that the power to cast out the demons, which is representative of the advancement of the Kingdom of God, comes from his binding of the strong man, namely Satan.

So what does Revelation 20:1-3 teach? The passage teaches that Satan is completely under the control of the sovereign Lord who has all authority in Heaven and earth. He has been bound for the time being in order that the Gospel may spread to all nations.

This brings up one last point: What about the millennium. If I am claiming that Satan was bound with Jesus ushering in the Kingdom in His first advent, hasn’t more than 1000 years passed? It should be noted that we are dealing with Apocalyptic writing which quite frequently uses numbers symbolically. Furthermore, the number itself, 1000, is used symbolically many times in the Bible:

In Deuteronomy 7:9, the Lord is described as a ‘faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love him and keep his commandments’. In the summary of the law given in Exodus 20, a contrast is drawn between the Lord’s visiting of judgement upon the third and fourth generations of those who hate him, and his ‘showing lovingkindness to thousands’ who love him and keep his commandments (Exod. 20:5-6). Similarly, in the Psalms we read that the ‘cattle on a thousand hills’ belong to the Lord (Psa. 50:10-11). The Psalmist also speaks of how a ‘day in Thy courts is better than a thousand’ (Psa. 84:10). In the well-known words of Psalm 90, the believer confesses that ‘a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night’ (verse 4). Responding to the mockers who mocked the promise of the Lord’s coming, the Apostle Peter notes that ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2 Pet. 3:8) ~ Venema

For this reason, I believe that it is certainly possible to view the millennium as representing a long period of time, namely the time between the first and second advent of Christ, in which the gospel may spread to all the nations. There seems to be no conclusive reason to hold to a hyper-literal position that this time frame must refer to exactly 1000 years. Requiring this type of literalism for “one thousand years” goes far beyond what the Scripture itself teaches.

In my next post we will examine Revelation 20:4-6.

In Christ alone,
mike

Eschatology Part 5 (What Rev. 20 Doesn't teach)

2006-10-18T23:10:00.000-07:00

What about Revelation 20?

When discussing the millennium there is one text that dominates the discussion more than any other. This is for good reason: Revelation 20 is the only chapter of the Bible that talks about the millennium. Now, this is not to say that we can simply ignore the text. As G. E. Ladd says, if even one text of the Bible teaches a millennium, then we must accept the doctrine. However, it is simply a call to be wary of developing a full orbed theology around one passage in an apocalyptic book. Nevertheless, the text has become somewhat central to premillennialists (for good reason), and therefore it is necessary to do an evaluation of the text.

That being said, let us examine Revelation 20. This passage is very important and very controversial and therefore will take some time. Consequently, I will give some reasons against the premillennial view in this post. In my next post I will provide an alternative way to read the passage. Let us begin:

The first key point that must be addressed is that Premillennial theologians argue that Revelation 20 follows chronologically after Revelation 19. This is crucial to the argument (notice: Jesus returns 19:11ff and then we see a millennium in 20:1-6 - therefore PRE-millennial). At this point, one might think that this should be a fairly agreed upon point. Shouldn’t we always assume that a passage that literally follows another be chronologically sequential. In general, that answer is yes. Genesis 50 follows chronologically after Genesis 49. However, if common sense and literary structure suggest otherwise, then we modify our presupposition. Example:

Consider Genesis 1 and 2. At the end of Genesis 1 we already have man created and God giving commands for the both of them to multiply. In Genesis 2 we hear of God creating Adam and then Eve. Now, does all of Genesis 2 follow chronologically after Genesis 1? Of course not! The author is using literary style to zoom in on the 6^th day and explain it more fully for effect.

I happen to believe the literary structure of Revelation is best described as Progressive Parallelism. The term is largely irrelevant for this discussion (at least at this stage). The point is that I believe there are literary alternatives that make it possible to read Revelation in such a way that it is not chronological. At this stage, however, my goal is to show that it is exegetically necessary to reject the Premillennial understanding of the text.

I believe that there are several reasons to reject the assumed chronological succession by the Premillennialists. The first point, and I believe most compelling, is the almost sure discrepancy between Rev. 19:11-21 and Rev 20:1-3.

Revelation 19 begins with Jesus coming back to subdue the nations. Notice what is said in vv. 15-21:

15From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great." 19And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presencehad done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

Who does Jesus come to strike down? The Nations! (v. 15)

What flesh will be left for the birds to eat? The flesh of all men! (v. 18)

Who were slain the battle? All the rest! (v. 21)

Now we read from Revelation 20:

1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pitand a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

That is interesting. According to Revelation 20, the reason for binding Satan is so that he might not deceive the nations any longer. However, this does not make much sense in that Jesus has just obliterated all opposing nations in the previous chapter. There are only a few ways for the Premillennialist to avoid the clear conclusion. A) Nations in Chapter 20 could refer to different nations than those in verse 19. This seems unlikely because of the all-encompassing language of chapter 19 and the fact that “nations” seems to be used consistently through Revelation. B) Some people could have survived the battle (or not fought, I suppose) and therefore they are left to be potentially deceived in chapter 20. Unfortunately, this seems to be a violation of the Premillennialists own claim of “being literal” and again does not consider the absolute language used throughout Revelation 19.

I happen to think that this argument is conclusive. However, some other supporting points can be considered. Consider Cornelis Venema’s analysis:

In the visions of Revelation 19 and 20, the language used is extensively borrowed from Ezekiel 38-39. This prophecy describes a great end-time battle between the Lord and the nations of the north who are opposed to him and his people. In the description of this great battle upon the mountains of Israel, reference is made to Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and to Magog.

There are several striking parallels between Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 19 and 20. In Revelation 19:17-18, an angel issues an invitation to the great supper of God. This is almost an exact quotation of the invitation extended for the Gog-Magog conflict in the prophecy of Ezekiel (39:17-20). However, in Revelation 20:7-10, when the Apostle John describes the great warfare that will conclude Satan’s little season at the close of the millennium, the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding Gog-Magog is again drawn upon extensively. The nations in rebellion are termed Gog and Magog (verse 8; cf. Ezek. 38:2; 39:1, 6). The weapon used by God to destroy Gog-Magog is a fire coming down from heaven (verse 9; cf. Ezek. 38:22; 39:6). This means that the Apostle John, in his respective descriptions of the rebellion and defeat of the nations in Revelation 19 and 20, is drawing upon identical language and imagery from Ezekiel’s prophecy. It seems hard to believe, accordingly, that the episodes described in these visions are different episodes in history, separated by a period of one thousand years duration. A much more plausible reading would conclude that these visions describe the same event and are to be read as parallel descriptions of the same historical period

The last point (and I will be brief here) is that Chapter 15:1 says “Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels who had seven plagues, which are the last, because in them the wrath of God is finished.” This is the beginning of the section on the seven bowls of wrath. Notice carefully that according to this passage, this is supposed to conclude the wrath of God. The seventh bowl is described in 16:17-21 and virtually everyone draws a parallel to the battle in 19. However, it becomes somewhat difficult to understand how another cosmic battle between Christ and the forces of evil can take place 1000 years later. It would seem that God’s wrath towards the rebellious nations should have been finished at the end of the 7^th bowl as 15:1 indicates.

For these reasons and others, I find it very hard to accept the Premillennialist understanding of Revelation 20. However, no alternative has yet been suggested. It is not enough to simply state (possibly prove) that Premillennialists understand this passage wrong. We must press on and consider how the text can and should be understood.

This marks a transition point from a negative theology (that is, why I believe Dispensational Premillennialists are wrong) to a positive theology (what it is that I actually believe). At this point we will now begin to consider whether it is possible to have a non-dispensational-premillennail view that is grounded in good exegesis and stays faithful to the content of Scripture.

In Christ alone,

mike

Eschatology Part 4 (Dispensationalism Discussed)

2006-10-13T16:21:00.000-07:00

Now that things have calmed down, I’m ready to return to our study of Eschatology. You will remember from last time that there were two claims that I suggested could be found biblically. I also said that if either of these were true then we must reject the Dispensational Premillennialist position. Here are the two claims:

A) There is One People of God – Not Two.

B) The NT Authors interpret prophecies regarding Israel as being fulfilled in the Church age.

Even though this post is long, we cannot begin to even scratch the surface of passages that relate to this topic. However, I’ve chosen a few powerful passages that I believe serve to illumine this discussion.

Consider the words of Paul to the Ephesian church:

Chapter 2

11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Notice what is happening here. The Gentiles had a big problem. There was a huge dividing wall between the Gentiles and Israel; they were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. However, Christ is the solution to the problem. He comes onto the scene and reconciles both people to himself that he might create one new man in the place of the two. For this reason, the Gentiles are no longer strangers and aliens but are to be considered fellow citizens with the members of the household of God (refers to Israel). Notice, Christ has joined together the two into a holy temple in the Lord.

Consider in Romans 11 where Paul says the following:

24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Notice what happens here. There are not two trees. There is one olive tree; there is one people of God. The unbelieving Jews (that is, those who are not part of the remnant) were cut out and believing gentiles were grafted in. Reformed Scholars (actually, All non-dispensational Christians) would believe that the people of God throughout time make up the church.

Now, this point could be belabored for seven more posts (and yes, I picked 7 for our Dispensational friends that seem to like to divide everything into that number). We could examine Romans 2 that talks about real circumcision (cf. Phil 3:3), the significance of “my people” in Romans 9, or the huge importance of the Church being of the seed of Abraham in Gal 3:29. However, I do want to spend a little time to ask whether the NT authors seemed to believe that (at least some of) the prophecies for Israel could rightly be applied to the church (what I would call “Spiritual Israel”).

Consider Jeremiah 31:31-34 (side note: Bible verse numbers are not inspired, but I always think it is cool when it happens to be that numbers are easy to remember, e.g. Jer. 31:31):

31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Who is this covenant to be with? Indeed, the house of Israel. However, we must look at how the author of Hebrews uses the passage in 8:8-10. It is an extensive quotation in a large passage. Even Dispensational authors (e.g. Victor Rhee, Faith in Hebrews) see this passage (7:1-10:18) as showing Jesus coming as the high priest for the salvation of all people. As Wayne Grudem says, Here the author quotes the Lord’s promise that he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, and says that that is the new covenant that has now been made with the church. (emphasis his).

The last passage of import (that we have room for!) is 1 Peter 2:4-10:

4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." … 9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

You might notice that these are all OT allusions to the people of Israel and that Peter here applies them to the universal Church. Could we ask for a better quotation to show that the church is in fact the true Israel of God and that God has fulfilled his promises in the Church?

In conclusion, consider the words of Sam Storms:

In the Old Testament, Israel is the bride of Jehovah. Yet in the New Testament the church is repeatedly called the bride of Christ. Christ only has one bride—the church. To say that God has two separate peoples is to implicitly assert that God is a polygamist. God only has one people: the church, “the Israel of God.”

In Christ alone,

mike

My last break from the series

2006-10-10T17:31:00.000-07:00

I've posted two of my favorite hymns on here and have given a little commentary. I figured I'd post one of my favorite poems. I'm not a huge fan of poetry, but God's truth is revealed through in many diverse ways. This poem is by Anne Bradstreet and I stole it off of one of my friend's blogs. Enjoy (By the way, it helps to read it out loud)!

Verses Upon the Burning of Our House

In silent night when rest I took,
For sorrow neer I did not look,
I waken'd was with thundring nois
And Piteous shreiks of dreadfull voice.
That fearful sound of fire and fire,
Let no man know is my Desire.

I, starting up, the light did spye,
And to my God my heart did cry
To strengthen me in my Distresse,
And not to leave me succourlesse.
Then coming out beheld a space,
The flame consume my dwelling place.

And when I could no longer look,
I blest his Name that gave and took,
That layd my goods now in the dust:
Yea so it was, and so 'twas just.
It was his own: it was not mine;
Far be it that I should repine.

He might of All justly bereft,
But yet sufficient for us left.
When by the Ruines oft I past,
My sorrowing eye aside did cast,
And here and there the places spye
Where oft I sate, and long did lye.

Here stood that Trunk, and there that chest;
There lay that store I counted best:
My pleasant things in ashes lye,
And them behold no more shall I.
Under thy roof no guest shall sitt,
Nor at thy Table eat a bitt.

No pleasant tale shall 'ere be told,
Nor things recounted done of old.
No Candle 'ere shall shine in Thee,
Nor bridegroom's voice ere heard shall bee.
In silence ever shalt thou lye;
Adeiu, Adeiu; All's vanity.

Then streight I 'gin my heart to chide,
And did thy wealth on earth abide?
Didst fix thy hope on mouldring dust,
The arm of flesh didst make thy trust?
Raise up thy thoughts above the skye
That dunghill mists away may flie.

Thou hast an house on high erect,
Fram'd by that mighty Architect,
With glory richly furnished,
Stands permanent though this bee fled.
It's purchased, and paid for too
By him who hath enough to doe.

A Prise so vast as is unknown,
Yet, by his Gift, is made thine own.
Ther's wealth enough, I need no more;
Farewell my Pelf, farewell my Store.
The world no longer let me Love,
My hope and Treasure lyes Above.

Are our eyes focused on this life or the next? So often our reactions to situations will tell us that answer.

In Christ alone,
mike

Rock of Ages

2006-10-05T14:11:00.000-07:00

As I stated in my last post, this is a very busy week for me. Consequently, I've had to take a brief recess from my Eschatology series. When this week comes to an end and my thoughts return to me, I will get back to that series.

In the mean time, here is another one of my favorite hymns. Again, I will highlight particular parts that I like, although in this hymn that is nearly every line.

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law's demands;
Could my zeal no respite know, [I couldn't embolden the entire stanza!]
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
When mine eyes shall close in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me.

I think a particularly good line comes at the end of the first stanza: "Be of sin the double cure / save from wrath and make me pure." We are not saved simply to remove the wrath that God has directed toward us. He has also cured us in a second way, namely to make us pure. How does one go about becoming purified? Consider these words: "Nothing in my hand I bring / simply to the cross I cling / naked come to thee for dress / helpless look to thee for Grace." This is not simply the posture of our heart atregenerationn, but absolutely must be characteristic of our entire life. It is By His grace that we are saved, sanctified, and will one day be glorified. Let us hide ourselves in Him.

In Christ alone,
mike

Amazing Grace

2006-10-04T00:51:00.000-07:00

I will resume the Eschatology series shortly, but this week is full of essays and midterms so I am taking a break from a post that requires much thought and research. Furthermore, writing polemical pieces are sometimes necessary, but should be supplemented with material that all Christians can agree on.

Amazing Grace is one of my favorite hymns. In a strange way, the hymn is over-played and yet under-comprehended. Most people know the first verse and could probably repeat it from memory. However, it has been my experience that beyond the first verse many people are lost and many people have not considered the weight of the words that they are singing.

I will highlight a few of my favorite parts:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed!

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me,
His Word my hope secures;
He will my Shield and Portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, Who called me here below,
Will be forever mine.

When we've been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we'd first begun.

Believe it or not, there are actually professing Christians who are pastors who do not like the first verse of this hymn because it would dare call us wretches. However, our theology is not one of self-esteem. Our Gospel is that we are terribly wretched men who have the anger and wrath of God burning against us. Out Gospel is that we deserve eternal punishment and separation from the Holy one. Our Gospel is that we were completely blind to God and unable to turn to Him. But finally, our Gospel is that while we were helpless, God demonstrated his Grace towards us and redeems despicable men to enjoy an eternity of blessedness. Oh that we could savor and delight in this truth more fully. This is Amazing Grace; this is Our Gospel.

In Christ alone,
mike

Eschatology Part 3 (Dispensationalism Described)

2006-10-01T00:49:00.000-07:00

“Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control.” -- John MacArthur

I agree with this part of John MacArthur’s statement from when he began his explanation of Dispensationalism. I also agree when he says the following,

I don't believe there are two different covenants. I don't believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age. I don't believe that you can hack up New Testament books--some for the Jews and some for the Church. I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that's an exegetical issue.

However, this might be where our agreement ends on this issue. I think that MacArthur does a great job of realizing where some of the past Dispensationalists have failed, even to the point of heresy (eg. two different ways of salvation). He has worked to correct this.

However, I do think that Dispensationalism began with some truths of Scripture and has let them get “out of control.” Let us use MacArthur again: “Everybody is a dispensationalist, everybody. I don’t care who they are in theology, they’re dispensational. It’s only a question of how many you have.” MacArthur would be correct if the word dispensationalist was simply used to refer to a person who believes that there are multiple dispensations (periods of time). As I once heard it pointed out, the same line logic could be used to argue that everyone is a Covenant Theologian (because everyone agrees that God has chosen to unfold redemptive history in covenants).

I think Sam Storms provides a necessary correction,

It must be noted, however, that the recognition of distinct epochs or periods in biblical history is not the primary characteristic of dispensationalism. All Christians recognize the presence in Scripture of developments within God's redemptive purpose. What is unique about DP is the way these distinct periods in biblical history are used to justify or undergird a separation between Israel and the Church.

If you read much of MacArthur then you will quickly see that Storms is correct. The problem with Dispensationalism is not that it believes in distinct epochs, but that it uses this truth to establish an unnecessary division between the Israel and the Church.

This is where the Hyper-Literalism that was addressed in Pt. 2 becomes important. The Dispensationalist will correctly state that the OT gives some prophecy regarding the future of Israel. They say that to apply any (much less all) of this prophecy to the church is a gross abuse of Scripture. Let’s use MacArthur again:

It is probably more than you wanted to know, but it is very, very important, because it preserves the literal interpretation of Scripture. Listen folks, once you're not literal, then who's to say? Right? I mean, then why not just say, "Well, Israel really means 'left-handed Texans'--if it's not exegetical--if it's not in the text, it could mean 'Canadians'" How can you say, if you can't say what's literally there? (Emphasis mine)

Notice what has happened: A Hyper-literalism has been used synonymously with being exegetical. MacArthur is correct: If something is not exegetical, we can arrive at anything and everything that we want. I want to fight against blatant eisegesis just as much as MacArthur. However, as we pointed out before, simply because something doesn’t conform to a hyper-literalism standard does not mean that it is incorrect or eisegesis. Again, we might ask how literal MacArthur believes the 10 horned, 7 headed beast of Revelation is.

I agree with MacArthur that Israel should not mean left-handed Texans’ or Canadians. He, unfortunately, goes further to state that there must be a separation between Israel and the Church. As such, it is not proper to ever understand prophecies regarding Israel as being fulfilled in the church.

It is my contention that the NT authors routinely assume and argue for one people of God (not two) and the fulfillment of OT prophecies (to Israel) in the Church.

Remember these two key points:

A) There is One People of God – Not Two.

B) The NT Authors interpret prophecies regarding Israel as being fulfilled in the Church age.

In the next post I will begin to argue from the biblical text for these two points. If even one of the two points can be argued for successfully, it becomes absolutely essential to reject Dispensational Premillennialism as an incorrect system of eschatology.

Eschatology Part 2 (Literal Interpretation)

2006-09-26T14:33:00.000-07:00

One of the claims that you often hear from Dispensational Premillennialists is that they read the bible "literally" where all those other people have to read it figuratively. Now, when a person uses the word "literally" they can mean it in several different ways. In a broad sense the word could just mean that you read the bible literally, that is, as literature. You read the Bible in the same way you would read a novel. In this sense, you could read the Bible (or any book) literally and have pleanty of metaphors, similes, symbolism, hyperbole, etc. However, the sense that the word is used more often is that something "actually" happened. That is, if I say, "I am so hungry I could eat a bear" then I actually mean that I could eat an entire bear. Take a biblical example, if the Bible says that there is some millennium, then that period of time is actually 1000 years.

Now, where this issue becomes important (for this discussion) is when it comes to texts that are somewhat eschatological. The Dispensationalists claim to read the text literally, and they claim that everyone else does not.

Point 1: Must we read every verse literally?

Consider some examples from Jesus and is slow followers:

Example 1: Matthew 16
5When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread."
... 11How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Example 2: John 11
11After saying these things, he said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him." 12The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." 13Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died

Reading these examples can be humorous. How is it so that these disciples did not understand what Jesus meant? But then again, Jesus did speak about the leaven of the Pharisees and he did say that Lazarus had fallen asleep. Assuming that we have to take every verse literally, the Disciples understood Jesus teh correct way. However, Jesus dispells the idea that everything must be taken in a hyper literal sense.

So then, if we aren't supposed to take every single word "literally," when are we supposed to? The clear answer is that we are supposed to read the Bible as we do any other book. When the context suggests that we take something as metaphor, symbol, hyperbole, we do so. When the context suggests that we take the text as fact, then we do so.

Despite some of the claims of being literal by the Dispensationalists, they understand this concept as well. As Brian Schwertley says, "Are there any premillennial authors or commentators who believe that the beast from the sea with seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13) is a literal creature?" Even in extreme fiction like the Left Behind series you do not see people taking this passage literally. Why? Because context does not point towards a literal understanding of the text. Revelation is apocalyptic and often uses images like this for a point.

If this is the case, is it too much to suggest that 1000 years might be figurative? It should not be considering that numbers are used symbolically throughout apocalyptic literature and the fact that the Bible uses the number 1000 figuratively several times. Consider just one example:
Psalm 50 says "I have no need of bull from your stall, or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills."

Now, is God (through Asaph) saying that he only owns the cattle on 1000 hills. That is to say, once we get to the 1001 (and beyond) hills, God no longer possess them? Of course not. 1000 is the same as 1o^3 (10x10x10) and is often used to mean "a lot," "large number," "large period of time," etc.

However, most Dispensational Premillennialists don't have a terrible problem accepting the possibility that the millennium is not exactly 1000 years. There are two places where the issue becomes of extreme importance. First, do we need a literal fulfillment of the OT Promises to Israel (A side question is "What is 'literally' meant by the term Israel)? Second, how should we understand (literally?) the resurrections of Revelation 20. If those two questions could be answered, virtually all eschatology debate would cease.

These questions will be addressed in a future post. All that we are establishing at this point is the claim of being literal. If the Dispensationalists think that all verses/words should be interpreted in a hyper literal fashion, then they have made the same mistake as the Disciples. If the Dispensationalists think that they understand the text literally at all times, they are incorrect (as we asked, what Dispensationalists expects a literal 7-headed, 10-horned beast to emerge from the sea?) And lastly, if the Dispensationalists thinks that you can correct read the bible without allowing for metaphors, similes, symbolism, and hyperbole, then their hermeneutics are off.

