Every Thought, Every Word

Change of Heart

2006-12-08T16:05:00.000-05:00

Well, I am going to take a break from blogging (news flash there), but not just because I'm too busy. I have always been of the opinion that we always have time for what we really want to do. I am simply unconvinced that I am meeting my objectives for this blog. I wanted to write first and foremost for the people to whom I minister in my local church. I have found that there are more effective ways to write for them. What of the millions of bloggers? Who will write for them? I have no doubt they will find many other more interesting and more helpful things to read online.

The lack of cogent argumentation and careful analysis online has soured me on the idea of blogging as a reliable method of learning and interaction. Probably the most helpful facet of writing online is the ready access to criticism, quickly available and in massive quantities. Unfortunately, not all criticism is equally valuable, because one must consider the source (not a popular opinion in these days of "anybody's opinion is as worthwhile as another's").

If one does not have a crusade, better returns on one's investment of time and trouble can be had than blogging. And so I bid farewell, not unhappily, to blogging as a ministry tool. Consider it tried and found wanting.

Doesn't Have the Same Ring to It

2006-07-06T08:55:00.000-04:00

A phrase sometimes used for heaven in popular Christian music is "Beulah land." Upon hearing a song sung a few weeks ago that used this term, I did a quick search for "Beulah" in the ESV on my Pocket PC. Imagine my surprise when the search returned no hits! Confused, I tried my search again in the King James and found Isaiah 62:4. I returned to the ESV to try to figure out what was wrong with a translation that would leave out "Beulah land"!

You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the Lord delights in you,
and your land shall be married.

Again, speaking of the restoration of national Israel, God promises his people that they will no longer be called "Forsaken" (Hebrew, azubah), as in an unmarried and unloved woman. Instead, she would be called "My Delight is in Her" (Hebrew, hephzibah). Israel's land (key to these promises, as I noted in a previous post) would no longer be called "Desolate" (Hebrew, shemamah), but instead, it would be known as "Married" (Hebrew, beulah).

In other words, this verse points out with a dramatic comparison the coming judgment and future restoration of Israel and her land. Because of her sin, Israel was judged and "forsaken" by her God, and removed from her land, which God allowed to become desolate. Isaiah prophesies of a coming day of restoration when God would once again delight in his people and restore them to their land.

It is interesting that even the King James translates the second occurance of beulah as "married" ("thy land shall be married"). So why sing about "Beulah land" instead of heaven? I guess "heaven" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

“My Name is Written on His Hands”

2006-07-05T17:01:00.001-04:00

One of my very favorite hymns is Charles Wesley's "Arise, My Soul, Arise." The first verse says this:

Arise, my soul, arise; shake off thy guilty fears;
The bleeding sacrifice in my behalf appears:
Before the throne my surety stands,
Before the throne my surety stands,
My name is written on His hands.

I came across Isaiah 49:16a the other day, which is the basis for the last line of that stanza. "Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands. . . ." I was a little bit disappointed when I went back and looked at the surrounding context. Just a brief survey finds that "I" is God speaking to "you" people of Israel ("his people," v. 13). In light of the second half of the book of Isaiah (chaps. 40–66), God is promising to restore his people in a very literal and tangible way. In fact, the second half of verse sixteen and verse seventeen record the significance of God's people, national Israel, being engraved on his hands: "Your walls are continually before me. Your builders make haste; your destroyers and those who laid you waste go out from you." God is promising to restore Israel and rebuild Jerusalem, no matter how long it takes or how unlikely it appears. He will fulfill the promises he has made to his covenant people.

While not wanting to be too hard on Charles Wesley, who has given us some magnificent hymn texts, the imagery of being "written on God's hands" does not specifically apply to the church saint. However, we enjoy even better promises. If God gave up his own Son for us, what would he possibly withhold from us? If God has acquitted us, in what chance of "double jeopardy" do we stand? If God's Son has paid our debt with his death and now stands interceding for us at God'’s right hand, who would dare to condemn us? What could possibly remove us from God'’s favor?

"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died——more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" (Rom 8:32–25a).

Why Animal Sacrifices?

2006-07-05T15:26:00.000-04:00

I have written before about the Old Testament sacrifices. The question we might legitimately pose is why did God ordain this intricate system of animal sacrifices? What purpose did it serve?

Theologically speaking, a sacrifice provided atonement. It allowed the offerer access to God. An animal sacrifice was the only way God revealed in the Old Testament for a person to approach him. Even the burnt offering, a freewill display of personal worship required atonement (Lev 1:4).

From a very practical standpoint, the animal sacrifices provided for the material needs of the priests and Levites. God did not give the priestly tribe of Levi any land as an inheritance during the land allotment; God told them that he would be their inheritance (Num 18:20). He provided for them through the tithe (Num 18:26), but also through the sacrificial system itself. Notice Leviticus 7:7–10.