At this point we have not yet addressed WHEN or WHAT ought to be taken as symbolism/metaphor/etc. This is a matter of hermeneutics and proper exegesis that will be examined later. All we have said so far is that it is Possible and at times Necessary to understand the text outside of a hyper-literal framework.

Peter Schwertley says, "Many premillennialists are told that fundamentalists are premillennial and theological liberals are postmillennial." Why is this the case? Remember what we discussed in part 1. Dispensational premillennialism emerged and gained popularlity around the time of the Fundamentalist/Liberal debate. One of the core tenets of fundamentalism was a desire to read the text literally.

If we can wrap our heads around this idea from the beginning, namely that it is not necessary to view every text in a hyper-literal fashion, then we will allow for proper exegesis to take place. We should not and really must not fall prey to the notion that anyone who understands some of theses texts symbolically must (of necessity) be a liberal (and therefore wrong). With this in place, we now have a foundation to begin to examine the doctrine of eschatology.

In Christ alone,
mike

Eschatology Part 1 (Introduction)

2006-09-24T16:34:00.000-07:00

**Warning: This post is quite lengthy. Might be a good idea to get a cup of coffee before you read this. This serves as an introduction to a rather large topic. The articles in the future will only capture one key point and therefore should be a good bit shorter.**

Eschatology, by and large, has always been thought of as a minor issue where Christians can and should disagree with one another. If you reject the Trinity, I cannot call you a Christian; If you reject Classical Premillennialism, then we can have some conversations at Starbucks, but little more is necessary.

Now, in the last 100 years , there is a segment of Christianity that has managed to elevate a particular eschatological view to the point of being a major issue, even showing up on many Statements of Faith. Calling an eschatological view a major issue is intuitively wrong to most people and so it requires a bit of a trick. The way that has been the most successful is to claim that IF one holds to the inerrancy of scripture (major doctrine), THEN they will hold to a particular eschatological framework (minor doctrine). In doing so, one can then use the minor doctrinal issue (eschatology) in order to reveal the practical theology that one holds with respect to major issues.

At this point, I am more or less fine with the idea. I do not think that a person can be a hyper-preterist and hold to the inerrancy of scripture. However, this is usually not where things stop. The hyper-preterist ultimately rejects the idea that Jesus will actually return at a future date. We can and should reject this position as heresy. However, what should be done with all of the other positions that many faithful saints have held throughout the ages? I think we must avoid the trend of elevating one traditional eschatological view over another in our creedal statements. As the saying goes, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Now, having said that, I've found myself in a particularly strange situation. I attend Biola University and I attend Grace Evangelical Free Church of La Mirada. Note the following:

Biola:

In fulfillment of God's historical purpose for humanity to rule and establish God's kingdom on earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-8; Matt. 6:10; Heb. 2:6-9), the Scriptures teach a millennial reign of Christ with his saints on earth following his literal return. The nation of Israel, having been redeemed, will play a central role in bringing blessings of salvation to all nations during the millennium in fulfillment of biblical prophecies (e.g., Is. 2:1-4; 11:1-12; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37; Amos 9:9-15; Zech. 14; Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6; 3:19-21; Rev. 2:4-7). Following the mllennium, this kingdom will be merged into the eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:22-28).

Before these millennial events, the believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:13-17). The time of this "rapture" is unknown, and thus believers are to live constantly watchful and ready.

Evangelical Free

In the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer.

Now, the Biola Doctrinal Statement has a very strong Dispensational Premillennial bent. In fact, there is no other way it can be read. The Evangelical Free statement comes out of the same tradition but has worded things to be a bit more inclusive. Technically it is possible for a person to hold to a Classical Pre-mill view and claim to hold to an imminent coming. In both cases, the statements affirm a Dispensational Premillennial eschatology, although the EV Free article has left minor wiggle room (in fact, as of 1977, post-tribulational premillennialists were allowed to become elders).

Now, why is this peculiar for me? Despite growing up in an environment which would have supported these views, I currently do not hold said viewpoints. Quoting from Monergism.com, "Any serious student of the Scriptures must emphatically reject the unbiblical position of premillennial dispensationalism." The statement sounds harsh at first, but things are remedied with the next sentence: "However, the progressive dispenstionalists have recently come a long way in bringing this highly popular school into a more biblical framework." I agree with the concluding statement and it just so happens that most of the Dispensationalists around me would probably be more properly characterized as Progressive Dispensationalists. Consequently, I am delighted to a see the current trend.

However, contra the statement at Monergism.com, my primary concern is not that all of the different schools of thought get on the same (and correct) page of eschatology. I am perfectly content to allow my roommate to hold a Dispensational Premillennial view, but I would have a hard time if we had a "Room Doctrinal Position" that allowed for only Dispensational Premillennialists. In a similar way, I would love to see places like Biola and the EV Free Church begin to move away from their strong adherence to a minor view. In fact, I have been praying for this change for some time.

At the current time there is hope. For quite some time now there has been discussion by people involved with the EV Free Church about the doctrinal statement. Currently, some revisions have been proposed. In the current revision, the words imminent and premillennial are replaced by glorious. In explaining this change, the following statement is made:
Our Committee agreed that if we are to be a fellowship of historic, Bible-believing Evangelical Christians, seeking to preserve evangelical unity in the gospel, we ought not to refuse to recognize those who are not premillennialists in their eschatology, when we do not take a position on such significant issues as Arminian vs. Calvinist soteriology or the proper recipients of baptism and the specific time and mode of baptism which have divided Christians through the centuries. Similarly, we propose that a position on the millennial kingdom is one about which our Statement of Faith should be silent.

It is my sincere prayer that this resolution eventually passes.

However, there is likely to be some strong resistance to such a change. Why? For the reason that I began this post: A particular eschatological view has been used as a practical test to determine one's view of Scripture. In this regard, I certainly understand where people are coming from. In studying church history one notices an important debate around the beginning of the 20th century. On the one hand, several schools of thought had grown progressively more liberal. The conservatives, the orthodox, of the time were the fundamentalists. They fought vigorously to preserve the truth. They fought for inerrancy, a virgin birth, a literal resurrection, etc. Accordingly, premillennialism (especially the Dispensational variety following after Darby, Scofield, Chaffer, etc.) became linked with orthodox Christianity. It was the liberals, seemingly, who held to post/a - millennial views. As a result, a "literal reading of scripture" became synonymous with several things: literal resurrection, virgin birth, inerrancy of scripture, and premillennial eschatology.

In this regard, it should be stated that Reformed theologians had some failure. Many (note: not all) reformed theologians did not engage with the competing views. As a result, American Christianity seemed to drop the category of an exegetically sound, biblical inerranist, orthodox Christian, who held to a non-Premillennial view.

The Classical Premillennialists have done a good job of reestablishing their view. While at Biola I have read multiple theologies of authors who are Classical Premillennialists. Two of note are Wayne Grudem and G.E. Ladd.

However, I believe that by and large the Post-mill and A-mill views have not appropriately resurfaced. Accordingly, it is my hope to begin a series of posts explaining why I do not believe that "literal reading of the Bible" is synonymous with Dispensational Premillannialism nor do I hold that one must give up exegetical soundness in order to hold to an amillennial view.

What is the final hope?
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

In Christ alone,
mike

I Believe in Justification by Faith Plus Works

2006-06-25T18:34:00.000-07:00

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Justification by Faith Alone is so often proclaimed I thought I'd go with this provacative title. I have not changed my doctrinal conviction and still agree with the Reformation teaching that Justification is solely by Faith alone in Christ alone. That is, I believe that there is no work done by sinful humans in order to put us in a better standing before God. This teaching is strict legalism and is condemned multiple times throughout scripture (see especially Galatians).

However, in another very real sense, Justification is the result of works. The works of Christ not only pardon us for our sin but also credit to us his righteousness.

Historically, Justification consists of two points. I have found it best to view it in terms of a Positive and Negative point:

(-) Our sin is pardoned because Jesus bore the wrath of God (He is our propitiation) on our place at the cross. That is, He who knew no sin became sin on our behalf. Our sin is Imputed to Jesus and he faithfully bears the full punishment poured out on Him. For this reason, those who are found in Christ will not recieve the punishment we deserve.

(+) The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. Where we lived a sinful life, he lived a perfect life. His perfect righteousness is credited those found in Him. For this reason we might become the righteousness of God.

Both of these affirmations (the positive and negative) are absolutely essential. In our time we are more likely to ignore the (+) point. As a necessary corollary, we often exaggerate the Death of Christ over the life of Christ. However, this cannot and must not happen if we desire to maintain sound doctrine.

For this reason, the catechism says:

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

In conclusion, Justification is received by Faith alone but meritied by the works of Jesus alone. For this reason I believe in Justification by Faith Plus Works.

In Christ Alone,
mike

Amyraldism: Inconsistent Trinitarianism

2006-06-20T18:47:00.000-07:00

Amyraldism: Inconsistent Trinitarianism

Amyraldism is the long name for Four-Point Calvinism (from the acronym TULIP). This view maintains that Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints are correct but rejects Limited Atonement. I believe that this view is incorrect for a variety of reasons. Elsewhere on this blog I have laid out John Owen’s famous Double Jeopardy argument for Limited Atonement (also called particular redemption). My goal, at this time, is to address the inconsistency found in Amyraldism.

The Trinity is an absolutely central doctrine to Christianity. Trinitarians have repeatedly maintained that the three members of the Trinity are the same in essence and purpose but different in person and work. The crucial point for the Amyraldian discussion revolves around the matter of the Father and Son having the same purpose for the redemption of men.

The first concern is whether the Father and Son are accomplishing the same work guided by the same purpose. In this matter, Scripture is quite clear. The best place to see this teaching is in John’s gospel. Take, for example, John 4, 6, 10, and 14:

John 4

34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

John 6

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

John 10:

30 I and My Father are one.”

John 14

31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

John 4, 6, and 14 are clear that Jesus’ purpose on earth is to carry out the will of the Father. John 10 deserves a bit of clarification. Against one particular heresy (Modalism), it should be noted that Jesus is not proclaiming that He and the Father are the same person. Rather, context instructs us to read the passage as a proclamation of the fact that Jesus and the Father are carrying out the same work united in purpose.

Many other verses could also be appealed to, but one example from Ephesians speaks clearly about the matter. Consider Ephesians 3:

9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.

The crucial point in this passage is that the Father is carrying out his eternal purpose through Jesus Christ.

At this point, I hope that it does seem evident that Jesus is carrying out the work of the Father. However, this is exactly the inconsistency found within Amyraldism. It becomes quite inconsistent to say that (1) the Father has declared from eternity past those whom he would save and those whom he would reprobate, while maintaining that (2) the Son has died to make Salvation available to every person. This is tantamount to saying that the Father has purposed to save some and that the Son has to make salvation available to all. This is inconsistent Trinitarianism.

However, this is only half of the question. There are some Amyraldians (In actuality, these are the only true Amyraldians who do not immediately fall into 1-Pt Calvinism) who would object at this stage. They would frame the question as a matter of Extent versus Intent. They would say that Jesus did not intend for all men to be saved (which would reflect a different purpose than the father), but rather that the Extent of his death encompasses all men potentially, but only some men actually. Under this view, the Amyraldian could maintain that the purpose of the Father was to make the extent of Jesus’ blood available to all men with the intent being to save only some. Accordingly, they could maintain that they are not being inconsistent Trinitarians.

In a sense they may be right at this point, but have only made the matter worse for themselves. This would not be inconsistent Trinitarianism, but simply an Inconsistent Father. Calvinists correctly maintain that God has two wills, one that is revealed to his people and a second of secret decrees (eg. Election). However, the Amyraldian takes it a step further by suggesting that the Father has two secret wills! He secretly wills that the Son should die to make Salvation available to all and also secretly wills to elect only some. The Calvinist must vehemently oppose the notion that the Father is inconsistent in His secret decrees. Is there any sense in suggesting that the Father wills to only save some and yet make the blood of his Son potentially available to some (hypothetical Salvation as it is sometimes called)? Is this not inconsistent? Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, there is no reason to assert this position from the Scriptures. Rather than Biblical arguments (which are often soundly refuted) the thrust of the Amyraldian argument is often emotional (eg. “It seems so mean for Jesus to not die for all equally!” or “That’s unfair!”).

For these reasons and more, the Amyraldian view must be abandoned in favor of the traditional Particular Redemption view (Limited Atonement) held by the Reformers.

I'm Back - Maybe

2006-04-03T22:19:00.000-07:00

EDIT
As I suspected, I will not be able to return to regular posting until the end of the semester (end of May). Please continue to keep me in your prayers and I look forward to more substancial posting at that time.

Wow. It has been quite some time since I have been able to post. I had a midterms during one week, midterms to begin the next week, Missions Conference, and then a week of 3 large assignments due. I then took a few days off just to relax a little.

Now, however, I am back until my schedule picks up again.

Having returned, let me turn to a passage that we looked at in Church recently.

An interesting passage from Acts 15:

36Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing."

Note the setting - Two men of God setting out to do Ministry.

37Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work.

Disagreement ensues. Barnabas, the great encourager who years before was the first to reach out to Paul when no others would, now desires to reach out to Mark. Paul, the great missionary, knows that taking Mark may compromise the preaching of the Gospel.

Who is right? I would make the argument that both were right. I believe I can do this without becoming a post-modern and throwing out basic rules of logic. The way I can do so is by appealing to the Body of Christ. As we know, we are all not eyes nor are we all hands. Similarly, an eye does not perform the function of the hand nor does the hand perform the function of the eye. They both produce different, equally important, functions for the body to operate.

In the same way, two members of the body of Christ are living out the Christian call in two different ways. I do not believe that either response is superior here. To stretch the previous metaphor, we might call this hand-eye coordination (both the Hand and Eye are working together to accomplish one task). Both men have an important role to play in accomplishing the Mission (that is the Furthering of the Great Commission while restoring Mark to Christian service).

39They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

Note here that their disagreement does not result in a ceasing of service to God. Quite to the contrary, the evangelistic movement has grown. Rather than one team consisting of two men, we now have two teams each consisting of two men going to two locations. This seems to clearly be God working in the midst of problems. This is our God, is it not? You meant it for evil, but I meant it for good. So said Joseph of old and so too does it apply here and to our life as well.

What is the end result?

Ultimately Paul utters these emotional words in hist last Epistle before his death:

"Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service" (2Tim 4:11).

I do not think that Paul is recanting or regretting the decision that he made years before. Quite to the contrary. I think that Paul's decision is very similar to the hope that we always have when looking at Church discipline. We do not cast a person out and Paul does not reject Mark as a form of punishment. Rather, we trust that God will use this as a means to restore them. This is exactly what has happened here. Mark has once again proven himself and Paul desires his company at the end of his life; Not only his company, but also one reason is given: "he is useful to me for service." This is the exact opposite of the statement Paul said so many years before. Why is it the opposite? Because we serve a God who takes the failures of men and turns them completely on their head and uses them for His greater purposes.

Let us not forget Barnabas in this process. Barnabas was willing to part company with his great Disciple in order to assist Mark. Sometimes following God's plan in ministry happpens at the expense of our desires. We can be sure that Barnabas would have liked to continue on with Paul preaching the Gospel. However, the greater call was to leave Paul and begin to disciple a new man. What is the end result of Barnabas' mentoring? Paul, the greatest Apostle of all time and Mark, the author of the earliest (probably) Gospel. Most of us will not have the opportunity to reach as many people with the Gospel as Paul did or write an inspired Gospel account. Most of us will not be Augustines, Luthers, Calvins, Edwardes, Whitefields, Bunyans, Owens, Spurgeons, Packers, Stotts, Pipers, MacArthurs, etc. However, all of us can and do have the opportunity to invest in the lives of others. If God can use one man to foster the Spiritual growth of Paul and Mark, then who knows what God may choose to do through us. May we be willing to serve.

In Christ alone,
mike

Hectic schedule nears end

2006-03-17T09:32:00.000-08:00

My extremely busy schedule over the past week draws towards an end. I should start having more time to blog again and will return to more substantive posts. Please pray for me as today alone I have two midterms and a paper due.

Thanks a lot.

In Christ alone,
mike

Philippians 2

2006-03-15T00:17:00.000-08:00

This passage has become one of my favorites. There is so much great stuff that could be brought out from this passage. I had several people either comment or email me when I suggested that they spend 10 minutes meditating on the Ephesians 2 passage. If you found benefit in that, then I think that you could get just as much out of this passage. Again, remember that you must spend some legitimate time *even if only 10 minutes* in sustained thought. Meditate on God's word and it will pay rich rewards. In fact, this passage is actually pretty easy to memorize. If you have not already, this might be a good passage (or maybe a few verses from it) to commit to memory.

Philippians 2

3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in ^(J)Christ Jesus,

6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In Christ alone,
mike

Piper Article

2006-03-13T00:06:00.000-08:00

I ran across an interesting article today by John Piper. You can read the article here. I am mostly interested in your thoughts, responses, etc.

Do you agree with him? Disagree? Still aren't sure?

Let me know :) Thanks

In Christ alone,
mike

Justification: His Work or Ours?

2006-03-11T00:11:00.000-08:00

The post from yesterday stated that Justification had been discussed previously but that the passage being discussed referenced sanctification. In light of this we considered how a Christian ought to relate to the law and the impact that this has on our living. On the heels of this discussion, I do want to look back into the text at one passage that does deal with Justification.

We will answer the question of, Why it is so important that we are not Justified by Works of the Law? The answer, in short, is that we are either Justified by our actions or by Jesus’. If we gain salvation through the following of the law, the works of the flesh, then Christ has died needlessly.

Consider the passage from Galatians 2:

16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
17"But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
18"For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
19"For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.
20"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
21"I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

I have altered the text to draw out important points. Emboldened text indicates that we are not Justified by the Law or Works of the flesh. Underlined text indicates what we are saved by, namely faith in Jesus. Italicized text gives the rational behind such statements.

This is such a crucial reality that must be grasped. We are all horrific sinners having transgressed the law which is a reflection of the Character of God. In other words, we have terribly offended an infinite God infinitely much. Just one sin, one transgression, is enough that we should face an eternity of His wrath. However, we do not sin only once. On the contrary, we sin repeatedly and suppress the truth. Instead of serving the one true God we created idols after ourselves.

So then, what is the only way that we must be sparred? Can we redeem ourselves? Will all of the tears in the world cleanse us? Will penance for an eternity lessen our guilt? Will enough good works absolve us of past sin?

May it never be.

As humans we have the peculiar tendency to believe that time cleanses us for past wrongs. This is not the case with an eternal God who has been eternally offended to the infinite degree.
We also may believe that our righteous deeds may merit us standing before God. Again, may it never be. Our Lord says that all of our righteousness is but dirty rags before Him. Furthermore, the Scriptures teach that done do good, none seek righteousness, none seek God, not even one.

What then is the only way to be saved? The redemptive work of Jesus on the cross is the only solution. Consider Paul’s answer to this very question in Romans 3:

21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for (AJ)there is no distinction;
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

What a truth! May we cling to this truth with all of our being. To give up this truth is to give up the gospel. To do so is to render Christ’s work nullified.
Furthermore, the words of Paul in the first chapter of Galatians:

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

If anyone, the Apostle himself, yea, even an angel, should preach a foreign gospel then he is to be accursed.

In Christ alone,
mike

You are not under law...

2006-03-10T00:01:00.000-08:00

This may seem like a strange post to have following Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Nevertheless, hopefully it makes sense by the time you finish reading.

Galatians 5 is a popular passage for many schools of thought. All Protestants must love the passage with the possible exclusion of some extreme fundamentals. Furthermore, Reformers who are still chanting "Justification by Faith alone" will refer heavily to the passage. On the other side of the paradigm are the antinomians who love the passage. Furthermore, there are also the so-called evangelical Roman Catholics who quote the passage heavily.

With such a broad field of people who refer to this passage, I thought I would address one thing a little more carefully. This occurs in the wake of our discussion regarding to two great Commandments.

First, the verse at hand:
Galatians 5:18

18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

A pretty straight forward conditional verse. IF you are led by the Spirit THEN you are not under law. One thing that is absolutely critical regarding Galatians is the distinction between Flesh and Spirit. Paul assumes here (very similar to Romans 8) that if one is in the Spirit then he is not of the flesh and vice versa.

So then, the passage continues:

19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,

20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,

21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So then, Paul is not saying "Thou shall not commit sorcery." Rather, he is simply saying that those who are still in the flesh, that is, not yet made alive in Christ, will be people characterized by this list. Now then, if you (or I) claim to be a Christian but our life is characterized by any of these things then we must carefully examine ourselves. As John says, if we know the Light then we will not continue to walk in darkness.

The passage continues:
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

And here, as shown by the emboldened text, we return to the matter of the law. Note well what Paul is referring to. "Against such things", he says, "there is no law." What then is he speaking about? That is, of course, the person walking in the light, according to the flesh.

This is the key teaching of the Liberation In Christ that is taught in the New Testament. We are not liberated to Sin (for this is what characterizes the heathens) but rather liberated unto producing the fruit of the Spirit. Why is there no Law? First, and most important, because we are in Christ who has already satisfied the law on our behalf. Secondly though, and not a minor point, because we "belong to Christ Jesus" and thus we have "crucified the flesh with its passions and desires".

This, brethren, is not a reference to Justification (although Justification is discussed previously). Paul has moved on to Santification. This, we should remember, is very similar to Romans 8. Paul first lays out the indicatives that we have been buried with Christ and now live with new life. He then proceeds to the Imperatives that we ought to walk according to the Spirit. In much the same way, Paul has moved beyond our Justified Standing before God, to our practical living out of the Christian life. This, so he says, is characterized by living according to the Spirit and thus walking according to the Spirit (which is to say the same thing as producing the fruit of the Spirit).

So then what must be concluded from this passage?

A) We are no longer under the law.
B) This is not a license to sin.
C) It is a license for living righteously.
D) Those who walk in sin are not true brethren.
E) Those who walk according to the Spirit are followers of Jesus.
F) After being Justified in Christ (Declared innocent in our Standing before God) we are to Live Righteously (Relational obedience to God).

N.B. Justified and Righteous look like utterly different words in English but the two come from the same root word in Greek. The ideas are inseperable.

I conclude where I began and believe I can do so without contradicting my last two posts:
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

In Christ alone,
mike

And the Second is like it...

2006-03-09T00:32:00.000-08:00

Yesterday we looked at the original verse for the greatest commandment. I made the statement that not many Evangelicals read Duteronomy despite it being Jesus' favorite source for quotations. If I was relatively confident about that statement, I am even more confident about the Second greatest commandment.
Here we read from Leviticus!

The paragraph that has this passage is Lev. 19:17-18

You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

This verse doesn't nearly have the drama attached to it as our Shema passage out of Dueteronomy 6. Nevertheless, our Lord says that this is the second greatest commandment and so we ought to have some familiarity with it.

So then, if you desire, you can memorize Deut. 6:5 and Lev 19:18 if you have not already. At least know the citation!

This passage does give us some valuable insight for our culture. First the statement is made that we may reprove our neighbor but that it should not lead us to sin. This is important as there are two opposite errors. In our society the error is going to be in saying that any reproving is "mean", "judgmental", even "hate words". This, of course, is not the reality portrayed in Scripture. Rather, we ought to lovingly and gently reprove our neighbors. The opposite error is to let this reproving lead to sin. This can come in a variety of ways. If it causes us to hate our neighbor, bear a grudge, seek vengeance, etc., then it is wrong.

The last clause of the verse is also important: "I am the Lord." Leviticus ends with this quite frequently and it shows the source of the law. The major importance is that if we are transgressing this law (namely, not loving our neighbors) then we are not merely violating them, but primarily we are violating God. In this sense, I think that I may confidently state that if we are not loving our neighbors then we are not loving God. John echoes this thought in his first epistle.

So brethren, how do you treat yourself? When you are hungry do you not feed yourself? When you are cold do you not get warmer clothes? When you are sick do you not A) seek the Lord in Prayer and B) seek medical help? When you are lonely do you not desire companionship? The list could go on indefinitely.
The only remaining question is if we love our neighbor in this same sense. As a final word of caution, let us never delude ourselves into thinking that we get to choose this "neighbor" category. This is not your circle of friends, nor the people who live on each side of your house. Jesus goes on at length rejecting the legalism and hypocritical nature of such thought.

So then, I used Romans 6 as our exhortation yesterday; I will now use Romans 8.

However, you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Let us live, in Christ, and put to death the deeds of the flesh, namely a self-centered prideful Spirit that looks out for Number1. Let us turn from this sin and truly love our neighbor as ourselves.

In Christ alone,
mike

The Greatest Commandment

2006-03-08T00:20:00.000-08:00

Jesus was once asked, What is the Greatest commandment? We probably all know the answer, but I wonder how well we know what Jesus was quoting. It is the greatest command, but it does not come from the famous 10 in Exodus. No, it actually comes from the book that Jesus quoted most often, and yet is rarely read by most Evangelicals. That book is Duteronomy - that is Second Law (Dutero = second and nomos = law).

Jesus quotes one verse as the answer, but this verse comes in a context. Let us pause for just a moment and look a little beyond what is normally quoted. No wonder Jesus says this is the greatest command! Look at what the Jews were supposed to do with this truth.

The verse comes in a portion of Scripture known by Jews as the Shema (meaning Hear). Here is the passage:

Deuteronomy 6:4-9
Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

What does this mean for us? Ought we to walk around with things tied to our head with passages of Scripture in them? Probably not. However, I think I can confidently state that this is probably a pretty important truth that we are supposed to keep with us continually and refer to frequently. As we go throughout our day, Is this truth constantly on our mind? If so - Fantastic. If, however, it is not, then let us repent and change this very day.

Let us come to life with this truth tied closely to our heart. Are our thoughts, actions, words, etc., reflecting a reality that we are loving our God with every fiber of our being? To answer honestly is to emphatically answer in the negative. What then? We cannot absolve ourselves for we are not able. We must turn to the command-giver who not only gave us this greatest command, but also died for us when we fail, and fail again, and again. We must confess our sin and know that he is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. We must love this Grace and praise God unceasingly for it.

However, are we then to continue to sin that this grace may increase? May it never be! How can we who have died to sin continue to live in it? For if we have died with Christ we now have been raised with him. So then, consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ. What then? We must present our bodies as slaves of righteousness, resulting in sanctification and ultimately eternal life.

We have fallen terribly short, and we have confessed Christ as Savior for our failings; let us now follow Christ as Lord and present our bodies as instruments as righteousness. Make a change, this very day to begin to see some realm of your life better reflect this greatest commandment by Jesus. What does this mean for you in particular? I do not know. What I do know is that in Christ we are now able to follow Him and we must do so.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

In Christ alone,
mike

Would you please...

2006-03-07T00:01:00.000-08:00

I am going to make a request; you do not have to do so but I pray that you will.

Please read the following very slowly; think through each word and each phrase. Do not merely glance through it. Then, if you would, please commit to spend 10 minutes reflecting on the passage. Try to have ten solid minutes of sustained thought on the passage. Do whatever is necessary to create an environment where this can be done without interuption. See if God will not bless the time you have put in. See if God will not use these verses to richly bless you and abundantly magnify Himself. See if it is even possible to be a Christian and spend time (a mere 10 minutes!) meditating on this truth and not have a truly worshipful experience.

And you
were dead in your trespasses, and sins,
in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the power of the air,
of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh,
indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind,
and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

But God...

In Christ alone,
mike

Images

2006-03-06T00:18:00.000-08:00

Today's post is going to be more in the form of a question. I definitely have my thoughts on this issue but I will attempt to veil them as best as I can. I'd like to get your thoughts on this matter:

Images for the purpose of worship.

Are images okay to aid worship?
What constitutes an image?
What do we mean by the second commandment beyond idols of the mind (if anything) - (Do you have your catechism memorized!)?

For a communion service can we have a picture of Jesus on a cross?
Should we have a picture of God in some respects?

Are images only wrong when they are of other Gods? When them emulate other religions? etc.

I look forward to your thoughts.

It should be noted that we are not presently talking about images for the purpose of instruction (stain-glass windows for the illiterate, sunday-school class, etc.).

In Christ alone,
mike

Challies' Conference Summaries

2006-03-04T00:05:00.000-08:00

I happen to know that the link that is most often clicked from my website goes to Tim Challies' blog. I also know that the majority of people who read this admire people like John MacArthur, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, and R.C. Sproul. Putting 2 and 2 together, I have decided that most people are probably interested in reading Tim Challies' liveblogging of the Shepherd's Conference. So then, to make things easy, I will link individually to each session through Friday night. UPDATE: Now Includes all sessions.

Enjoy.

Tim Challies' blog

Conference Kickoff
1st Session with John MacArthur
Seminar 1 with Phil Johnson - Is the Reformation over?
Seminar 2 - Nathan Busenitz - Evangelical Charismatics
2nd Session with John MacArthur
3rd Session with Mark Dever
4th Session - QnA with MacArthur
Seminar 3 with Phil Johnson - The Fad Driven Church
Seminar 4 with Phil Johnson - Dead Right II
Session 5 with Al Mohler
Steve Lawson
Seminar 5 - Carey Hardy - How To Raise a Pharisee
Session 6 - Questions and answer
Session 7 - R.C. Sproul
Session 8 - Al Mohler
Session 9 - Ligon Duncan

In Christ alone,
mike

Who is Knowing Whom?

2006-03-03T00:14:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that I have recently posted quite a bit on studying, reading, and ultimately Knowing God. Most of this is for my own benefit to be encouraged by other saints (past and present). However, I do think that the concept of Knowing God is incredibly important and is possibly a little lost in a society that hates the concept of Theology and is considerably post-modern when dealing with Truth claims about God.

Some recent posts have been these:
Duncan quotes Spurgeon’s Give Thyself unto Reading
J.I. Packer’s Mediating on God
and also Packer’s Knowing God.

However, in the midst of all of this I want to take a step back and make one thing exceedingly clear. The text comes from the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians.

v.6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
v.7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

This is mostly background information for the point that I’d like to draw. Nevertheless, a lot of good theology can be drawn from these two verses. However, the main point is that we are dealing with believers here.

v.8 However, at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

The purpose of this is also largely contextual but since it uses our phrase, “know God”, I thought I’d comment. Note that not knowing God is the equivalent of not being a Son of God and in turn not loving God. It is foolhardy to say that we want to “have a relationship with Jesus” without actually getting to Know this Jesus we are speaking of. However, that is a mere tangent and is simply a stepping stone to the main verse.

v. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God…

In the midst of our desire to Know God we must never become prideful at all. First and foremost this is not about us getting to Know God. It is not about attending seminary; it is not about bible study, and it is not about hearing sermons (all of which can be very beneficial). First and foremost it is not anything of our doing. Paul purposefully corrects himself and states “or rather to be Known by God” and that is really at the heart of the entire discussion. If we ever begin to think that this is something that is primarily of our own doing then we have been consumed by Spiritual Pride and are worse off than when we started. Everything, our knowledge of God and our Conversion, hinges on God having made Himself known to us.

This passage deals primarily with the Knowing aspect of things. John states the same concept in different words, In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us … (1John 4:10)

I do hope and pray that we all become more diligent followers of God, studying to show ourselves approved workmen of God, rightly dividing the word of truth, but I also pray that as we do this we avoid the tragic mistake of thinking that it is Our doing. We must confess, with Paul, that yes “we have come to know God” but that this is best said “to be Known by God”. Anything and everything that we come to Know about God (and our intimate Knowledge of God himself) is made possible through Jesus who has made God manifest to us. In this, we can confess that Jesus has become the wisdom of God for us (1Cor 1:30) in order that whoever boasts will boast in the Lord (1Cor 1:31).

In Christ alone,
mike

2006-03-02T00:40:00.000-08:00

I won't post anything substantive today because I want to leave those two powerful quoatations from Packer up for another day.
However, the Shepherd's Conference did start today so I though I would link to Tim Challies who is liveblogging the event. Enjoy and be edified.

In Christ alone,
mike

To Know God

2006-03-01T00:13:00.000-08:00

I have another quotation from Packer for today. This one is really hard hitting and should serve as a possible warning to many of us. Let the full force of this quotation hit you and contemplate the implications of such a statement.

Knowing God:

"First, one can know a great deal about God without much knowledge of Him. I am sure that many of us have never really grasped this. We find in ourselves a deep interest in theology (which is, of course, a most fascinating and intriguing subject 0 in the seventeenth century it was every gentleman's hobby). We read books of theological exposition and apologetics. We dip into Christian history, and study the Christian creed. We learn to find our way around in the Scriptures. Others appreciate our interest in these things, and we find ourselves asked to give our opinion in public on this or that Christian question, to lead study groups, to give papers, to write articles, and generally to accept responsibility, informal if not formal, for acting as teachers and arbiters of orthodoxy in our own Christian circle. Our friends tell us how much they value our contribution, and this spurs us to further explorations of God's truth, so that we may be equal to the demands made upon us. All very fine - yet interest in theology, and knowledge about God, and the capacity to think clearly and talk well on Christian themes, is not at all the same thing as knowing Him. We may know as much about God as Calvin knew - indeed, if we study his works diligently, sooner or later we shall - and yet all the time (unlike Calvin, may I say) we may hardly know God at all."

And also:

"Second, one can know a great deal about godliness without much knowledge of God. It depends on the sermons one hears, the books one reads, and the company one keeps. In this analytical and technological age there is no shortage of books on the church bookstalls, or sermons from the pulpits, on how to pray, how to witness, how to read our Bibles, how to tithe our money, how to be a young Christian, how to be an old Christian, how to be a happy Christian, how to get consecrated, how to lead men to Christ, how to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (or, in some cases, how to avoid receiving it), how to speak with tongues (or, how to explain away Pentecostal manifestations), and generally how to go through all the various motions which the teachers in question associate with being a Christian believer. Nor is there any shortage of biographies delineating the experiences of Christians in past days for our interested perusal. Whatever else may be said about this state of affairs, it certainly makes it possible to learn a great deal at second-hand about the practice of Christianity. Moreover, if one has been given a good bump of common sense one may frequently be able to use this learning to help floundering Christians of less stable temperament to regain their footing and develop a sense of proportion about their troubles, and in this way one may gain for oneself a reputation for being quite a pastor. Yet one can have all this and hardly know God at all."

These remind me of Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections. He spends quite a bit of time breaking down every false foundation for being a Christian (or in this case Knowing God) before he proceeds to look at what it truly means to Know God.

I may leave this up for an extra day because I think they are so valuable; I have not yet decided.

In Christ alone,
mike

Meditation: Biblical Mandate to Muse on God

2006-02-27T23:51:00.000-08:00

I wrote previously about the importance of reading and studying for the Christian. While these activities may be difficult, they are at least within the cultural norm of the West. One thing, however, that is quite foreign is the art of meditation. I do not mean the unbiblical meditation of the East that teaches that we must utterly empty our mind. Rather, I mean the meditation that we are continually exhorted to do in Scripture.

J.I. Packer provides a great definition for this practice.

Meditation is the activity of calling to mind, and thinking over, and dwelling on, and applying to oneself, the various things that one knows about the works and ways and purposes and promises of God. It is an activity of holy thought, consciously performed in the presence of God, under the eye of God, by the help of God, as a means of communion with God. Its purpose is to clear one's mental and spiritual vision of God, and to let His truth make its full and proper impact on one's mind and heart. It is a matter of talking to oneself about God and oneself; it is, indeed, often a matter of arguing with oneself; reasoning oneself out of moods of doubt and unbelief into a clear apprehension of God's power and grace. Its effect is ever to humble us, as we contemplate God's greatness and glory, and our own littleness and sinfulness, and to encourage and reassure us - 'comfort' us, in the old, strong, Bible sense of the word - as we contemplate the unsearchable riches of divine mercy displayed in the Lord Jesus Christ.

What are your thoughts? I think I'd like to call the practice "Contemplation" or "Spiritual Reflection" but I do think that Packer hits it right on.

In Christ alone,
mike

Church Membership: Is it Biblical?

2006-02-26T23:11:00.000-08:00

I have to write a 12-15 page paper for one of my classes. I could do a hermeneutic paper on a passage of my choosing or a theology paper. One thing that I would like to study more is Church Membership and the biblical picture given to us regarding it. If it is biblical and is important, then churches today are surely neglecting their duty. If, however, it is not biblical, we are adding to the word of God and stand condemned. Accordingly, I am about 92% sure that I am going to write my paper on this topic.

I am curious, What are your thoughts on Church Membership?

And also, here is a quotation from the currently unpopular position:

"Whatever the reason, this unwillingness to formally identify with a local church is an indication that they're not totally committed to that church and therefore should not be given regular, formal, service opportunities. Regular, formal ministry opportunities are a privilege given to people who are willing to commit and submit without reservation to the total ministry of the church." Wayne Mack, To Be or Not to Be A Church Member? That is the Question! (2004), page 53.

In Christ alone,
mike

Truly Tragic

2006-02-24T00:19:00.000-08:00

Wow.

I started to write a post for today but then stumbled across this article linked by Justin Taylor. It literally took any energy that I had away. I'm not exactly sure how one is supposed to respond to this story.

Read it here.
See the Depravity and hate it.
See that we too would be in the same place but for the grace of God.
See God's sovereignty in the midst of darkness.

In Christ alone,
mike

Warning! Graphic Material - Part IV

2006-02-22T00:12:00.000-08:00

Today we will conclude the series on Ezekiel 16. After all that God has done for Israel, we saw that Israel returned the favor by not only rebelling but prostituting herself. We saw that we are really no different than Israel and deserve the same response. This response was one of Anger where God sharply rebukes the nation and says that She is worse than Sodom!

Today we will see that even in the midst of this God is loving. Consider the Word of the Lord:

60"Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.

61"Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both your older and your younger; and I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of your covenant.

62"Thus I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD,

63so that you may remember and be ashamed and never open your mouth anymore because of your humiliation, when I have forgiven you for all that you have done," the Lord GOD declares.

There is even apart of this that still hints at God's anger towards Israel and her sin. However, we must contemplate our initial reaction to this. Do we get defensive (for ourselves or Israel)? Do we shy away from this humiliation and shame that we have? Or can we, by the Grace of God, hear this and shout "verily verily". We are indeed wretched sinners and we must never forget this. We have terribly offended God and we deserve everlasting shame.

There is a famous preacher named Charles Simeon and he has a quotation that I liked. I briefly searched for it and amazingly he cites this very passage as support!

From Simeon:
I have never thought that the circumstance of God's having forgiven me was any reason why I should forgive myself; on the contrary, I have always judged it better to loathe myself the more, in proportion as I was assured that God was pacified towards me (Ezekiel 16:63).

I'm not convinced that we must agree with him entirely, but this is quite counter-cultural and it is definitely worth thinking through.

Now then, we have contemplated and reflected on our estate, we must proceed to meditate on God's deed. In the midst of all of this, He promises to give us a New Covenant, an everlasting covenant. This covenant, as we know in retrospect, is the substance to which all previous shadows have pointed. In this covenant, the New Covenant, God himself (viz. Jesus) condescends and becomes a man. He lives a perfect life in the place of our disgusting life. He then, in the only completely unjust death of human history, is murdered. The very wrath of God is poured out on Jesus as he takes upon Himself our sins. Accordingly, God can now justly forgive us "for all that [we] have done".

This, indeed, is a beautiful picture of the love of God. It is true that it is couched behind some uncomfortable imagery, but we must never lose sight of this image. We must see the love of God, humiliation of self, and exaltation of Christ. What is the purpose of all of this? V. 62 "And you shall know that I am Lord."

In Christ alone,
mike

Warning! Graphic Material - Part III

2006-02-21T00:10:00.000-08:00

This is the third part of a four-part series from Ezekiel 16. To remind people, I chose this passage because it is rarely quoted (especially the whole thing) because of the subject material, but also has great teaching points.
So far we have seen God rescue Israel from her pitiful state. In turn we saw Israel respond by prostituting herself. This post shows the response of God (viz. His anger).

In yesterday's post I asked you to see yourself in the place of Israel. If you have done that then view this response as the response you deserve to hear.

35Therefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD.

36Thus says the Lord GOD, "Because your lewdness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered through your harlotries with your lovers and with all your detestable idols, and because of the blood of your sons which you gave to idols,

37therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, even all those whom you loved and all those whom you hated So I will gather them against you from every direction and expose your nakedness to them that they may see all your nakedness.

38"Thus I will judge you like women who commit adultery or shed blood are judged; and I will bring on you the blood of wrath and jealousy.

39"I will also give you into the hands of your lovers, and they will tear down your shrines, demolish your high places, strip you of your clothing, take away your jewels, and will leave you naked and bare.

40"They will incite a crowd against you and they will stone you and cut you to pieces with their swords.

41"They will burn your houses with fire and execute judgments on you in the sight of many women Then I will stop you from playing the harlot, and you will also no longer pay your lovers.

42"So I will calm My fury against you and My jealousy will depart from you, and I will be pacified and angry no more.

43"Because you have not remembered the days of your youth but have enraged Me by all these things, behold, I in turn will bring your conduct down on your own head," declares the Lord GOD, "so that you will not commit this lewdness on top of all your other abominations.

44"Behold, everyone who quotes proverbs will quote this proverb concerning you, saying, 'Like mother, like daughter.'

45"You are the daughter of your mother, who loathed her husband and children. You are also the sister of your sisters, who loathed their husbands and children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite.

46"Now your older sister is Samaria, who lives north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lives south of you, is Sodom with her daughters.

47"Yet you have not merely walked in their ways or done according to their abominations; but, as if that were too little, you acted more corruptly in all your conduct than they.

48"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.

49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

51"Furthermore, Samaria did not commit half of your sins, for you have multiplied your abominations more than they. Thus you have made your sisters appear righteous by all your abominations which you have committed.

52"Also bear your disgrace in that you have made judgment favorable for your sisters. Because of your sins in which you acted more abominably than they, they are more in the right than you. Yes, be also ashamed and bear your disgrace, in that you made your sisters appear righteous.

53"Nevertheless, I will restore their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, and along with them your own captivity,

54in order that you may bear your humiliation and feel ashamed for all that you have done when you become a consolation to them.

55"Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state.

56"As the name of your sister Sodom was not heard from your lips in your day of pride,

57before your wickedness was uncovered, so now you have become the reproach of the daughters of Edom and of all who are around her, of the daughters of the Philistines--those surrounding you who despise you.

58"You have borne the penalty of your lewdness and abominations," the LORD declares.

59For thus says the Lord GOD, "I will also do with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath by breaking the covenant.

Your sin is not a minor indiscretion and is not an accident. It is rebellion against the Lord on High who created you for His glory. He takes your sin personally and you deserve the same fate as Israel (as do I). If you think that this is an over-reaction then your view of Sin and your view of God are too small. If you have an infinite view of God then you must view your transgressions against Him as infinitely heinous.

Tomorrow, in light of all of this, we will see God's response. From what we have seen so far, Israel (and you with her) ought to be cast into hell forever. This passage leaves us with a covenant that we have broken. There is absolutely nothing, at this point, that we can do to fix this. Furthermore, we have no desire to fix it as we love the idea of playing the harlot. However, we have a great God who can solve our greatest problem. Tomorrow we will consider the promise of our Lord.

In Christ alone,
mike

Warning! Graphic Material - Part II

2006-02-20T00:10:00.000-08:00

We ended on Ezekiel 16:14 in our last post. We saw the state of Israel before God came into the picture (squirming in her own blood) and we saw that God redeemed her and made her beautiful. It is not time to examine the tragic response that Israel has. Read this excerpt and see yourself for where Israel has fallen, you have fallen all the more.

Ezekiel 16:

15"But you trusted in your beauty and played the harlot because of your fame, and you poured out your harlotries on every passer-by who might be willing.

16"You took some of your clothes, made for yourself high places of various colors and played the harlot on them, which should never come about nor happen.

17"You also took your beautiful jewels made of My gold and of My silver, which I had given you, and made for yourself male images that you might play the harlot with them.

18"Then you took your embroidered cloth and covered them, and offered My oil and My incense before them.

19"Also My bread which I gave you, fine flour, oil and honey with which I fed you, you would offer before them for a soothing aroma; so it happened," declares the Lord GOD.

20"Moreover, you took your sons and daughters whom you had borne to Me and sacrificed them to idols to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter?

21"You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire.

22"Besides all your abominations and harlotries you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare and squirming in your blood.

23"Then it came about after all your wickedness ('Woe, woe to you!' declares the Lord GOD),

24that you built yourself a shrine and made yourself a high place in every square.

25"You built yourself a high place at the top of every street and made your beauty abominable, and you spread your legs to every passer-by to multiply your harlotry.

26"You also played the harlot with the Egyptians, your lustful neighbors, and multiplied your harlotry to make Me angry.

27"Behold now, I have stretched out My hand against you and diminished your rations. And I delivered you up to the desire of those who hate you, the daughters of the Philistines, who are ashamed of your lewd conduct.

28"Moreover, you played the harlot with the Assyrians because you were not satisfied; you played the harlot with them and still were not satisfied.

29"You also multiplied your harlotry with the land of merchants, Chaldea, yet even with this you were not satisfied."'"

30"How languishing is your heart," declares the Lord GOD, "while you do all these things, the actions of a bold-faced harlot.

31"When you built your shrine at the beginning of every street and made your high place in every square, in disdaining money, you were not like a harlot.

32"You adulteress wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband!

33"Men give gifts to all harlots, but you give your gifts to all your lovers to bribe them to come to you from every direction for your harlotries.

34"Thus you are different from those women in your harlotries, in that no one plays the harlot as you do, because you give money and no money is given you; thus you are different."

Wow! God restores Israel from her pitiful condition and she becomes a harlot. However, she is not a typical harlot who gets paid for her degrading passions, rather she bribes men to come into her! Furthermore, she doesn't just bribe the men, she uses the very things that God has bestowed upon her to bribe these men.

Reader, do you see yourself here? Can you confess that you are just as horrible as Israel? If not, I wonder if we really can see the value of the cross. He who views their sin as small will see the results of the cross as small; he who see his sin as great will see the cross as great and in turn greatly glorify God.

We have looked at the original state of Israel, the beauty that God gave to her, and the horrific response of disgusting infidelity. Next we will turn to God's response.

In Christ alone,
mike

Warning! Graphic Material!

2006-02-17T19:02:00.000-08:00

I have, at least for the time being, decided to do a little post on some of the passages of Scripture that are not often referenced. One passage that comes to mind is Ezekiel 16. Since the chapter has 63 verses I will not cover the entire chapter in one post.

This first portion is not too graphic (at least not compared to the rest) and does show God's love in a vivid way. Later portions will become slightly more graphic. It is important to remember that this is the word of the Lord spoken to Israel:

Ezekiel 16:

3and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem, "Your origin and your birth are from the land of the Canaanite, your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.

4"As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water for cleansing; you were not rubbed with salt or even wrapped in cloths.

5"No eye looked with pity on you to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you. Rather you were thrown out into the open field, for you were abhorred on the day you were born.

6"When I passed by you and saw you squirming in your blood, I said to you while you were in your blood, 'Live!' Yes, I said to you while you were in your blood, 'Live!'

7"I made you numerous like plants of the field. Then you grew up, became tall and reached the age for fine ornaments; your breasts were formed and your hair had grown. Yet you were naked and bare.

8"Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD.

9"Then I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil.

10"I also clothed you with embroidered cloth and put sandals of porpoise skin on your feet; and I wrapped you with fine linen and covered you with silk.

11"I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck.

12"I also put a ring in your nostril, earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head.

13"Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your dress was of fine linen, silk and embroidered cloth You ate fine flour, honey and oil; so you were exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty.

14"Then your fame went forth among the nations on account of your beauty, for it was perfect because of My splendor which I bestowed on you," declares the Lord GOD.

Allow the imagrey to penetrate your heart. See yourself in the place of Israel, helplessly squirming in your own blood whom God decided to make great. We will examine what Israel does in light of this in the next post.

In Christ alone,
mike

Be diligent

2006-02-16T00:17:00.000-08:00

I am intentionally allowing a day off in order to allow the Spurgeon quotation in the post below to be read. If you do read this post, please use the time that you would normally spend reading my long posts to re-read Spurgeon's quotation on reading/studying. I plan to print that out and to keep it with me as a constant exhortation. Especially in our age, even moreso than his, we need to hear this.

2Tim 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handlin gthe word of truth.

In Christ alone,
mike

Give Thyself Unto Reading

2006-02-15T01:51:00.000-08:00

Ligon Duncan over at the T4G blog quoted an excellent excerpt from Spurgeon. I recommend reading Duncan's whole post, but I will only reproduce the quotation from Spurgeon here. It is quite a dandy!

Referring to this verse:
2 Timothy 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.

Spurgeon says:

How rebuked are they by the apostle! He is inspired, and yet he wants books! He has been preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books! He had seen the Lord, and yet he wants books! He had had a wider experience than most men, and yet he wants books! He had been caught up into the third heaven, and had heard things which it was unlawful for a man to utter, yet he wants books! He had written the major part of the New Testament, and yet he wants books! The apostle says to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, "GIVE THYSELF UNTO READING."

The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. Brethren, what is true of ministers is true of all our people. YOU need to read. Renounce as much as you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers, and expositions of the Bible. We are quite persuaded that the best way for you to be spending your leisure, is to be either reading or praying. You may get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon in your Lord and Master's service. Paul cries, "Bring the books" - join in the cry.

Paul herein is a picture of industry. He is in prison; he cannot preach: WHAT will he do? As he cannot preach, he will read. As we read of the fishermen of old and their boats. The fishermen were gone out of them. What were they doing? Mending their nets. So if providence has laid you upon a sick bed, and you cannot teach your class - if you cannot be working for God in public, mend your nets by reading. If one occupation is taken from you, take another, and let the books of the apostle read you a lesson of industry" (from Spurgeon's sermon #542 "PAUL - His Cloak And His Books" in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit 9 (1863): 668-669).

In Christ alone,
mike

Two Updates for Today

2006-02-14T14:26:00.000-08:00

I don't normally update twice a day but here are some updates:

Update 1

One of my Elders, Kenny Clark, has a great article that goes with Valentine's Day. It discusses the Love of God made known in Christ. He also quotes John Piper heavily regarding a reviled savior. I strongly recommend reading this one.

Update 2

Many of you know that John Piper had prostate cancer. Some of you probably know that today he went in for his surgery.

Here are the initial reports:

"11:30 a.m.: The doctors reported to Noel that John’s prostate has been removed successfully and things are going well from what they can tell. They are now beginning reconstruction. After that, Pastor John will have about a 1-hour recovery period before he is taken to his room where Noel will be able to see him."

then

"1:30 p.m.: We got word that John Piper is out of surgery. His wife, Noël, reported that the procedure went “beautifully.” So praise God with us and continue to pray with us for John’s recovery. We will keep you updated."

Continued Prayer: Please pray for the recovery period and the coming days of healing.

News, as it comes out, will be posted here.

In Christ alone,
mike

The Paradox of the Christian Ethic

2006-02-14T00:04:00.000-08:00

This is a third post in a continuing series where a brief quotation of a famous member of Church history is presented. This comes from Francis of Assisi who seems remarkable in that almost every major school finds value in his writings.

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled, as to console;
Not so much to be understood as
To understand;
Not so much to be loved
As to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
It is in dying that we awaken to eternal life.

In Christ alone,
mike

Doubt Dispelled

2006-02-13T00:04:00.000-08:00

Today I would like to post another quotation from early Christian history. Consider Augustine as he retells his conversion experience. If you have not read the Confessions then I strongly advise you to. There is much more to this story, but this will suffice as a brief summary. Augustine’s big battle with sin was always Lust/Sex. He had a concubine and finally sent her away as he planned to marry, but he shortly returned to other women. According to him, it is not until this day that he finally gets a glimpse of the glory of the Gospel and is forever changed. Augustine goes on to be a monk (ie. Vow of poverty and celibacy). The change in this man is simply amazing. This literally sex-crazed man will be forever transformed into one of the greatest names in Christian history.

Heb. 13:7 “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.”

I probed the hidden depths of my soul and wrung its pitiful secrets from it, and when I gathered them all before the eyes of my heart, a great storm broke within me, brining with it a great deluge of tears … For I felt that I was still enslaved by my sins, and in my misery I kept crying, ‘How long shall I go on saying “Tomorrow, tomorrow”? Why not now? Why not make an end of my ugly sins at this moment?’

I was asking myself these questions, weeping all the while with the most bitter sorrow in my heart, when all at once I heard the sing-song voice of a child in a nearby house. Whether it was the voice of a boy or girl I cannot say, but again and again repeated the chorus, ‘take it an dread, take it and read.’ At this I looked up, thinking hard whether there was any kind of game in which children used to chant words like these, but I could not remember ever hearing them before. I stemmed my flood of tears and stood up, telling myself that this could only be God’s command to open my book of Scripture and read the first passage on which my eyes should fall. For I had heard the story of Antony, and I remembered how he had happened to go into a church while the Gospel was being read and had taken it as an instruction addressed to himself when he heard the words, ‘Go home and sell all that belongs to you. Give it to the poor, and so the treasure you have shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me.’ By this message from God he had at once been converted.

So I hurried back to the place where Alypius was sitting, for when I stood up to move away I had put down the book containing Paul’s Letters. I seized it and opened it, and in silence I read the first passage on which my eyes fell: ‘No orgies or drunkenness, no immorality or indecency, no fighting or jealousy. Take up the weapons of the Lord Jesus Christ; and stop giving attention to your sinful nature, to satisfy its desires.’ I had no wish to read more and no need to do so. For in an instant, I came to the end of the sentence, it was as though the light of faith flooded into my heart and all the darkness of doubt was dispelled.”

Augustine’s Confessions VIII

In Christ alone,
mike

Those Christians

2006-02-10T00:18:00.000-08:00

I found this interesting bit of writing and I thought that I would post it. It comes from an anonymous letter to Diognetus possibly during the 2nd century.

Those Christians

For Christians are not differentiated from other people by country, language or customs; you see, they do not live in cities of their own, or speak some strange dialect, or have some peculiar lifestyle.
This teaching of theirs has not been contrived by the invention and speculation of inquisitive men; nor are they propagating mere human teaching as some people do. They live in both Greek and foreign cities, wherever chance has put them. They follow local customs in clothing, food and the other aspects of life. But at the same time, they demonstrate to us the wonderful and certainly unusual form of their own citizenship.
They live in their own native lands, but as aliens; as citizens, they share all things with others; but like aliens, suffer all things. Every foreign country is to them as their native country, and every native land as a foreign country.
They marry and have children just like every one else; but they do not kill unwanted babies. They offer a shared table, but not a shared bed. They are at present in the flesh but they do not live according to the flesh. They are passing their days on earth, but are citizens of heaven. They obey appointed laws, and go beyond the laws in their own lives.
They love every one, but are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death and gain life. They are poor and yet make many rich. They are short of everything and yet have plenty of all things. They are dishonored and yet gain glory through dishonor.
Their names are blackened and yet they are cleared. They are mocked and bless in return. They are treated outrageously and behave respectfully to others. When they do good, they are punished as evildoers; when punished, they rejoice as if being given new life. They are attacked by Jews as aliens, and are persecuted by Greeks; yet those who hate them cannot give any reason for their hostility.
To put it simply - the soul is to the body as Christians are to the world. The soul is spread through all parts of the body and Christians throughout all the cities of the world. The soul is in the body but is not of the body; Christians are in the world but not of the world.

Romans 9 - Part 6

2006-02-09T00:04:00.000-08:00

Today we will finally conclude our series on Romans 9. There are technically two paragraphs left but v. 27-29 are just two Old Testament quotations that assist in what has already been stated. Accordingly, we will examine the last two paragraphs v. 27-33.

What is the context for our discussion? Paul has just explained that God has the right to make two peoples; One people destined for wrath and another destined for glory. Paul then examined who was included in this group of “vessels of mercy” destined for glory. He states that it is not just the Jews, but also the Gentiles. He then quotes a passage from Hosea in order to give the Old Testament background for the inclusion of Gentiles as the people of God.

Paul will now give us the Old Testament background for the rejection of all but a few of the Jews (namely the remnant).

Consider the two quotations from Isaiah:

Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.”

Also:

Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us to a posterity, We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.”

There is not a lot in these two quotations that needs to be expounded upon. The basic idea is a question regarding who are the Children of God. We will remember that this discussion started in the very beginning of the chapter. These Children of God are namely those whom are vessels of mercy and prepared for Glory. Paul, is finally going to conclude his argument for the inclusion of Gentiles and the rejection of many Jews. This passage deals with the rejection of many Jews. Basically the idea is that God has always maintained that though physical Israel is big, only a remnant will be saved.

One interesting bit of theology that can be picked up from the second quotation is that the people understand that but by the special grace of God, they would be in exactly the same position as Sodom or Gomorrah. This attitude of “But for the Grace of God” seems to be severely lacking in many evangelical settings. I pray that it is something that we never lose.

So then, after an entire chapter of argumentation, What shall we say then? Paul will not draw towards a conclusion (although the full discussion continues into chapter 11).

That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;”

What is the point? The Gentiles weren’t seeking righteousness but they have attained it. Why? Remember v. 16 “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” This is exactly the situation here. It is not based upon the Gentiles who have strived for righteousness, but by God who has shown mercy.

but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

The Jews, on the other hand were striving after righteousness, but as is always the case when we depend on ourselves, we fall woefully short. Israel is no different, and anything short of faith in the historic Christ of the Gospel is not sufficient for salvation.

They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.

Jesus, the Christ, is the great offense. The God-man is foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews (1Cor 1:24). They have seen the Christ but there eyes have not been made upon. They cannot see the beauty of Christ and cannot believe in Him. Accordingly, they will be disappointed. In fact, we are all in this woeful condition. We cannot conjure up faith. The Jews were legitimately seeking after righteousness, but could not manufacture it. Just as the Jews were utterly unable to attain righteousness, so to are we. However, praise be to God who has chosen to open the eyes of some and display His glory on us vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for Glory.

Let us learn to love this truth. We all are infinitely deserving of an eternity in Hell. Paul has argued this point throughout Romans. He begins by saying that whether Jew or Greek we have fallen short. He then reminds us that in Adam we have fallen and are dead. He has declared that we must be set free from the body of this death. Not one Jew, nor Gentile, ought to see Heaven’s glory. Yet, God, in His amazing plan, has determined to save some in order to make his glory known. While we deserve destruction, God has prepared us beforehand for Glory. What a great and glorious, merciful, and gracious God we serve. Let us once and for all see the terrible condition we were in and see the beauty of God’s saving love for those whom He has chosen. There are some who would immediately like to talk about Moral Responsibility. I absolutely affirm that we are morally responsible for all of our choices and do have legitimate choices that have legitimate consequences. However, let us please not jump ship so quickly. Let the truth that Paul has argued in Romans 9 get a hold of you. Get a glimpse of the Glory of Christ and allow it to utterly transform you.

In Christ alone,
mike

Spurgeon Helps us with Romans

2006-02-08T03:33:00.000-08:00

If you have read this blog for any length of time you know that I do not quote Spurgeon that often. I might quote Owen, Edwards or Whitefield but rarely Spurgeon. The reason is not because I disagree with much of what he has to say but mostly because he seems over-quoted to me and other reformers under-quoted. The other reason is that I use his Catechism for the Puritan Catechism of the week and don't want Spurgeon-overload.

That being said, we have been engaged in a discussion of Romans 9 which is certainly a great text for the Reformed view. In light of this, I'd like to share some Spurgeon quotations. Information from Spurgeon can be found at Phil Johnson's website, but these quotations have been most recently quoted on Reformation Theology so I will link there also.

“But,” say others, “God elected them on the foresight of their faith.” Now, God gives faith, therefore he could not have elected them on account of faith, which he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; but will any one say that I determined to give that one a shilling, that I elected him to have the shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense. In like manner to say that God elected men because he foresaw they would have faith, which is salvation in the germ, would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. 41,42.317

Recollect also that God himself did not foresee that there would be any love to him in us arising out of ourselves, for there never has been any, and there never will be; he only foresaw that we should believe because he gave us faith, he foresaw that we should repent because his Spirit would work repentance in us, he foresaw that we should love, because he wrought that love within us; and is there anything in the foresight that he means to give us such things that can account for his giving us such things? The case is self-evident—his foresight of what he means to do cannot be his reason for doing it. 1299.341

Our Saviour has bidden us to preach the gospel to every creature; he has not said, “Preach it only to the elect;” and though that might seem to be the most logical thing for us to do, yet, since he has not been pleased to stamp the elect in their foreheads, or to put any distinctive mark upon them, it would be an impossible task for us to perform; whereas, when we preach the gospel to every creature, the gospel makes its own division, and Christ’s sheep hear his voice, and follow him. 2937.262

God neither chose them nor called them because they were holy, but He called them that they might be holy, and holiness is the beauty produced by His workmanship in them. ME329

In Christ alone,
mike

P.S.
If things go according to plan then the last post on Romans 9 should be posted within two days. I am tempted to proceed onto Romans 10, but I know that would cause me to move into 11 and 12, and i might be very well into chapter 16 before I decide to stop. Since I have enjoyed this brief study, I am considering doing something similar (although maybe at a faster pace). Because it would be my natural inclination to stay in the NT and do maybe Ephesians, I think I would first like to look at something that is Old Testament. OT study seems to be severely lacking in my own life and in the church as a whole. At this point I am undecided and am up for suggestions.

May you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Romans 9 - Part 5

2006-02-06T22:18:00.000-08:00

EDIT: I posted this when Blogger was down and it disappeared. Amazingly I was able to recover it. It was originally written on Saturday. This puts us behind schedule some, but rest assured we will get through Romans 9 by the end of this week!

Today we resume our previously scheduled post regarding Romans 9 (the length is longer than I may have liked so grabbing a cup of coffee may be helpful!). Up to this point we have looked at verses 1 through 18 and have at times paused to consider the immediate context (Chapter 8). This paragraph spans verses 19 through 26. The immediate context for this passage is the discussion regarding Jacob and Esau. Due to no actions of their own, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Paul develops this by stating that it does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but on God who has mercy. The last illustration is with Pharaoh who had his heart hardened by God. Accordingly, we have two sets of people for our immediate context. Jacob versus Esau and Moses versus Pharaoh. What is Paul’s concluding summary of the people? He says, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

Anyone who has ever attempted to state the same thing as Paul knows the question that an objector will next ask. Thankfully, Paul acknowledges this objection and devotes the next paragraph to the answer.

What is the objection:

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

Follow the reasoning here. God has chosen some men to show mercy to and some men to harden their hearts. This manifests itself in God specially loving some and comparatively hating others. The result in the lives of the people is dramatic. So, the objector asks “How is it fair to blame the person? It is God’s fault! He willed for it to be this way and no one can oppose the will of God and therefore God is ultimately at fault”.

This line of reasoning is probably very common for anyone who has tried to explain the Reformed view of Salvation. Nevertheless, we need not any external Reformed Apologetics. Rather, we will examine the response of Paul.

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

Well, this is probably not an answer that most Arminians are going to like in this discussion but it is the answer that the Apostle gives. His point is that God has made us in a similar way as a potter molds clay. The potter never has the right, or even the ability, to turn back and ask why he has been made in such a way. Similarly, we do not dare turn and ask of God why he has chosen to give mercy to others and harden the rest. We might also notice at this that this is wholly the decision of God/the potter. We have no indication that this decision is based on anything future that the people may do. In fact, we have evidence stated exactly to the contrary when we learn that “the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.”

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Allow me to pose this question do you. Do you believe that God has the right to choose some people for honorable use (will be defined momentarily) and others for common use? If you do have a problem with this, I must beg you to repent of your sin against God. You are in fact clay. God has made you from the dust and He therefore has the moral authority to choose to do whatever He likes with you. If you think that you may turn and pose questions to Him, then please allow God’s rebuke to Job in Job 38-41 be a rebuke to you.

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

He is dealing with the same question as above. People have rebelled against their creator. God, instantly, has the right and the desire to pour out his wrath upon them. However, he is a patient and long-suffering God. Just as He did not immediately strike down Adam and Eve, He allows wretched sinners to continue in their rebellion. This, my brethren, is Common Grace. God grants to those who attack him the breath, strength, and abilities to carry out their attacks. To answer the original question posed, “Why does He still find fault?” he gives this answer: How could God not find fault? He has created all people for His glory and yet they have rebelled and continue to sin even as the God they hate is sustaining them. God is perfectly just in pouring out his wrath on the reprobate, but even in this, He does so after showing much patience.

And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He called, not from among Jews only but also from among Gentiles.

This is the beautiful truth of God’s special love for His elect. He has endured everything that He might make known the riches of His glory upon the vessels of mercy. Notice that everything is being done for the Glory of God. If your theology (whether Calvinistic or Arminian) stops short of this, then we have terribly missed the point.

At this time we must look at these two vessels. We must acknowledge that the text says “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” as well as “vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory”. The Arminian must let the full force of these words hit them. An Arminian should not be able to swallow this easily. They have been prepared for Destruction. Do you allow for this in your Theology? Some Calvinists must also let this verse sink in. This is a Double or Nothing matter. Single Predestination is not consistent with this passage. God has prepared both the vessel of wrath for destruction and also the vessel of mercy for glory. He of course brings this out in two different ways, but both sets of people were equally prepared ahead of time.

As he says also in Hosea, I will call those who were not my people, my people, and her who was not beloved, beloved. And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, you are not My people, they shall be called sons of the living God”

The teaching here is that God is not a God of partiality. He has not made his election contingent on one group of people. He does not just include Jews but from the Gentiles also. This is the great truth of Christianity. Whether Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or freeman, God has opened the door of Salvation.

How could we dare question the integrity or morality of God? He has the moral right as creator. This is increased by the fact that He has delayed His wrath and made glorious those who do not deserve it out of His mercy. Add to all of this that God is not a God of partiality. He has chosen vessels of mercy from both the Jews and the Gentiles, both groups who have horrifically sinned against their maker (see Romans 1-3).

Oh the day that we can look at this doctrine and turn in doxology to God. I fear for now we will have to continue to contend vigorously for the truths demonstrated here, but how I long for the day where we may hear of God’s beautiful work and simply praise Him for it.

Oh Calvinist Brother, do you love this truth and praise God for it as much as you love to attack the Arminian view? It is true we must defend against error, but it will all be to no avail if at the end of the day we do not love God all the more.

Arminian Brother, do you ever preach the truth in such a way that a person asks you “Why does He still find fault?” or “Why did you make me like this?”. If not, please ask yourself if you are preaching the same truths as Paul.

In Christ alone,
mike

More notes from Philippians

2006-02-03T12:36:00.000-08:00

I've decided to take one more day of prayer and contemplation before addressing Romans 9:19-26. It is a difficult passage to even attempt to address in a post, especially with the theological implications that may result.

For today, however, I thought that I would stay on the theme of Philippians. I argued yesterday that Paul opens his letter with a salutation that intentionally portrays himself as lowly and others as more important than himself. I then suggested that he got this directly from the theology that he teaches in Phil 2. Today I wanted to continue this theme in the last half of the book.

If it is true that the citizens of Philippi were boasting in themselves and creating monuments to themselves then we can understand why Paul might include some of the things that he has in Chapters 1 and 2. However, if this is really an important historical context that has implications in our understanding of the text, it makes sense to ask whether this theme is present throughout the entire epistle. Of course, it is my contention that it is.

Consider chapter 3 beginning in verse 3b:
"...and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless."

Here, Paul seems to do the very thing that I have contended that he is arguing against. Paul lays out all of his titles, in much the same way that a prideful Philippian may have.

However, what does Paul do with all of these titles (and by implication what is he telling everyone else to do with their titles)? Consider 3:7ff:
But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be in loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him , not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith..."

Paul immediately sets his titles in opposition with knowing Christ. He is said to count them all as loss in order to gain Christ and later he is said to count them as rubbish for the same purpose. He desires to be found in Him, with a righteousness that is not his own but that which is from God.

Oh brethren, let us heed this word. Do you want to be great? Then cut off the pride that results in viewing life in a man-centered, earthly way. Put no confidence in your flesh to be of any merit, but cast your eyes upon the Lord of Hosts from whom all true righteousness comes.

Heed the words in 3:18-21:
For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Do you want to satisfy yourself? Your glory will prove to be your shame and still worse you will be declared an enemy of the cross of Christ. Do not set your minds on earthly things. Rather, set your gaze on Christ Jesus and the heavenly things and long eagerly for our humble state to be transformed to His glory. Oh Jesus will, in that last day, transform us into Glory. Will you be found having a righteousness of your own or will it be said of you that you have "the righteousness that comes from God"?

In Christ alone,
mike

Humbled Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant

2006-02-01T23:51:00.000-08:00

Today I am going to take a break from Romans 9. The time spent studying and writing on that great chapter can be exhausting. In order to avoid tiring myself out, I am going to post a shorter entry on a reflection from my Philippians translation today.

The book begins with this salutation:
Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.

It is important to note that this is the only Epistle in which Paul calls himself a bond-servant (doulos) without also affirming his own Apostleship. Rather, than assert his authority as an Apostle, he chooses to humble himself by focusing on the lowly nature of being a servant. Of course he then does the same thing with Jesus in the next chapter. The famous passage in Phil 2 says:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

At this point it is helpful to do a little bible background study on the Roman city of Philippi. They were a small city with many Roman solders who were very interested in their appearance. Archeology has revealed that people would build columns, fountains, and buildings and place their inscription in a noticeable location. This inscription would list all of their titles, the amount they contributed, etc. Historical investigation has revealed that Philippi did this far more than any city except the capital of the Roman empire.

So then, how does this relate to this introduction? Paul calls himself a bond-servant. Slaves were worth very little in the Roman empire. They were not even allowed to join the army and certainly could not be considered a reliable witness in court. So Paul, does not assert his title (namely as an Apostle) but humbles himself as a servant. In the midst of this He considers others more highly than himself (another verse from Romans 2) by giving the titles to the church leaders (namely overseer/bishop and deacon).

He is living out the theology that he will soon preach from the get-go. He is preaching the truth that Jesus exemplifies. Jesus stripped Himself of his preincarnate glory to be made a man. In doing so, He humbled Himself more than any person ever could. However, it is after this occurs that God highly exalts him and bestows on Him the name which is above every name.

Let us follow the example of both Paul and our savior.

In Christ alone,
mike

Romans 9 - Part 4

2006-01-31T00:00:00.000-08:00

We have been looking at the Theology of Romans 9. We took a two day break during the weekend (I write my posts one day ahead of time) which has been beneficial for me. At this point we can turn to verse 14 to begin to answer some of the questions that arise from what has been discussed so far.

Verse 14, “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!”

Paul envisions an objector and in true rhetorical style addresses his concerns before they are asked. Interestingly enough, this is one of the primary questions that Calvinists are asked when the doctrine of Unconditional Election is raised. If God chooses to bless some people with Saving Grace and leave others entangled in their sin, doesn’t that mean He is being unfair? One can see how this would come out of what Paul has just stated. In verse 11 he says that God has chosen the two, one to love and the other to hate (v. 13), before they were born and had not done anything good or bad. It is not because of works, but according to God’s purpose.

So then, how does Paul answer this charge and how ought Calvinists answer the very same charge?

Verse 15: ”For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy.”

At first we must say that this is not really an answer. Paul will get to the “answer” part in down the line (our next post v.19ff). However, he does take a moment to strike at the core of the objection. A person is making this objection for a reason. Since it is a charge against God, we must assume (with Paul) that it begins with bad theology. That is a key point so allow me to state it again: A person is making a charge that impugns the character of God (viz. that He is unjust); this necessarily stems from bad theology (ie. Words/beliefs about God).

What ought Paul to do? Of course the answer is to address the wrong Theology that is leading to the objection. How does Paul do this? He states that mercy is dependent solely on whomever God wants to give compassion to. It has nothing to do with the man who wills or the man who runs, but upon God who has mercy. This is very unpopular in our society where everyone believes themselves to be utterly autonomous, the captain of their own ship. However, it is what the Bible teaches and it must be what we teach. If someone gets upset when we say “it is not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy” then all we must do is to return to Scriptures. Our sinful, prideful, arrogant fallen bodies naturally beg us to believe that we are involved here. The only way to counter this is to continuously make clear in our mind that it does not depend on us, but upon God who has mercy. This will give us a higher view of God and a lower view of ourselves (just as it should be – remember the words of John the Baptizer).

Paul then continues in verse 17: “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”

Here, Paul illustrates what he has just said above. He returns our minds to Exodus where we see Pharaoh raised up to demonstrate the power of God and that the name of God might be proclaimed throughout all the earth.

One might not see how this ties into Paul’s theology immediately, so he clarifies his thoughts for us: “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

Paul has now tied everything together for us. What is the purpose of the paragraph that spans from verse 14-18? Earlier we have Jacob being chosen for blessing and Esau being chosen for cursing before they did anything on there own. Some people, clearly, were going to think that this was unfair. In this section, Paul spells out that this “blessing” (and in the context of Salvation we could also call this blessing “saving grace”) is not the result of man willing or running, but on God who shows mercy. He illustrates this in the negative with Pharaoh (namely it was not dependent on Pharaoh but upon God who raised Him up and hardened Him). So then, Paul says in a concluding sentence, God shows mercy on whom He wills and He hardens those whom He wills.

Now, in light of the context both before and after this paragraph, I believe this is clearly talking about an eternal blessing (namely God granting Saving Grace to His elect). However, for the purpose of this thread I am going to set that aside for a second. I am simply going to ask you to consider whether you believe this to be fair. Regardless of what the blessing and cursing entails, do you believe that God is just in choosing to bless some and curse others before they have done anything? If you find this unjust, then with Paul I must suggest that your Theology is in error.

This is so crucial for the Calvinism vs. Arminianism discussion so allow me to state it again. We will pretend for a second that this is not talking about Salvation at all. Do you believe that God is perfectly fair in deciding to bless (Love) some and curse (Hate) others before they have even done anything? If you do believe it is unfair, all I can do is repeatedly point to the Scriptures. We must let God’s character define our ethics and not let our culturally-saturated-fleshly-inclination-to-sin-ethics define God. If, on the other hand, you find it perfectly just, then I would ask you to remember this when we begin to talk about Salvation. If God can do this and remain just, then he can do the same with Salvation and remain just. Now, just because He could do it does not mean that he does do it; that I hope to prove later. All I want at this time is an admission that God could do it and remain just. If you do make that admission, then we should never hear some of the most popular complaints directed towards Calvinists: “That’s unfair, That’s a cruel God, etc.”

In Christ alone,
mike

Romans 9 - Part 3

2006-01-28T00:32:00.000-08:00

We now move on to the third part of our series. Through this point we have only looked at Romans 9:1-8. We now turn to verse 9 and following to conclude the illustrations drawn from Genesis.

It should be noted that there are units of thought that the bible comes in. The paragraph or pericope that we left off in runs from verse 6 through 14. We stopped after verse 8 simply because length was already an issue. In verses 6-8 we saw that the Word of God (namely His promises) have not failed. Paul answers the objection by providing the case of Isaac verses Ishmael. Israelites, so we have been told in verse four, have the promise of “adoption as sons”. This blessing is only given to Isaac (the son of Sarah v. 9). We are told that this is because not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. That is, not according to the flesh but based upon the promise of God.

In this illustration we have two possible descendents but only Isaac receives the blessing. Only Isaac is declared one of the “children of God” (verse 8).

Paul, however, continues with his second illustration. He says, “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good of bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of the works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’”

So we have another scenario where there are two descendents who could claim to be Israel based upon the flesh. However, Paul asserts that belonging to true Israel is a matter of promise not flesh. So it is with Jacob and Esau. Jacob, based only upon the promise of God, will be a child of God (as a result of promise) and Esau is a child of the flesh (and according to verse 8 – not a child of God).

There are some who would claim that this is only relating to temporal blessings. Where this assertion seems totally without merit in the first illustration, there is something that could lead us in that direction with this illustration. The text says, “the older will serve the younger.” This does carry the hint that possibly we are talking about temporal blessings. The text also says, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”. In the context of Malachi 1:2-3 this also may be hinting at temporal blessings or cursing. At first examination, Daniel and others appear to be on to something here. In fact, this used to be my main point with the text.

However, maybe Daniel is making the same mistake that I believe that I once did. It is true that temporal blessings and cursings are alluded to in this discussion about Jacob and Esau. However, might it be the case that this is a result of something greater, something eternal? One cannot read the Pentateuch even once without discovering the idea of Blessings versus Cursings. If you follow and obey your Lord then you are blessed. If you disobey and reject your creator you are cursed. At this point I am merely asking if it is possible that the temporal blessings alluded to are actually the result of the eternal state of these two men.

Now, the good observer is not going to let me just pose that question and move on. I must have some reason for asking that. If I did not you would be justified in responding “sure it is possible, but I have no reason to believe it and so I wont.”

Very well; allow me to briefly give some reasons why this might be beyond temporal blessings alone.

The first and strongest point is that verses 10-13 do not exist in a vacuum. Quite to the contrary. This is where the very first rule of hermeneutics comes into play: Context! Context! Context! As important as location is to real estate, context is just as imperative to a passage. What is our context? Hopefully you will not begin to remember Part 1 and 2 of this discussion. In Romans 8 we have a discussion on living in the Spirit. We are told that those in the flesh will have their eternal destiny in death and those who live by the Spirit will have an eternity in life. Those who live by the Spirit are adopted as sons of God and thus are considered children of God. This causes us to groan inwardly waiting for our future hope which is the resurrection. We learn that God has brought this all about because he words all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. We learn that “all things” specifically refers to the golden chain of redemption, which is consummated in glorification. With this knowledge we are told that no one can bring a charge against the elect since it is Christ who justifies. Accordingly, nothing can separate us from the love of God. Paul then proceeds to chapter 9 where he laments the state of the Jews. They are separated from Christ and thus eternally cursed. He wishes he could trade places with them.

Reason 1 summarized: Every bit of context is screaming Salvation, child of God, Spirit, Glory, eternal life, resurrection, etc. If this is the context, then this might at least make us consider the possibility that Jacob and Esau are used for this reason.

There is, however, a second point that we must not forget. In the counsel of Scripture we are given additional information about the eternal state of both Jacob and Esau. Consider the word of the Lord:

“Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise…” (Heb 11:9)
“By faith Jacob, as he was dying blessed each of the sons of Joseph…” (11:21)

What is the importance of this faith ...
“And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.” (11:39-40)

Of course, the fulfillment and the perfection is found ultimately in Christ and that is why these men are to be considered “so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us” (12:1).

There are very few people who would doubt the eternal state of Jacob’s soul.

What about Esau’s?

“See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards when he desired to inherit the blessing he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears” (Heb 12:15-17).

Can we deny Esau’s eternal state? He is said to fall short of the grace of God, immoral, godless, etc.

There is a reason that Jacob is in the Hall of Faith and is considered a witness that we are to emulate and Esau is in chapter 12 in a warning passage.

So then, with the clear context and the biblical knowledge that we have, we must ask whether this election is only for “temporal blessings” or whether there is something deeper. It seems clear to me (for both contextual reasons and other biblical knowledge) that these two were chosen for the purpose of showing two different men with two different eternal destinies. I would really need something much more explicit in the text to suggest that this has nothing to do with eternal blessings.

In any case, we must then ask if this is conditional election or unconditional. Clearly, Paul labors the point that this is unconditional. Before the children were born, before they did anything good or bad, God choose based not on their actions but on His promise for His purpose. God chooses to lavish blessings (temporal and eternal) on Jacob and not for Esau.

Why? Isn’t this unfair? If these questions come to mind then we are in luck. Paul knew that you would ask these question and he answers the objection with another illustration in the next paragraph. We will wait for another day to tackle that passage.

In Christ alone,
mike

Romans 9 - Part 2

2006-01-27T00:17:00.000-08:00

Today we continue on in the second part of our series on Romans 9. This began from a discussion on Romans 8 where Daniel (archor for the soul) and I had different views. Accordingly, I am now giving what I believe to be the correct interpretation of Romans 9 and evaluating Daniel’s comments. In the first post we considered verses 1-5 and will now pick up at verse 6. This post is a tad bit longer than I would have liked but I thought the length necessary to adequately deal with the text.

Paul begins his argument stating, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." Paul had just begun a long list of the promises that are due to Israel including "the adoption as sons, and the glory". However, in chapter 8 Paul had just argued that it is through Christ that results in "waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons" and a promise that "these whom He justified He also glorified" (8:23 and 30). In other words, Paul has stated that Israel is due these blessings, but he has done so on the heels of stating that these blessings come as a result of belonging to Christ in the Spirit. "How can this be?" says the implied objector. Paul answers by saying ‘not all who are descended from Israel are true Israel.’ His illustrations are going to prove this point. In Chapter 11 he will use another illustration to explain what exactly true Israel is (viz. one olive tree that consists both of the remnant of Jews and gentiles whoa re in Christ). For the time being, we will content ourselves with the discussion at hand.

Verse 7-8: "nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: through Isaac your descendants will be named. That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

Here is our illustration and Paul has so graciously provided us with the interpretation. Ishmael and Isaac both have promises but both are not heirs of the promise made to ‘Abraham and his descendants’. So then, says Paul, it is not the children by flesh who are the children of God, but rather the children of promise. If this distinction of flesh and promise sounds familiar then it may be because you have been reading Romans 7-8 recently. If you flip back just a little you will see a huge battle between flesh and Spirit. According to the flesh we will die, but according to the Spirit we will live (see 8:5-6, 13).

If the discussion of what are true "children of God" sends off warning lights then you may have also been reading later in chapter 8. Starting in verse 15, "For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba Father!’ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him".

Now things may be beginning to click into place for us. One principle of bible interpretation is that authors who use the same words and phrases back to back generally use them the same way. We would actually require evidence to the contrary to insist that an author is going to use the same vocabulary in two chapters but use the words to mean entirely different things. Daniel accepts this principle and has used it to define the word "kaleo" in Romans. If he does so with that word, he must also be willing to do so with phrases like "flesh", "children of God", "adoption", etc.

Clearly in the discussion of Romans 8 we have flesh and Spirit warring against each other. The flesh leads to sin and ultimately to eternal death. The Spirit leads to mortifying sin and finally eternal life. "Adoption as sons" is defined in Romans 8:23 as "the redemption of our body". This, argues Paul, is based on the hope that we have been eternally saved and will thus persevere in hope (8:24-25). "Children of God" is explained in Romans 8:15-17 as a person who has the Spirit and is thus an heir with Christ and shares in His blessings which consummates in glory.

However, Romans 9 then uses the very same terminology. In verse 4 we hear about "adoptiopn as sons, and the glory". In verse 8 we learn that God’s promises are not passed down according to the flesh, but through the promise (remember… we also had quite a bit of promises in Romans 8). In 9:8 we also learn about the "children of God" who stand in contrast with the children of the flesh. The problem for Daniel and those who would hold a similar view is that we cannot take clear meanings of words that are literally defined in Chapter 8 and then assume that they mean entirely different things in chapter 9. We cannot suppose that Paul is in mourning about the fact that his brothers according to the flesh are cut of from Christ and then suggest that the illustrations have nothing to do with Salvation. To remain consistent, rather, to perform proper exegesis, we must view this illustration in light of the discussion at hand and the vocabulary employed.

Daniel does make a perfect observation about 9:6-7. He says, "Paul's answer is clear. Not every Israelite is entitled to the promises spelled out in the Word of God. Not all of ethnic Israel is a part of spiritual Israel. The privileges listed in v. 4-5 were not for every Jew. In fact, God's promise to bless Israel was never meant to include every Jewish person." We must applaud Daniel here for speaking the truth and doing so better than I could.

However, Daniel then goes on to say things like this:
"It's important for us to remember that most illustrations are never perfect. What I mean is, that they don't always have a direct correspondence."

"So illustrations are never intended to have complete correspondence to the author's main point."

"However, while his argument deals with the eternal salvation of the Jews in his lifetime, Paul is not necessarily discussing the salvation of the individuals that he mentions in his illustrations."

After saying something that was so true I was saddened to see the quick leap to claim that illustrations are never perfect. It is true, illustrations do not always have a direct correspondence. However, generally the main point of the illustration fits in with the main point of the discussion at hand. Otherwise the illustration would be useless. Daniel then explains that Narnia is an allegory for the story of redemption but not everything has direct correspondence. He is correct about this. In fact, Lewis even denies that it is an allegory for this very reason. However, he then concludes that therefore illustrations never correspond completely. This is a quick and unnecessary jump. It is my opinion that statements like this ought to serve as caution tape warning us that we are about to explain away what the text does in fact teach.

Unfortunately, Daniel does seem to do so. In a discussion clearly about the Salvation of the Jews, Paul uses an illustration to teach about the promises of God. In the illustration he chooses words that are identical to chapter 8, namely "children of God" (where they are used to reference those who have Salvation). Without any reason (that I can see) apart from disagreeing with the implication, Daniel states that the illustration does not discuss at all the salvation of the individuals. I must conclude that this is a departure from proper exegesis.

That is all for this post. This is a reminder of where we have come and where we are at this point. In the first post we examined the background of Chapter 8 and the implications that this has on Chapter 9. We then examined verses 1-6. In this second post we looked at the first illustration (Isaac/Ishmael) in light of the terminology from verse 4 of the same chapter and also Chapter 8.

I’d again like to thank Daniel for all of the correct stuff he has said (which I often have not included) and thank him for graciously dealing with this slightly polemical discussion.

In Christ alone,
mike

Romans 9 - Part 1

2006-01-26T00:41:00.000-08:00

Romans 9 – A evaluation of the text and a response to Daniel.

I recently posted on Romans 8:28-30. In the comments section one of my new favorite bloggers (although I think he is tragically wrong about a bit of his theology), Daniel, noted that he understood Romans 9 different than I did. I searched through his blog and read the three articles that I could find. I will probably reference parts of his analysis throughout this series. Hopefully Daniel and everyone else will note that this is not a personal attack on Daniel. He and I both love Jesus and accordingly we both of Truth. To love truth is to hate error. We would both be derelict of duty if we did not earnestly contend for truth.

Daniel stated that "The very heart of Calvinism is built around a particular interpretation of Romans 9." While Romans 9 certainly speaks the truth of the Doctrines of Grace very clearly, it should be noted that the entire system does not live or die off of one text. There are many texts that in my opinion clearly teach Calvinism. John 6, for example, is probably quoted just as much if not more than Romans 9. The same could be said about Ephesians 1 and 2, Romans 8, etc.

With that we can begin the discussion of Romans 9. We must remember that Romans 9 comes on the heels of Romans 8 that has the great chain of redemption (v. 28-30). Based on this reality Paul says, "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?" Here, Paul speaks of a category of people who are different than the rest of the world. Paul uses different terminology for the same people in verse 33: "Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies…" Paul then gives the great promise to these elect that nothing can separate them from the love of God. However, these people of God, "the elect", do not at first glance appear to be the same people of God of our Fathers (viz. the Jews). If the promises that were once offered to the Jews have not been satisfied, then what is to guarantee that this promise will be delivered? To this objection the great orator begins his discussion of Romans 9.

Paul begins,
"I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."

Paul is a Jew and has deep compassion for the state of his brethren according to the flesh. He longs for their salvation and wishes that he could even be accursed if it would mean their salvation. This is very important along with the following two quotations: "belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory" and "from whom is the Christ (anointed one / Messiah) according to the flesh. Paul is sorrowful and wishes he could take their place (viz. accursed and separated from Christ).

Now, we must remember that this is the beginning of Romans 9. In the verse 5 verses we have a distraught Paul who laments the eternal peril of their souls. He longs for them to have the blessings which include adoption as sons, glory, the one who delivers people from their sins (the Christ). This is the backdrop of Romans 9. Try as some might, this cannot be ignored.

Insert Polemical Theology (we must now view a competing view that seems to deny this truth):
"However, while his argument deals with the eternal salvation of the Jews in his lifetime, Paul is not necessarily discussing the salvation of the individuals that he mentions in his illustrations."

"Paul did not intend to prove from these illustrations that God had damned Ishmael or Esau. With the possible exception of Heb. 12, the Biblical record is quite silent concerning the eternal futures of either of these individuals. This is not the focus. Paul is only illustrating that in the past not every physical descendant of Abraham was selected to be a recipient of God's temporal blessings. This means that now God is not obligated to give eternal blessings to every Jew regardless of their rejection of Christ."

First, I must contend that Hebrews 12 seems to make clear the eternal state of Esau. Second, we must ask ourselves why it is that Paul is so distraught for these first few verses about the salvation of the Jews, but then would use illustrations that apparently do not deal with the subject matter. What is the election that was discussed in Romans 8? What is causing Paul great sorrow and unceasing grief? Paul is using his illustrations for the purpose of explaining the election just mentioned. It is this reality, that most of his Jewish brothers were not elect, that causes his sorrow. It is this reason that he begins to use his illustrations. It seems clear to me to look at the following illustrations in light of what he has been talking about.

Daniel himself has recognized that Paul’ thesis is going to deal with the question of how God is faithful without granting eternal salvation to every Jew. However, he then concludes that the illustrations are only dealing with "temporal blessings". I can find no reason from the text to make this leap and ample evidence that would suggest otherwise. I must ask Daniel (and I do not mean to put him on the spot necessarily) if he is denying what seems evident from the text in order to maintain his previous view. I think we can all relate to this. Before I was a Calvinist, I found myself doing the same thing in several locations (and this is one of them).

That is all for the first look at Romans 9. All we have done so far is to introduce the series, consider briefly the literary context (following Romans 8), and evaluate Paul’s motive in light of his first 5 verses. From this we have asked whether it is legitimate for Daniel to maintain his view of the following illustrations.
In the next post, I will begin to move through the illustrations and hopefully show that we are building up to a great affirmation of Reformed Soteriology.

Lord willing,

In Christ alone,
mike

Path to Personal Piety

2006-01-25T00:21:00.000-08:00

I recently found this excerpt from JC Ryle quoted by Nathan White. These three short paragraphs take us on a path towards personal piety. Do you desire to be a healthy Christian? If so, and I must presume that you do, then I urge you to read this quotation with open eyes. Let Ryle pierce your heart. Let the words penetrate into your inner being. Let us not be those with cold religion who were always seeing but never understanding. Hear these words:

If you desire to be a healthy Christian, consider often what your own end will be. Will it be happiness, or will it be misery? Will it be the death of the righteous, or will it be a death without hope, like that of Lot’s wife? You cannot live always; there must be an end one day. The last sermon will one day be heard; the last prayer will one day be prayed; the last chapter in the Bible will one day be read; meaning, wishing, hoping, intending, resolving, doubting, hesitating—all will at length be over. You will have to leave this world and to stand before a holy God. Oh, that you would be wise! Oh, that you would consider your latter end!

You cannot trifle forever: a time will come when you must be serious. You cannot put off your soul’s concerns forever: a day will come when you must have a reckoning with God. You cannot be always singing and dancing and eating and drinking and dressing and reading and laughing and jesting and scheming and planning and moneymaking. The summer insects cannot always sport in the sunshine. The cold chilly evening will come at last and stop their sport forever. So will it be with you. You may put off religion now and refuse the counsel of God’s ministers, but the cool of the day is drawing on when God will come down to speak with you. And what will your end be? Will it be a hopeless one, like that of Lot’s wife?

I beseech you, by the mercies of God, to look this question fairly in the face. I entreat you not to stifle conscience by vague hopes of God’s mercy, while your heart cleaves to the world. I implore you not to drown convictions by childish fancies about God’s love, while your daily ways and habits show plainly that "the love of the Father is not in you." There is mercy in God, like a river, but it is for the penitent believer in Christ Jesus. There is a love in God toward sinners which is unspeakable and unsearchable, but it is for those who hear Christ’s voice and follow Him. Seek to have an interest in that love. Break off every known sin; come out boldly from the world; cry mightily to God in prayer; cast yourself wholly and unreservedly on the Lord Jesus for time and eternity; lay aside every weight. Cling to nothing, however dear, which interferes with your soul’s salvation; give up everything, however precious, which comes between you and heaven. This old shipwrecked world is fast sinking beneath your feet; the one thing needful is to have a place in the lifeboat and get safe to shore. Give diligence to make your calling and election sure. Whatever happens to your house and property, see that you make sure of heaven. Oh, better a million times be laughed at and thought extreme in this world, than go down to hell from the midst of the congregation, and end like Lot’s wife!

In Christ alone,
mike

Quick Update

2006-01-24T13:16:00.000-08:00

Quick Update:

First I'd like to mention that the beloved Pyromaniac (Phillip Johnson) has decided to stop posting at his individual blog. However, he will maintain a group blog with several very solid posters. Check out the new blog here.

Second, It has come to my attention that for at least yesterday and today the blog has been messed up when viewed in Firefox (and similar browsers). I believe I have fixed the error and it should look just like IE now.

The Golden Chain of Redemption

2006-01-23T14:52:00.000-08:00

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according go His purpose. 29) For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30) and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

This text is one of the most amazing pictures of the process of redemption in the Bible. It is typically referred to as a Chain because each link on the change hangs on the preceeding link. Those whom He foreknew, He predestined. Those whom he predestined, He called. Those whom He called, He justified. Those whom he justified, he also glorified.

There are many thing that should be addressed when looking at a marvelous text like this. However, time and space permit only a few observations. I will try to choose relevant observations that deal with things that are typically addressed when these verses come into play.

1) The verse note is that we are dealing here with parallelism. All in category A belong to B. All in B belong in C. Etc. The alternative is to suggest that Some who belong in A belong in B (granted, there is nothing in the text that would lead us in this direction). Some who belong in B also belong in C. Etc. In either case, we must be consistent. If we are going to say "Some of whom he Called, he also Justified" then we must be prepared to claim equally as boldly that "Some of whom he Justified will be glorified (and we would also need to find soemthing in the text that would allow us to do this)."

2) We note that this chain begins with "For whom He foreknew". Some here insist that the text reads, "For whom He foreknew would choose to place faith in Jesus". We must note that the text does not say that, nor does it hint at it. The text simply speaks of a group of people who are foreknown. That is, they were known before. At this point, an Arminian, Calvinist, Molinist, or most other people can readily affirm the text. God knew us (personally) before the foundation of the world. That is all this text teaches at this point and that is all we must affirm.

3) Next, the group of people who were foreknown in the first link are predestined. That is, they were destined/ordained beforehand. English uses the word "Destiny" correctly. When speaking of something that is Destined we are speaking of someone who has a fixed outcome that is chosen based on eternal considerations. We could have naturalistic determinism which says that the forces of nature necessarily determine what will happen. The biblical alternative is God choosing and bringing about His end according to His purpose. In either case, this destining takes place beforehand (Ephesians tells us before the foundation of the world). The act of destining is the people who were foreknown and the result is to be perfectly conformed to the image of His son. So far, I would still say that most Theological viewpoints could affirm this point.

4) However, this is the point in the chain where Reformed Theologians must break with other traditions. The text now states that who whom He Predestined, He also were called. Now, the dagger in the heart of Arminian (and similar) Theology is the next part of the verse. Those whom He called, He also justified. Again, all who were foreknown were predestined. All whom were predestined were called. Now, all who were called were also justified. Now, unless our Arminian friends happen to also be Universalist then they run into a problem here. All who have been called are justified. This, unfortunately, is not what typical Evangelicalism is teaching right now. Most Churches are teaching that God has equally called all people and then they "respond". Those who respond correctly are justified. Those who do not will die in their sins. However, this is not what the text is teaching. We must affirm with the text that those whom God has called He will justify. This now begins to give us a better understanding of what Paul is speaking of when referecing Predestining (here and in Ephesians). This also sheds light on Paul's statements in Chapter 9 where he declares that it is not according to the man who wills but to God who shows mercy. It explains what is happening when Paul speaks of objects destined for glory and objects destined for wrath.

Lastly, those whom He justified, He also glorified. This is the great truth of Salvation. It is God alone who has saved us and it is God alone who will bring us to glorification. All that God has Justified He will also Glorify. Why? Because God has not merely predestined us to be saved and then we are on our own. Rather, we are predestined to ultimately be conformed to the beautiful image of Jesus. Thank God! This ought to bring us great joy.

In Christ alone,

mike

New Elder Part II

2006-01-22T00:05:00.000-08:00

In a recent post, I suggested a quiz that I thought would be beneficial for evaluating the Biblical knowledge and wisdom of a possible Elder nomination. I also alluded to some of the pillar texts that come up when discussing the issue. The Bible gives us clear cut qualifications for what an elder should look like. This, however, leaves us asking how to practically apply this. I happen to think PersonA is a great option to be an Elder. Does this make him so? Does the current elder board choose? Ought we to have a nominating committeee? Does the Congregation vote?

To answer some of these questions I'll quote some of the advice given by Mark Dever (9marks.com) at this link. Some answers are simply personal opinion, but for all of the advice looks solid and Mark's wisdom clearly shows through.

What's wrong with the Nominating Committee?
-The most serious practical deficiency of most nominating committees is that the primary criteria for placement on the nominating committee is demographic data, not spiritual maturity or biblical knowledge.?
---It is often objected that demographic representation and spiritual maturity need not be mutually exclusive attributes of a nominating committee.? This is a formally true proposition.?
---But the reality of most nominating committees is that few of the people around the table understand the qualifications for eldership, know the questions to ask in order to discern their presence or absence, or have the courage to nominate someone who meets the biblical requirements but may not be outwardly successful in other popular but peripheral areas.
-The most serious biblical deficiency of the nominating committee concept is that nominating future leaders is a function of spiritual oversight - a responsibility that belongs to the current elders themselves.? Sheep don't choose their shepherds.
---The result of error here is often that a successful businessman is nominated and appointed as an elder or deacon, yet with serious sin beneath the surface that biblically disqualifies him from serving.

We believe elders are in the best position to nominate future elders because of their spiritual maturity, biblical knowledge, and shepherd's knowledge of the lives of the candidates.
First, recognize those in the congregation who are already bearing fruit in performing elder functions among the congregation. Who meets the character qualifications of 1Tim 3 and Titus 1?? Who shows a shepherding care for the spiritual growth of others?? Who shows aptitude and delight in teaching sound doctrine??
Secondly, invite the candidate to participate in an elders' meeting.? Observe how they contribute.? What questions do they ask?? Are their answers wise and mature, or shallow and immature?? Can they disagree without becoming combative?? Are their contributions helpful and stimulating, or do they stifle the discussion?
Thirdly, examine the candidate.? Is his character above reproach?? Will his work schedule accommodate the demands of eldership?
Fourthly, achieve unanimity among the elders regarding whether or not to nominate the candidate. Unanimity here is important because each elder needs to be able to work well with the candidate and respect his character if unity among the elders is to be maintained after the addition of the new member to the group.

Fifthly, recommend the candidate to the congregation as a nominee for eldership.? Let this nomination rest with the congregation for a period of time (e.g., two months), during which time members intending to vote "no" can share their concerns with the elders and the elders can, if necessary, withdraw the nomination based on new information.?
Sixthly, if no concerns are raised, achieve a 75% majority affirmation of the call from the congregation at the next business meeting.? This supermajority is necessary because it is important that the congregation have confidence in the new elder, and that the elder be assured of that confidence by the congregational vote.? Otherwise mutual mistrust ensues.
Finally, it is wise to allow elders to serve a three year term, to be reaffirmed by the congregation for another three years, then to give them a one year break, after which the other current elders could re-nominate them if they are still qualified.? This system provides healthy accountability for elders that a lifetime eldership system seems to lack.

Staff and Non-Staff.? It is wise to keep the congregation minimally dependant on paid staff.? Therefore, non-staff elders should outnumber staff elders.? Ideally then, the minimum number of elders in any local church would be three - one paid pastor and two lay elders.?
It is also wise to keep the elder body small enough so that an executive, decision-making committee within the elder group is not necessary.? Avoiding executive committees within elder groups simplifies the authority structure of the church and prevents unnecessary divisions.

In Christ alone,
mike

Blog Spotting and a Great Quiz

2006-01-19T22:30:00.000-08:00

Today is a short day of posting for me.

First I'd like to highlight some links across the blogosphere that have caught my attention over the past week:

The T4G Blog is an ongoing public conversation between Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney, and Albert Mohler.

John Hendryx posts solid article titled Dead Man Walking discussing Ephesians 2.

Adrian Warnock interviews Justin Taylor at Adrian's blog.

Heated debate at Challies.com regarding The End of the Spear and then a follow up post.

Phil Johnson examines Karaoke Worship at a few major churches.

Steve Camp has several solid posts. One uses Al Mohler and Larry King Live as a jump start and another uses the recent "50 most Influential Christians in America" as lead in.

------------------------------------------------------

Second,

At our church we have a position for an Elder open and we will be considering a member on January 29th. This led me to review multiple texts from the Bible, but also brought to mind a wonderful little "quiz" that I found here at A Puritan's Mind.

The questions are quite challenging at times (although easy at other points), but I think it would be a good standard to use. For those interested in Pastoral Ministry, those already serving in a position of leadership, or for the Christian who wants to grow their mind, I'd encourage you to look through the questions. Answer as many as you can, and then use the questions that you do not know as a study sheet.

Here is the introduction and you can click on the link to have a look at the rest of the quiz.

A little Quiz for the Pastor who studies.

You are not allowed to use the Bible or any other Biblical help; nor may you ask the opinion of others, nor in books unless otherwise instructed. The only time the Bible may be used is when it explicitly tells you to read the passage and comment on it. You have 5 days to complete it.
Elders are not elders because they are old, they are elders because they know the Bible well. There is a distinction between those who may be good preachers and those who are Pastors/Elders of a church. But even in their humble beginnings, they knew their Bible well.
Some young Preachers who knew their Bible well:

The Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, Jesus Christ: 30 years old.

John the Apostle: ? (His age may range from 17-31??

Aurelius Augustine: 37

John Calvin: 22 (He had his first chaplainry at age 12)

Christopher Love: 27

Jonathan Edwards: 15

Richard Baxter: 23

There are:

296 questions,

183 terms to define,

and 31 practical application questions at the end.

The Quiz Begins Here

In Christ alone,

mike

John 11 and the Nature of Love

2006-01-18T16:25:00.000-08:00

The second in a brief series of Theology out of the Gospel of John. Click here for the first in the series: John 6:44 and Irresistible Grace.

What is love? This is a question that has had philosophers busy for thousands of years. In our culture of “good feelings” and post-modernism, love is typically mutually exclusive with doing something that would cause pain, grief, and sorrow. Consequently, Evangelicals have been attacked for their insistence of preaching the Gospel whenever it includes A) the denial of another belief or B) when it points out the sin in an individual’s life. This can hurt a person’s feelings and consequently it is deemed “unloving”.

Can we find an example of Jesus loving? Let us examine John 11, the narrative of Lazarus’ death.

1Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.

Notice that Lazarus is sick. At this point he could be healed.

2It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.
3So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick."
4But when Jesus heard this, He said, "This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it."

What is going to be the purpose, the end result, of this event? The Glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified.

5Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
6So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was.

Now this is where things start to get strange. Apparently Jesus loves the two women and loves Lazarus, and therefore he decides to stay for two more days. The NIV renders the word as “yet” but this ignores the universal use of the Greek word which is to be translated as “therefore” or “so”. There is purpose here. Jesus loves these people and as a result he chooses to stay two days longer. Consequently, Lazarus dies and his sisters are distraught. Much pain is caused by Jesus not healing him immediately. This is evident when both of the sisters approach Jesus:
21Martha then said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.

31Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and consoling her, when they saw that Mary got up quickly and went out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there.

32Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died."
33When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled,

35Jesus wept.

Both of the women are clearly in pain and have been weeping. Notice also, Jesus could have prevented this death. Nevertheless, he let it take place that the Son (himself) would be glorified. However, Jesus still weeps with them. Jesus can bring something about passively (that is by lack of intervention) and yet still weep for them. This is key for those who would say that if God weeps for the lost he must also grant equal grace to them (that they have equal “chance” of being saved).
36So the Jews were saying, "See how He loved him!"
37But some of them said, "Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?"

Some apparently had trouble swallowing the fact that Jesus could have kept him from dying and still affirm that Jesus loved him.

39Jesus said, "Remove the stone." Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days."
40Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?"

Jesus is no reiterating why he did all of this: “will see the glory of God?” This is more important than Lazarus dying and creating a stench, causing grief, etc.

42"I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me."

Jesus also does this so that people may believe that He is sent by God.

45Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him.

His goal is accomplished.

Now, we must remember what the impetus for all of this was. Jesus loved Mary, Martha and Lazarus. True love is doing whatever it takes to guide a person to see the Glory of God revealed in His son, namely Jesus Christ, which brings about belief. This is not a popular definition of love. However, let us follow the example of Jesus (rather than the example of the world) and love our neighbors by boldly preaching the Gospel even when it could cause a little temporary pain. This light momentary affliction cannot compare to what is to come.

In Christ alone,
Mike

P.S.
11This He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep."
12The disciples then said to Him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover."
13Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep.
14So Jesus then said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead…”

Jesus included this for our hyper-literal friends :)

John 6:44 and Irresistible Grace

2006-01-16T23:26:00.000-08:00

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6 is a great pillar text for Reformed theology. The reasoning should be clear. In verse 44 there is a universal negative claiming that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. Earlier in verse 37 there is a universal affirmation that says "All that the father gives to me will come to me." Finally in verse 65, in the event that anyone has forgotten, Jesus reminds us, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

However, there has been substancial disagreement about this so-called "drawing" that we see in verse 44. What is the nature of the drawing here. Is it a luring or a wooing, as is often suggested, that a person then can equally choose to accept or reject the drawing?

Some may be shocked to learn that "draw" is not the main definition of the greek word here (elkw). The standard definition, if one were to look it up in any of a number of lexica would be "to drag". It is at this point that we may get a glimpse at the Father's irresistible grace for his elect. However, there is no need to take my word for this. The Scriptures provide us an excellent set of verses that bring home this point. There is only one verse, which I will save for the end, that requires any real explanation. All other verses should make this point exceedingly clear.

Here is every verse that uses "elkw":
Remember, this is the verse we are looking at.
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Now, other verses that use the same greek word:
John 18:10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.

John 21:6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish.

John 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

Acts 16:19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities

Acts 21:30 Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.

James 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?

In every event we have a person in control of the situation bringing out their desire by some means of exertion (generally physically). Paul and Silas were not wooed out of the market place. The poor people who were being oppressed were not being lured into the courts. Peter did not plead with his sword to jump out.

Now, for the last verse that does take a little explanation:

hn 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

This, at first glance, is a major problem for so-called "Calvinists". It seems to throw a wrench in the entire system because we cannot have this irresistible grace that seems so evident from the other verses for "all men". However, this is simply the Arminian fallacy. We have too quickly assumed that "all men" means each and every person to ever walk the earth. Now, context, context, and context is important here.

The paragraph that John 12:32 exists in begins in verse 20. Depending on what bible you have, you might have a bold heading that says something like "Jesus predicts his death". Whatever the event, we must first start at verse 20:

²⁰Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast.

Well this is interesting, we might have to pay attention to these Greeks who want to worship.

²¹They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. "Sir," they said, "we would like to see Jesus." ²²Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

Hmm.. now they want to see Jesus (and Jesus is informed about it). This is beginning to become important context for our passage.

²³Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. ²⁴I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. ²⁵The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. ²⁶Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

Jesus begins to talk about Eternal life, following him, etc.

²⁷"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. ²⁸Father, glorify your name!"
Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." ²⁹The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
³⁰Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. ³¹Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. ³²But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." ³³He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

Now we have Jesus saying He is going to be glorified and the Father confirming this fact. There is going to be a time of judgment on the world as the prince is driven out (allusion to the His coming death) but when He is lifted up he will draw all men to himself.

Now, the key is that we have Gentiles coming to Jesus in the presence of the Jews. Jews, as you might know, believed themselves to be the People of God (with good reason) and considered themselves superior to the Gentiles. This continues even into the early church (as can be seen in Acts, Romans, Galatians, etc.). However, Jesus makes it clear from the beginning that he is going to break down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. Jesus, here, is making a bold proclamation that he is going to draw all, meaning both Jews and the Gentiles (namely the Greeks who were seeking him).

When John 12:32 is read in context we have no reason to read into it that every single person will be drawn to him. This is not the obvious message that Jesus was intending. His message was in the context of a Jewish feast with Jewish rulers with visiting Greeks.

Once we have this straight in our mind, we can now turn our attention back to "draw" which we know is actually "drag". In every verse we have a person in utter control weilding their force on an object that cannot resist. A sword would not resist Peter. The nets were under the control of the disciples. The poor man was at the whim of the rich man. If language is to be intelligible at all, words must have meaning. The clear meaning of this word removes the possibility of "luring", "wooing", "pleading", etc.

Rather, the evident meaning is that God demonstrates His irresistible grace in effectually calling us to Himself. That is the reason why Jesus can confidently state that"All that the father gives to me will come to me" (John 6:37).

There is one note of caution that should be given here. There is often a perception of Calvinism that shows God dragging in sinners kicking and screaming who do not want to see him while keeping out those who are desperately seeking him. When we speak of this irresistible grace this is not the sense in which we mean. The way in which God works is so that he takes a dead heart who is staunchly opposed to Him and gives it new life and new desires (namely to Love him). So then, this is not dragging a person kicking and screaming, but rather performing Heart Surgery so as to effectually give new life (Spiritual life) to a once dead and wretched man.

In Christ alone,
mike

A Puritan Catechism - Part 1

2006-01-16T11:59:00.000-08:00

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)

The place of catechisms are far removed from the daily life of most Protestants. This could be for a variety of reasons. I suspect that the notion that it sounds "Roman Catholic" is one hinderance. I'm pretty sure that the hostility towards Systematc Theology is another problem. However, my strongest guess is that it is hard work to memorize and we cannot see the benefit of catechisms.

In an age where we have far more biblical resources than any other generation, we are surely the most biblically illiterate soceity. Part of the reason is that we do not study the bible or theology nearly enough. The extent of average Christian studying is maybe a chapter of bible reading per day (if the church has recently started a "Read the Bible in a year" plan) and a sermon on Sunday (which may or may not include the exposition of Scripture).

One way to combat this is to become familiar with the Catechisms of old. By far the most popular is the Westminster Shorter Catechism which can be located online easily.

The chatechisms are framed in a Question and Answer format to aid memorization. At this blog, I will be posting 3 questions per week for as long as it is beneficial for at least myself. I will be using A Puritan Chatechism compiled by C.H. Spurgeon. This catechism is almost identical to the Westminster Shorter (Question 1 will show this as the most famous question is repeated verbatim). However, there are less questions (82 instead of 107) and it may more closely reflect my theology in a few places.

So then, an introduction and the first three questions:

I am persuaded that the use of a good Catechism in all our families will be a great safeguard against the increasing errors of the times, and therefore I have compiled this little manual from the Westminster Assembly's and Baptist Catechisms, for the use of my own church and congregation. Those who use it in their families or classes must labour to explain the sense; but the words should be carefully learned by heart, for they will be understood better as years pass.May the Lord bless my dear friends and their families evermore, is the prayer of their loving Pastor.

1. Q. What is the chief end of man?

A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

2. Q. What rule has God given to direct us how we may glorify him?

A. The Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify God and enjoy him.

3. Q. What do the Scriptures principally teach?

A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

John Piper's Sermon Regarding Prostate Cancer

2006-01-15T15:52:00.000-08:00

January 8th is the conclusion of a brief study on Prayer at Bethlehem Baptist Church. John Piper uses his recent news regarding prostate cancer as an illustration for teaching his congregation about the work of God in producing peace in the midst of prostate cancer. I found the sermon to be beneficial and I hope that you do as well. As an aside, I especially liked when he discussed the dangers of discussing his own sickness. Here are three key reasons why it may be dangerous to discuss it:

1) Melodramatic representation of the illness.
2) Not currently in pain and test is relatively small compared to what others are going through.
3) Self-pity which he describes as one manifestation of pride.

You can listen to the sermon here.
You can read the sermon here.

Desiring God is here.
Bethlehem Baptist Church is here.

The text from the sermon:
1 Corinthians 15:51-58
Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

In Christ alone,
mike

The Nature of the Incarnation and the Eucharist

2006-01-14T11:17:00.000-08:00

Since the Council of Chalcedon, Christians have affirmed four key tenets regarding Christ:

1. Jesus is fully and completely God.
2. Jesus is fully and completely human.
3. Jesus has two distinct natures that remain unconfused.
4. Jesus' two natures are united in one person.

From the Chalcedonian Creed:
"our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood"
"truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body
"to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably"
"the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word"

Point 3 from my summary and the embolden text from the creed is the key point for this discussion.

Jesus is born with a Human body and with it comes all that is essentially human. His humanity is joined together with the Divine nature. Accordingly, he always has two natures. Nothing is lost and the natures are never mixed or confused. This is where the "rubber meets the road" because there are some who affirm a doctrine of the "communications of attributes" where Jesus' humanity is supposed to have taken upon the devine attributes. Besides the fact that this is a denial of the Council of Chalcedon's conclusion that the natures are not mixed, this leads to other problems. The most notable example is when we look at Thomas Aquinas. He held to this doctrine and consequently had a terrible time understanding how Jesus could tell his diciples that He did not not know the time of His returning but only the father knew. Ultimately he has to justify this teaching by saying something that sounds very similar to Jesus deceiving his disciples. Whatever the end product may be, this is completely unnecessary. As long as we maintain the proper distinction between Humanity and Divinity then we are fine. This allows for a Jesus who is tired, sweating, bleeding, dying, not knowing, etc.

Now for the key point:
If Jesus' body belongs to His human nature (as is confirmed by such things as dying, bleeding, sweating, eating, etc.) and that natures are not confused or mixed, then Jesus' body is not omni-present. Only the Divine nature is omni-present. This is why we can have Jesus sitting at the right hand of the throne of God (in a spacially confined body) and yet be with us always (as the omni-present God). His divine nature is with us always. There is not one who would contend that Jesus' body is with us at all times.

So, assuming Jesus' humanity is not omni-present and His Divinity is then what follows?
Communion / the Eucharist is taken by hundreds of thousands of people at the same time across the world. To be in All of these places at one time Physically requires what only belongs to the Human Nature. Since we have decided that the Human-Nature (and the Body that belongs to said nature) is not omni-present then we must rule out both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

Hence, we must reject both the Roman and Lutheran errors on this doctrine not primarily on the basis of the Bread and Wine itself but rather on the basis of proper Incarnation Theology. Scripture alone provides very little help if we must only address the Bread and Wine. Jesus says that the elements are his body. Does He mean that the elements represent His body? Does He mean that the elements consist of His body? It is impossible to tell from the few verses that we have. If we impose a hyper-literalism and demand that this means that the elements consist of Jesus' body then we must be prepared to boldly declare that the Tongue consists of Fire as the same verb and structure is present in James' epistle.

Since Scriptural evidence regarding the Bread and Wine alone are inconclusive, we must use the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture. We have conclusive Scripture to deduce a proper theology of the Incarnation as is properly defined at Chalcedon. Using this Scripture to interpret verses about the elements reveals that Jesus is present in a real way at the table, but not in a physical way. To deny either of these realities is to A) make Communion of no import or B) compromise the incarnation.

In Christ alone,
mike

Prayer for the World

2006-01-13T11:59:00.000-08:00

There seems to be a renewed sense of the importance of prayer in the Evangelical church this year. I have seen several churches start new programs regarding prayer and several articles have been written in recent weeks. Part of this might be due to the tragedies of 2005. It might have to due with some popular leaders who espcially need prayer at this point. Whatever the reasons, I am glad to see so great a focus on prayer.

Prayer is exceedingly difficult for most people. As one of my elders recently said, prayer is the one thing that requires the most faith and is the most foolish if God does not exist. Most aspects of healthy Christian living would have some residual benefit if God were not real. Prayer, however, if God does not exist, is sitting in a room talking to yourself. For this reason and others, prayer is a huge struggle for almost every Christian.

One of the best ways to maintain a solid prayer life is to have structure. It is important that we have some sort of spontaneity in our prayer life, but it should not be reduced to random acts of prayer. One type of structure that has been helpful for myself is the ACTS acronym where you focus on Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication. However, I find that often we need even more structure than that. What do we pray for when we lift up our supplications? We all probably have a sense that the Great Commission is important and we ought to pray for it in some regard. How can we do this?

One thing that I have found helpful is Operation World. This website has a daily prayer section where it moves throughout every country in the world. It gives statistics, real-life events, and other information that gives us a more informed prayer time. As an addition to your normal prayer life, I think that this is a great resource to consider using.

-mike

Brief commentary by David Wells

2006-01-12T23:50:00.000-08:00

I found this interesting little article by David Wells in a recent response at Reformation 21. The following quotation was a great bit of irony that Wells picked up on:

This last year, there was a brief media buzz leading up to Christmas over the
fact that many megachurches cancelled Christmas day worship services. (What
sense could a Martian have made of the fact that in America, many Christians, on
the one hand, were arguing for the freedom at Christmas time to place religious
symbols in public places while, on the other hand, other Christians in the
megachurches were closing the doors of their churches, on Christmas day no less,
closing the doors on the most visible religious symbols in our society?!) The
reasons given for this were that Christmas day is family time, that it was
unnecessary to worship on Christmas day because many would have been to
pre-Christmas services and, further, that it would be unnecessary because people
were being supplied with videos for that day.

I will not comment beyond this because I think that this horse has already been beated enough. Suffice it to say, I hope that this was a learning experience for some of the Pastors at several churches and probably for those in the pews as well.

In Christ alone,
mike

Listen to this!

2006-01-11T23:52:00.000-08:00

9Marks is a marvelous resource for a plethora of issues. This is about an hour long tabletalk with Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, CJ Mahaney. In case you are unsure, that means there are two Baptists, one Presbyterian, and one Reformed Charismatic. They discuss cooperation. When ought we to cooperate? What are the least common denominators for joining together? They have a fantastic discussion with many great digs between the two who all clearly love one another.

Free Streaming here!

An Argument for Cessationism

2006-01-11T15:19:00.000-08:00

Those who follow the Cessationist vs. Continuationist debate closely often complain that the Cessationist view is not really a scriptural view. The extent of the argument is generally that Charismaticism leads to Benny Hinn therefore it is bad. Phillip Johnson got into this for a while but is now attempting to provide justification for the Cessationist view. Whether you agree of not, he at least attempts to present a scriptural argument. I suggest that all read it here.

In Christ alone,
mike

Please Pray

2006-01-06T23:46:00.000-08:00

Recent news has broken that John Piper has prostate cancer. The link contains the letter that he sent out to his congregation and is also posted at desiringgod.org. At this point everything looks promising. A few quotations from his letter and prayer requests:

The most dangerous thing in the world is the sin of self-reliance and the stupor of worldliness. The news of cancer has a wonderfully blasting effect on both. I thank God for that. The times with Christ in these days have been unusually sweet.

God has designed this trial for my good and for your good. You can see this in 2 Corinthians 1:9, “Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.” And in 2 Corinthians 1:4-6, “He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God . . . If we are afflicted, it is for
your comfort and salvation.”

Please pray with John Piper the following:
“Lord, for your great glory, 1) don’t let me miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for me in this experience; 2) don’t let the people of Bethlehem miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for us in this; 3) grant that the surgery be successful in removing cancer and sparing important nerves; 4) grant that this light and momentary trial would work to spread a passion for you supremacy for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ; 5) may Noël and all close to me be given great peace—and all of this through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.”

From Owen's Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers...

2005-12-30T17:26:00.000-08:00

Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers:

What Mortification of Sin is Not
From Chapter 5:

(2.) I think I need not say it is not the dissimulation of a sin. When a man on some outward respects forsakes the practice of any sin, men perhaps may look on him as a changed man. God knows that to his former iniquity he hath added cursed hypocrisy, and is got in a safer path to hell than he was in before. He hath got another heart than he had, that is more cunning; not a new heart, that is more holy.

(3.) The mortification of sin consists not in the improvement of a quiet, sedate nature. Some men have an advantage by their natural constitution so far as that they are not exposed to such violence of unruly passions and tumultuous affections as many others are. Let now these men cultivate and improve their natural frame and temper by discipline, consideration, and prudence, and they may seem to themselves and others very mortified men, when, perhaps, their hearts are a standing sink of all abominations. Some man is never so much troubled all his life, perhaps, with anger and passion, nor doth trouble others, as another is almost every day; and yet the latter hath done more to the mortification of the sin than the former. Let not such persons try their mortification by such things as their natural temper gives no life or vigour to. Let them bring themselves to self-denial, unbelief, envy, or some such spiritual sin, and they will have a better view of themselves.

(4.) A sin is not mortified when it is only diverted. Simon Magus for a season left his sorceries; but his covetousness and ambition, that set him on work, remained still, and would have been acting another way. Therefore Peter tells him, “I perceive thou art in the gall of bitterness;” — “Notwithstanding the profession thou hast made, notwithstanding thy relinquishment of thy sorceries, thy lust is as powerful as ever in thee; the same lust, only the streams of it are diverted. It now exerts and puts forth itself another way, but it is the old gall of bitterness still.” A man may be sensible of a lust, set himself against the eruptions of it, take care that it shall not break forth as it has done, but in the meantime suffer the same corrupted habit to vent itself some other way; as he who heals and skins a running sore thinks himself cured, but in the meantime his flesh festereth by the corruption of the same humour, and breaks out in another place. And this diversion, with the alterations that attend it, often befalls men on accounts wholly foreign unto grace: change of the course of life that a man was in, of relations, interests, designs, may effect it; yea, the very alterations in men’s constitutions, occasioned by a natural progress in the course of their lives, may produce such changes as these. Men in age do not usually persist in the pursuit of youthful lusts, although they have never mortified any one of them. And the same is the case of bartering of lusts, and leaving to serve one that a man may serve another. He that changes pride for worldliness, sensuality for Pharisaism, vanity in himself to the contempt of others, let him not think that he hath mortified the sin that he seems to have left. He hath changed his master, but is a servant still.

2005-12-28T23:39:00.000-08:00

I recently came across a helpful link. Mark Dever at 9 Marks gives multiple 3-6minute answers on common questions that Pastors ask.
In just a few minutes you can hear valuable advice on a variety of subjects from one of the leading Pastors in America. Hope you find the same value that I have.

In Christ alone,
mike

The Sensuous Christian

2005-12-27T11:08:00.000-08:00

A quotation from R.C. Sproul's Knowing Scripture:

I have often been tempted to write a book by the title The Sensuous Christian.
The Sensuous Woman, The Sensuous, Man, The Sensuous Couple, The Sensuous
Divorcee, ad nauseam, all have become best sellers. Why not The Sensuaous
Christian? What is a sensuous Christian? One dictionary defines sensuous as,
"pertaining to the senses or sensible objects: highly susceptible to influence
through the senses." The sensuous Christian is one who lives by his feelings
rather than through his understanding of the Word of God. The sensuous Christian
cannot be moved to service, prayer or study unless he "feels like it." His
christian life is only as effective as the intensity of present feelings. When
he experiences spiritual euphoria, he is a whirlwind of Godly activity; when he
is depressed, he is a spiritual incompotent. He constantly seeks new and fresh
spiritual experiences and uses them to determine the Word of God. His "inner
feelings" become the ultimate test of truth. The sensuous Christian doesn't need
to study the Word of God because he already knows the will of God by his
feelings. He doesn't want to know God; he wants to experience him. The sensuous
Christian equates "childlike faith" with ignorance. He thinks that when the
Bible calls us to childlike faith it means a faith without content, a faith
without understanding. He doesn't know that the Bible says, "In evil be babes,
but in your thinking be mature" (1Cor 14:20). He doesn't realize that Paul tells
us again and again, "My beloved brethren, I would not have you ignorant" (see,
for example, Rom 11:25).

Couldn't agree more.

In Christ alone,
mike

Increased Respect for Josh

2005-12-19T23:28:00.000-08:00

I cannot begin to express the increase of respect I have for Josh Harris after posting and stating this Sunday (12-18-05).

'The Wrong Decision
I shared the following comments with my church this morning. Sometimes you learn the hard way, but I'm grateful for a patient congregation and the faithful wounds of friends.
"This year because Christmas morning falls on a Sunday I made the decision to replace our normal Sunday meeting with two Christmas Eve services. Since then I’ve come to believe that this was the wrong decision, informed by the wrong priorities. I made my decision primarily out of a desire to release the staff and volunteers from their normal service on teams like the parking crew and children’s ministry. What I failed to see is that next Sunday morning is an opportunity for us as a church to reaffirm the priority of gathering to worship as the people of God on the Lord’s day. It’s chance to state to ourselves and our families and our community that the worthiness of our God, not the convenience of the calendar dictates our worship. All that to say, that we’ve decided to hold a Christmas morning meeting next Sunday. We’re going to have one meeting at 11am that will be an hour long. This is going to be a very simple morning. We’re doing Sunday differently so that we can release our army of volunteers. There won’t be any children’s ministry, but feel free to come worship as a family.I apologize for my misjudgment and any inconvenience it causes you. And I thank you for your patience."'

WOW - Can't stop laughing

2005-12-14T02:06:00.000-08:00

LOL
I just read this over at purgatorio and could not stop laughing. If you know anything about Calvinism / Reformed Theology then this should make you crack up. The sad thing is when you understand why every joke is funny.

Even sadder ... I was able to do this one:

7. Without me giving last names, you still know who I'm referring to:

John
John
John
John
John
Jonathan
John
John
John

And I think someone has been talking to Katelyn:

1. For romantic occasions, you prefer to give/get

instead of

Katelyn might have told them about this one as well:

15. The word "Puritan" appears as a required character trait in your profile on

Now this was the laugh I needed. Time to go to sleep so I can wake up for my final tomorrow.

Philippians 2:3-11

2005-12-12T17:23:00.000-08:00

This week is finals week! Consequently, I do not have the time or energy to post anything too substantive. However, for one of my classes we have to memorize the following passage. It is a great passage and I can kill two birds with one stone by posting it here. I could post a lot about the Kenosis Theory or a bunch of other things. However, again, time and energy do not permit me to do so. Plus, I think there is a sense in which we should just look at this scripture and sit back and see the beauty of our Lord. Certainly, there is a time and a place for refuting nonsense like that heresy, but we musn't be inclinded to do this always.

³Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

⁴do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

⁵Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

⁶who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

⁷but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

⁸Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

⁹For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

¹⁰so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

¹¹and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Amen
mike

A day I thought I would never see...

2005-12-08T13:47:00.000-08:00

A day that I have not expected to come has finally arrived. It appears that there is actually going to be a legitamate discussion about the continuationist/cessationist debate. Tim Challies has managed to get some of the top speakers on both sides of the issue to agree to an interview. This week, representing the cessationists, is Dr. Sam Waldron. So far he has avoided the crucial mistake that nearly all cessationists make when beginning this discussion. Most feel inclined to jump to the abuses of the gifts (ie. Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, etc.) and thus taint the water. Waldron has not done so and for this I am very thankful.
Representing the Continuationists is Wayne Grudem. He is probably the leading expert in the continuationist camp and I expect nothing less than excellence from him. His interview will start next week.

I hope that this can be a first step in quality discussion between the camps.

For the record, I would probably closest align myself with John Piper or Robert Saucy. I reject the cessationist view but very carefully and cautiously approach the gifts.

In Christ alone,
mike

How to Teach and Preach Calvinism

2005-12-07T11:59:00.000-08:00

John Piper at Desiring God Ministry wrote a handy little article back in 1998 where he lists 10 ways that he thinks Calvinism should preached from the pulpit. I will dialogue with his comments:

1. Be rigorously textual in all your expositions and explanations and defenses of Calvinistic teachings. Make it a textual issue every time, not a logic issue or an experience issue.

In a sense this is how every issue should be. Doctrine should come solely from the text and we must use the Scriptures to validate all that is taught. Furthermore, we should never put experience or logic above the clear teaching of scripture. After laying the foundation with scripture then I think experiential illustrations and logical inferences can be helpful, but they should never be the main thrust of the argument.

2. Don't be strident but gentle. Assume that working these great issues through to conviction may take years and that being in process is OK.

I think most people who have been Calvinists for longer than six months realize this principle. This is something that most of us did not arrive at overnight and we should not expect others to make the journey quicker than we did.

3. Speak of your own brokenness in regard to these things and how they are precious to you and why and how they minister to your soul and help you live your life.

This is not in contradiction with number one (experience) because in this case the Pastor is not explaining or developing an idea from experience. Rather, after the scriptures have been preached, experiences and feelings should be explained and used to comfort and exhort the brethren.

4. Make Spurgeon and Whitefield your models rather than Owen or Calvin, because the former were evangelists and won many people to Christ in a way that is nearer to our own day.

I agree. I may stick Jonathan Edwards in there as a bridge between the two groups and point at him.

5. Be an evangelist and a missions mobilizer so that the criticism that Calvinism dulls a passion for the lost is put to silence.

This is an absolute essential. Some of the biggest criticisms of Calvinism would be removed if we simply "walked the talk".

6. Work the five points out from the "I" in tulip not the "U". That is, show people that they don't really want to take final credit for their coming to Christ. They don't want to stand before God at the judgment day and respond to the question, "Why did you believe and others with your opportunities didn't?" with the answer, "Well, I guess I was smarter, or more spiritual." They want to say, "By grace I was brought to faith." Which is "irresistible grace." That is, grace that triumphs over all resistance in the end.

This is probably my favorite suggestion. Starting with Grace and working backward toward election seems to be the best way to go. When you start with Election then it can sometimes become as man-centered as views we reject.

7. Out rejoice your critics. The one who knows and rests in the sovereign grace of God should be the happiest saint. Don't be a sour or glum or hostile false advertisement for the glory of God's grace. Praise it. Rejoice in it. And don't let that be a show. Do it in your closet until it is spilling over in the pulpit and the commons.

I think that this is my second favorite suggestion!

8. Don't ride hobbyhorses that aren't in the text. Preach exegetically, explaining and applying what is in the text. If it sounds Arminian, let it sound Arminian. Trust the text and the people will trust you to be faithful to the text.

Yes! We must not ride hobby horses or the church begins to follow a pastor rather than Christ. When coming to a difficult text then it must be preached faithfully. Difficult texts need to be preached in a way that they can be explained to the congregation without contradicting other passages. However, if one finds themself so having to twist a passage to make it fit into a theological construct - then possibly their understanding of the passage is wrong.

9. Avoid theological jargon that is not in the text. The word "Calvinism" is probably not helpful. "Doctrines of grace" may not do it either. Just stick with what is there in the text, or come up with some new striking phrases that will cause the people to wonder and be excited.

I agree with the first part. Sermons are traditionally expository preaching on a given passage. They are not systematic theologies and therefore names like this probably do not help. As for making up new phrases to make people "wonder and be excited", I'm not sure I understand what he is getting at.

10. Tell stories and experiences from biography and from the lives of living saints that illustrate their dependence on the sovereignty of God. Especially stories related to missions and evangelism and holiness of life.

I happen to love biographies of saints so I give this suggestion two thumbs up!

In Christ alone,
mike

John 3:16, 6 and 10

2005-12-02T15:48:00.000-08:00

Interestingly, John 3:16 is one of the most often quoted passages to "refute" Calvinism. I suspect that at least part of the reason is due to biblical literacy. In any even, the passage states:
For God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten (or One and Only) son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.

It is amazing to me how different people will look at the same verse and notice completely different things. For some reason it seems that Arminians look at this passage and see some sort of Libertarian Free Will. However, is this what this passage teaches? Here are the affirmations that are made:
God Loved the world
God Gave his Son
Whoever believes will not perish
Whoever believes will have everlasting life.

"Whosoever believes" seems to be the key phrase that Arminians cling to. They have concluded that the word "whosoever" implies that Anyone can believe. However, is this what the verse says? Is this the intention of the verse? No! The verse simply teaches that whomever believes will be saved. There is nothing either way about who can and who cannot believe.

However, there is a passage in John that does explain who can come to Jesus. Sadly, this is not the passage that Arminians would like to quote. Nevertheless, in an attempt to convey what scripture truly does teach on the matter, we must look at John's words. An interesting syllogism presents itself when several verses are considered.

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” ( 6:37)
”… no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." ( 6:65)

As we did with John 3, let us consider the statements of these verses. For the sake of logical clarity, I will work backward.

No person can Come to Jesus unless it is Granted by the Father

Every person whom the Father does Grant will indeed come to Jesus.

Every person Who does Come to Jesus will never be cast out.

The Arminian is in a difficult position when he considers this text. What is the difference between people who believe and people who do not believe? It is not that some are more intelligent, some are more humble, some are more religiously inclined, etc. Rather, it is that some belief has been granted by the father and others have not.

John records Jesus teaching the same principle in Chapter 10:

²⁵Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, ²⁶but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. ²⁷My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

What is the stated reason for their lack of belief? Again, they are not part of Jesus' flock. Rather, those whom are his Sheep do hear his foice and they know Him and follow him. In return, Jesus gives them eternal life.

Am I trying to insinuate that We do not choose Jesus but Jesus chooses us? Absolutely. Consider Jesus' own words in John 15:
"¹⁶You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

Returning to John 3, is "whosoever believes" a suggestion that anyone may come to belief? Absolutely not. Rather, If we believe it is only because it has been granted to us becuase we were chosen:
⁷For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

All that we have, including our belief, comes from God (see also Eph 2:8-9. Rejoice in this great truth!

Eph 2
⁴But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, ⁵even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved

In Christ alone,

mike

Arminian Grace

2005-12-01T17:50:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite Blogs to read is Tim Challies'. I found, and am now stealing, something that I found from his site. I believe he took it from some internet site so I do not have the original link.

Arminian Grace - To the Tune of Amazing Grace

Arminian "grace!" How strange the sound,
Salvation hinged on me.
I once was lost then turned around,
Was blind then chose to see.

What "grace" is it that calls for choice,
Made from some good within?
That part that wills to heed God's voice,
Proved stronger than my sin.

Thru many ardent gospel pleas,
I sat with heart of stone.
But then some hidden good in me,
Propelled me toward my home.

When we've been there ten thousand years,
Because of what we've done,
We've no less days to sing our praise,
Than when we first begun.

(With apologies to John Newton)

This may be more against the Semi- Pelagians than Arminians but I think that it applies in some sense to all of the libertarian theologies. In any case, it is not meant as a treatise against Libertarianism. It is meant as a little light hearted dig at some of our Arminian friends.

In Christ alone,
Thanks to His Amazing Grace,

mike

Free CD by John Piper

2005-11-30T15:02:00.000-08:00

MonergismBooks is now offering free CDs by John Piper. A special thanks should also be given to Desiring God ministry for providing the material. The CDs are free except for a $5 shipping fee. Having listened to two of the CDs, I can assure you that they are all worth the 5 dollars. I believe that currently you may only get 1 CD.

Here are the four options:

John Piper's TULIP Seminar &
Sermons Series Romans 7-9

I advise against this one since Piper's sermons on Romans are free of charge already at Desiring God.

Men of Whom The World Was Not Worthy
These are the biographies for the Bethlehem Pastors conference from 1988-2005. This is the one that I got and I am very happy with it.

History of the Reformation by Tom Browning MP3 CD & Life Together: What is a Reformed Church?
I have listened to the Reformation History by Browning portion of the CD and found it very valuable.

Three of John Piper's most valuable Sermon Series. With Bonus Sermons on the Pleasures of God NEW!
This has a total of 28 sermons on it. Since Piper is almost always fantastic, I am sure that this is no exception.

Also, as always is the case with Desiring God, you may freely copy the material and give it to your friends so long as you do not alter it or charge for it. I believe they also want it to say something about Desiring God.org and John Piper.

I strongly recommend this as a valuable addition to your MP3 Library.

If you are interested then you can click here to look at the four options!

In Christ alone,
mike

Double Jeopardy by Owen

2005-11-26T22:48:00.000-08:00

One popular argument was first articulated (that I know of) by John Owen, the famous puritan. He is one of the most difficult people to read but it is worth the exercise. The argument is labled by some as Double Jeopardy and can be found in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Here is the argument.

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment
for,
either:

1) All the sins of all men.
2) All the sins of some
men, or
3) Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be
said:

1) That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for,
and so, none are saved.
2) That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world,
and this is the truth.
3) But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from
the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer,
"Because of unbelief."

I ask,
Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it
be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

There are some counter-arguments to this argument and I may post those in my next entry. However, for the time being, this will serve as an introduction to A) Particular Atonement and B) John Owen.

In Christ alone,

mike

Paul to the Ephesians Part 3

2005-11-21T22:16:00.000-08:00

Ephesians 4

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, 22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, 23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another. 26 BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not give the devil an opportunity. 28 He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need. 29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. 30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Paul to the Ephesians Part 2

2005-11-20T19:58:00.000-08:00

Chapter 2

11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Chapter 3
3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. 4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

7 of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. 8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. 20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

Paul to the Ephesians Part 1

2005-11-18T12:09:00.000-08:00

Chapter 1
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us.

11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

Chapter 2
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

2005-11-16T12:45:00.000-08:00

The Christmas Story: Has Everyone Been so Wrong?

As the holiday season draws near, one can expect to see many "Christmas Story" productions by local churches. Granted, we may very well see less this year than ever before due to our beloved friends over at the ACLU. Nevertheless, the Christmas story well be done across the country.
Occasionally the church has been guilty to holding to traditions, even when these contradict the teaching of the Scriptures. This is certainly not a new problem. The Pharisees were guilty when Jesus came on the scene. The Roman's were guilty on many accounts. I would say that as Protestants we are guilty with respect to the "Christmas Story".

An Evaluation of Luke 2:

First, Joseph and Mary were going to Bethlehem. This is very common knowledge, but a little background information goes a long way. Bethlehem was a very small town that is completely out of the way (at least 3 days journey from Judea). It can easily be concluded that there were not any Motel 6 or Holiday Inns that were packed from all of the visitors. A place like this would have absolutely no need for such accomodations. Mary and Joseph were not going down Hotel Road looking for a place to stay.

Second, they were traveling back to Jerusalem because he was of the house of David. Joseph would have had family here. One of the differences between ancient Jewish culture and our culture is the emphasis on family. In some senses, it may be equated to many Asian cultures of our time. People generally stayed in the same place, took care of their family, etc. Joseph would have certainly been returning to a city where he knew most, if not all, of the people.

Third, verse six: "While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth." Joseph and Mary did not arrive and give birth within 10 minutes. In fact, they did not even give birth the same night. Rather, they arrived and after an unspecified amount of days, Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Fourth, there is absolutely no mention of a stable. Jesus was not born in a stable. The reason this view has developed over time is that Jesus was placed in a "manger". This is where some history is in order. Extensive study has been done of late and scholars have basically concluded that Animals and People both lived inside of the same house. One end of the house would be the normal living quarters while the other would have steps leading down to where the Animals lived. The steps would go down about 4 feet so that the animals could live down there and then stick their necks up and drink out of the manger (which was up on the level of the living quarters. This lower portion (where the animals lived) had a gate so that they could be let out during the day and then at night they would return to the house for protection. So then, the typical Jewish house would have a place for animals that came up to about a 4-6ft wall that had mangers. There would then be steps that led up to the living part of the house.

Fifth, is the word that is translated "there is no room in the inn". This is where English really hurts us. The Greek word is "Kataluma" and properly means "lodging place" or "guest room". As an example, the same author uses this same word in Luke 22:11: ""And you shall say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"'

In light of all of this, we can now draft a somewhat more accurate Christmas story.

Joseph and Mary were returning to their small hometowm of Bethlehem. Since it was time for the Census, there was not any room in the guest room of their family's house. So rather than having a bedroom the two had to lodge in the open area of the house (similar to a modern Family Room or Living Room). After several days, Mary gave birth to her baby and used an emptied manger as a crib for her child.

Small differences? Maybe. If they are small then we should have no problem adjusting our Christmas presentations. However, I have a feeling that this tradition is impressed upon our minds and it will be hard to divorce ourselves from it. So then, the question remains: How committed are we to keeping the Scriptures in their proper place?

2005-11-15T14:38:00.000-08:00

Seminary?

At Biola there was a Seminary Fair today. Several of the big name schools were out and about looking to recruit. I came away with about 4 pens and a host of resources. However, at the end of the day, I still feel no closer to knowing what school I want to attend. Here is a brief list of some of the schools that I am considering.

Westminster Theological Seminary (Picture on Right)

This school has fantastic faculty and is known for producing top-notch scholastics. The school holds very strictly to the Westminster Confession of Faith (which can be viewed here). The school seems to be very rigorous which is something that attracts me. One concern is that Westminster is located in Philadelphia (Cold and Far!) and they do not provide very many scholarships. The other concern is that I do not agree with the WCF/Presbyterians on baptism. Then again, there are very few schools that I would agree with entirely.

Westminster Seminary California

This Westminster is a cousin of the previous entry. This school does not have quite the faculty (although it is still excellent). WSCal is a good option if I am looking at Pastoral/Minsterial work. The advantage is that it is not too far away (San Diego area) and possibly more conservative than the larger school.

Reformed Theological Seminary

The Jackson, Mississippi and Orlando, Florida capuses both look appealing. The advantage here is that it is another solid reformed seminary. This isn't necessarily a top choice among the Reformed schools but it is certainly one that I will look into.

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

I have heard mixed reviews from this school. Several people have noted that the professors are a mixed bag with some being extremely good and others not as good. Probably this is a reality at most schools, but it may be moreso at this seminary. Nevertheless, I have heard many good things about GCTS so I will consider it as an option.

Talbot School of Theology

This school has solid faculty and is another great option for the pastoral route. Advantage is that I test out of a lot of units (from attending Biola) and that I know several of the professors already. One concern is the Dispensational Theology that is continuously pushed. However, Saucy and company have taken great strides towards the Reformed view.

Dallas Theological Seminary

Whenever considering Seminary, one must almost necessarily consider Dallas. Dallas puts out an amazing amount of quality scholarship every year. Nevertheless, if I were looking into a Dispensational Seminary then I would probably go to Talbot.

Wheaton College Graduate School

This is a big name school in the Evangelical world and definitely has an appeal. One concern is the lack of M.Div program (It is a graduate school and not a seminary). However, for the scholastic route this may not be a bad option. Wheaton has produced some top-notch scholars. However, it would seem that Talbot would be just as good without the distance.

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

This school has the same Statement of Faith as my home church. It looks to have many of the benefits of Wheaton with the Divinity program. Nevertheless, this is probably not one of my top choices at all, despite the solid programs and respect in the evangelical world.

There are probably other possibilities, but at this point these are the schools that have caught my eye for one reason or another.

2005-11-14T13:13:00.000-08:00

Jesus' Seeker Sensitive Sermon!

John 8:31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." 33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free '?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. 37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 "I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father." 39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. 41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. 43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." 48 The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" 49 Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. 50 "But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. 51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death." 52 The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.' 53 "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?" 54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; 55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Wow can you even imagine what that would look like.? He called them liars, sons of satan, not real descendents of Abraham, and even murderers by implication. Beyond that, he claims that they do not know God (remember this is the Pharisees and the Scribes) and even ascribes diety to himself (clear allusion to Exo 3:14). He alienated his audience, criticized them, and then claimed that they did not understand the message because of themselves! Wow! Let us never change the message to fit who we are speaking to; let us never dull truth to pander to our audience. Let us be bold men and women who follow in the example of our Lord. Granted, some may take this to the wrong extreme and think that we just exist to call people names like Jesus. Jesus did far more than that and a brief glance at scripture reveals such. However, if in our culture we are going to err one way or the other, I think we are far more likely to fall towards "tollerance" -our 11th commandment.

2005-11-11T01:01:00.000-08:00

I am still figuring out exactly what I think of this open letter by Michael Spencer. He laments the fact that he made a decision so long ago to enter the ministry. He looks at some of the problems it has caused for himself, wife and children. While he presents many valid points and important warnings, the letter seems to leave you wanting to disagree with him on some points. In any case, it is a very transparent and humble piece by a fellow that I do not always agree with. It is certainly worth the long read. See With Regrets, All my Love

2005-11-09T16:38:00.000-08:00

Reformers in need of Reforming

For those who receive TableTalk magazine from Ligonier Ministries, you know that this month's theme is "No Strings Atached: What Reformed Theology is Not". This edition does a decent job of looking at some of the misconceptions and misunderstandings of Reformed soteriology. However, my favorite part of the edition is the three articles at the end which are exhortations, possibly even rebukes, for those who already hold to Reformed beliefs. The main point is that often the invalid criticisms launched at Calvinists are sadly validated by the way in which we live. I will include some of the portions I found most beneficial as well as some personal commentary:

The first article is by Kenneth Jones, Pastor from Greater Union Baptist church in Compton, CA and co-host of White Horse Inn Radio.
In "Truly Reformed" he argues that "on the whole there is no shortage of good preaching and teaching in Reformed circles." "In addition," he continues, "there are conferences, books and a host of other resources out there." However, he asks the piercing question: "Is reading and hearing enough?" James, inspired by God, warns his readers that if we hear without doing then we are merely deceiving ourselves. Jones makes the point that knowing why Arminians are wrong is never an excuse not to evangelize. For those who truly comprehend the doctrines of Grace, it should never be said that we do not evangelize. Proclaiming the truth around the world should be of utmost importance. Few could dare look at Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Packer, Kennedy, Piper, etc. and claim that "Calvinist don't think Evangelism is important". Yet, this is the very cry that is echoed every time this weighty matter is addressed. Possibly it is our own failures which are causing the confusion. Possibly this is a log in our eye that must be removed before we can surgically remove that speck.

The concluding article of this edition is by Albert Mohler Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His article, "Reforming our Mission" leaves the reader with this thought:
"Remember these witenesses the next time you hear that Reformed theology leads to a lessening of evangelistic commitment. Those who know that God saves and the purpose for which He saves, should be the most eager and faithful witnesses to see others come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Uncommitted to evangelism? That is what Reformed theology is not."
This is certainly said better than I could hope to muster so I will leave his words to speak for themselves.

My last concern is with personal piety. It is this very issue that led Wesley to vehemently oppose the doctrines of grace. Many have charged that Calvinist theology gives people a license to sin. While there is no truth to this claim, it is a claim that we should expect whenever Grace is boldly proclaimed. For example, the Apostle Paul in Romans shows the depravity of man and finally the grace of God. The 5th chapter of Romans ends with "Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more". Calvinists preach the very same grace. However, Arminians then call it a license to sin. We should have expected this. Paul certainly did! He continues in chapter 6, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue to sin so that grace may abound? May it never be!" Martain Lloyd-Jones is known for saying that if we are never accused of preaching antinomianism (Grace as License for Sin) then we are not preaching true Grace.
Having said that, Calvinists still face this charge daily. Why? I would dare to suggest that possibly we know the indicative statements of Romans 6 so well (We have been united with Him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shll also be in His ressurection, Etc.) that we have forgotten the imperatives (and do not go on presenting the members of your body as sin, etc). Oh, how I charge us all with the same exhortation Paul gave many years ago: "Present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship". We preach so passionately the doctrines of grace, as we should, for the glory of God, but it must never be that we forget to glorify God with our bodies.

In Christ alone,
mike

2005-11-08T08:06:00.000-08:00

Philippians - Selected quotations

Wow, is it any wonder why this short book is quoted so often? Simply amazing!

Chapter 1
⁶And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

⁹And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, ¹⁰so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, ¹¹filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

¹⁷What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

²¹For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

Chapter 2
⁵Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, ⁶who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. ⁸And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

⁹Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Chapter 3
⁷But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. ⁸Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- ¹⁰that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, ¹¹that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

¹²Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. ¹³Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, ¹⁴I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

²⁰But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Chapter 4
⁴Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice.

⁶do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. ⁷And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

¹¹Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. ¹²I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. ¹³I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

2005-10-31T16:55:00.000-08:00

Happy Reformation Day!

It is my true conviction that this day,1517, God used a man by the name of Martain Luther to spark what resulted in the restoration of the Gospel. We needed a Reformation those hundreds of years ago and I believe we need one today. May we all be as bold and yet fearful as that great man. Let us all return to our knees and ask for a revival greater than the Reformation, yea, greater even than that at Pentecost.

In Christ alone,
mike

2005-10-26T12:39:00.000-07:00

What does he mean when he says he is Reformed?
This question has been directed to me several times and I think for good reason. The term “Reformed Theology” has several different meanings, and upon asking three different people, one may come away with three different answers. My goal will be to outline what is commonly meant by “Reformed Theology”.

First, it is important to note that Reformed Theology can relate to three different fields of study. Typically, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology are discussed. While this is generically true, the main component has been Soteriology and thus it is common to discuss “Reformed Theology” and only mention Soteriology. As such, a person can properly call themselves “Reformed” if in fact they only hold to one of the three tenets.
Having said that, let’s examine the three fields:

Soteriology – This is the Doctrine of Salvation.
The reformed view is often referred to as the “Doctrines of Grace” or “TULIP”. The acronym can be helpful for remembering the distinctions (although the terms have led to some misunderstandings). Nevertheless, here are the five key components:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Ecclesiology – This is the Doctrine of the church (specifically relating to the connection with Israel).
The Reformed position is often either called “Covenant Theology” or “Replacement Theology”. In summary, this position holds that Israel is expanded to include the church and that there is not a distinction between the peoples of God. Rather, there is one people of God, namely the Church (which Includes Israel). This position does not rule out a future moving of ethnic Jews, but sees True Israel and the Church as one body. This position believes that there are only 2 Covenants (of Works and of Grace) rather than the 3 or 7 often expressed in Dispensational thought.

Eschatology – This is the doctrine of the End times.
The Reformed position has typically been amillennial. This view holds that there is no future, earthly reign of Christ for one-thousand years. Rather, it classically has held to a Spiritual millennium with a Spiritual ruling and reigning of our Lord. Furthermore, it sees the promises to Israel fulfilled in the church (thus alleviating any need for a future earthly millennium).

Now, it is so important that I will repeat myself. Not all people who would consider themselves reformed agree with all points. The prime indicator is one’s soteriology. A so-called “5-Point” Calvinist is a Reformed believer (with respect to their soteriology). After that, Ecclesiology and Eschatology often go together (in reality they are inseparably linked).

Lastly, it should be noted that those who reject Reformed Ecclesiology are often not 5-point Calvinists. Typically Dispensationalists (these folks do see a difference between Israel and the Church) have been self-professed 4-point Calvinists (Normal Geisler is an example). While this is typically the case, there is nothing necessarily in the system of though, for Dispensationalists, which forces them out of Reformed Soteriology. John MacArthur is a prime example. While holding a dispensational view, he is very much a 5-point Calvinist (I believe he adopted the Limited Atonement view around 1998).

Hopefully that has been of some help,
mike

2005-10-24T22:47:00.000-07:00

The critical question for our generation - and for every generation - is this: If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ was not there?

God is the Gospel by John Piper. Pg. 15.
For this book check out his site.

Great quote from a great man who has written yet another great book!

2005-10-19T16:33:00.000-07:00

Evangelism in Reformed Theology?
Whenever the topic of Reformed Theology is discussed, particularly when discussing the Providence of God, one of the ensuing questions inevitably relates to Evangelism or Prayer. It is my purpose to briefly address the issue of Evangelism.

It is, of course, ironic that it is at this point that the Libertarian chooses to launch his attacks. Personal piety, prayer, or evangelism are often the targets. Yet, it is at these points, that Reformers have flourished. Who can consider Evangelism and not think of Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, Bunyan, Spurgeon, or any of the other classic Reformed men. Modern names also confirm this trend. John Piper is best known by some for his missions emphasis. Dr. James Kennedy is the founder of Evangelism Explosion! More and more names could be mentioned. Whenever you see a true Reformed Theologian, there also you see an Evangelist.

"Yes, Yes! I know" interrupts the Arminian, "Many Calvinists have had a great desire to preach the message to the lost. This does not mean that they are being consistent." So then, we must address why it is the Calvinist feels the need and desire to preach the gospel.

The Libertarian charges the Calvinist with having a doctrine that shows no need for Evangelism. They say, "If God determines who will be saved, then it necessarily follows that there is no need for you to evangelize." In one sense they are very much correct. Unlike the Arminian, the Calvinist is quick to point out that God is not dependant on his creation for his purposes. If any given person is not saved, "it is not as though the word of God has failed" (Rom 9:6). God does not sit upon his thrown and hope that a person at a Missions Conference is guilted into traveling to India where he may freely choose to speak to PersonA who may freely choose to "accept" Jesus. God is not a passive bystander who is subject to the whims of fallen human beings. In this respect, it is certainly correct that there is not a "need", at least by God, for anyone to Evangelize.

However, simply because God is not under compulsion to use Humans to reach the world, does not mean that he does not use his creation as instruments for his purpose. Where God has elected for an Ethiopian Eunuch to be saved, He has also elected a Philip to go out into the desert and preach the gospel (see Acts 8). Where God has elected a Paul to be saved, he has also elected an Ananias to go to him (see Acts 9).

In Romans 8, Paul beautifully lays out the reconciliation mission of our God. He says, "For those whom He foreknew (please note that it does not say "foreknew would come to faith), He also Predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and those whom he called, He also justified; and those whom he justified, He also glorified." This is an entirely Theocentric picture of Salvation and it must be where we begin. However, let us never ignore Romans 10 which explains how God changes the heart of the reprobate: "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent?"

Far be it from the Calvinist to suggest that God does not use Evangelism. Far be it from the Calvinist to believe that Missions are unimportant. At the same time, far be it from the Calvinist to say that it is We who save, We who Call, or We who change the hearts of men. God does not need us. If God was hungry, he would not tell us. If God wanted a man saved, he need not commission us. Yet he does! God uses his fallen, stained creation to bring about a perfect and holy plan. With this realization, namely the fact that God chooses to use us for His plan, the Calvinist can impact the world with humility and thankfulness to God.

Furthermore, he can approach missions with a confidence that Salvation does not rest on his ability or with his wise words to change the heart of a man. Rather, he plants or waters, but God alone causes the growth.

It is this hope and humility, which are inextricably linked, that the Calvinist preaches the Gospel. Never would one claim that God is in need of us to evangelize for Him. Never would one claim that it is in our ability that a man comes to saving faith. But, ever so boldly and confidently can the Calvinist proclaim the gospel around the nations for we trully believe that "it is the power of God for Salvation."