"The guilt offering is just like the sin offering; there is one law for them. The priest who makes atonement with it shall have it. And the priest who offers any man’s burnt offering shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering that he has offered. And every grain offering baked in the oven and all that is prepared on a pan or a griddle shall belong to the priest who offers it. And every grain offering, mixed with oil or dry, shall be shared equally among all the sons of Aaron."

Parts of each of the offerings went to the priests, remunerating them physically for their spiritual ministry. In the burnt offering, while all the flesh of the animal was burned up on the altar, the hide went to the offering priest (Lev 7:8). The part of the meal offering that was not offered up (but “waved” or “heaved”) was eaten by the priest (Lev 7:9–10). The priests and Levites shared in the common meal following the peace offering (Deut 12:18). The meat of the sin and guilt offerings went entirely to the priest, along with the additional fifth of the restitution from the guilt offering (Lev 7:7).

The Day and the Night

2006-06-22T09:19:00.000-04:00

When I was younger, I was often fearful at night. Noises, strange sounds, and my own over-active imagination conspired against me. What a blessing to know that our God does not "sign off" at night—in fact, both the day and the night belong to him!

"Yours is the day, yours also the night;
you have established the heavenly lights and the sun" (Ps 74:16).

The Need for an Interpreter

2006-06-19T18:11:00.000-04:00

God has revealed himself in many ways throughout history. The Bible records many channels of God's self-revelation, such as nature, the image of God in man, direct and audible revelation, God's people, the Bible, and Jesus Christ Himself. In addition, God has revealed himself through mighty acts, both providential and miraculous. Each of these channels faces limitations from a human perspective, as you might expect when an infinite God reveals himself through finite means.

In these days, there is much emphasis placed on God's mighty acts. "Signs and wonders" are seen as proof positive that God is working in a specific assembly or that an individual has been "baptized with the Holy Spirit." However, there is one question that is regularly left unanswered: how does one know that these happenings are signs from God? And how does one know what message from God these signs are meant to communicate?

The answer could be one of any number of possibilities: some might say they "just know" while others might point to some sort of continuity with Jesus and the apostle's ministry in the New Testament. But the problem remains: without an authoritative interpreter from God, the mighty act would go unnoticed or be misinterpreted.

Take for example, the voice from heaven in John 12: Jesus said, "Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him" (John 12:28–29). Notice what happened here: God revealed himself through a mighty act, a miraculous voice from heaven that communicated the authenticity of Jesus as the Son of God. However, while the disciples heard and understood the voice (as evidenced by John's authoritative interpretation of the event), the people standing around misinterpreted God's mighty act. Some thought it was the voice of an angel. Others looked up at the sky wondering why there was a sudden rumble of thunder. The powerful self-revelation of God was lost because of their misinterpretation.

Therefore, when one claims that God has revealed himself in a mighty act, he presumes to act as authoritative interpreter of God's revelation. Along the same lines, those who claim that God is speaking to them through circumstances (God's providential working) also place themselves as authoritative interpreters of God's revelation. It seems that taking this upon oneself is rather presumptuous. I am convinced that biblical prophets were aware that God was speaking through them and thus prophesied with boldness and confidence; can those who claim to experience God's mighty acts speak with the same confidence? By what do they presume to do so?

Don't Sweat the Mint and Rue?

2006-06-19T09:50:00.000-04:00

Many label those who have extra-biblical personal standards as Pharisees. This Pharisaism, they continue, was denounced by Jesus. This legalism was condemned by Paul. The only truly holy way to live the Christian life is without any standards. Standards are a demonstration of weakness and spiritual immaturity.

Certainly, if people believe that they will be saved or "more saved" by certain practices or taboos, Scripture is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Nothing can make a believer more or less saved.

However, to say that Jesus condemned the Pharisees because of their rules is a false statement. Consider Luke 11:43: "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." According to some, Jesus ought not have uttered that last sentence. He should have said, "You should have paid attention to justice and the love of God and not worried about all those rules and regulations."

Why would Jesus have said this? The reason was that the Pharisees were obeying God's Law. They were doing what God had commanded. In fact, they were obeying God scrupulously. Remember Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount: "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). Jesus never condemned the Pharisees' righteous deeds and desire for holiness.

However, their zeal for the Law (Rom 10:1–3) eclipsed their love for God. They majored on the minors to the neglect of the majors. They "cleansed the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside [they were] full of greed and wickedness" (Luke 11:39). Jesus' answer to their wrong priorities was to set God as first and to obey him from the heart, motivating their scrupulous devotion to obedience.

Personal standards do not necessarily mean someone is a Pharisee. And Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for their rules; he condemned their neglect of God's justice and love. We must be careful not to compartmentalize our lives and be inconsistent in our obedience. As Paul said, we must "let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly" (Col 3:16).

Hosanna? What's the Big Deal?

2006-05-26T14:13:00.000-04:00

Have you ever wondered what was so bad about the crowds shouting "Hosanna" as Jesus rode into Jerusalem in Matthew 21? Matthew records that as Jesus entered the city, "Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!'" (Matt 21:8–9). This infuriated the chief priest and scribes (vv. 15–16), who demanded that Jesus order the people to stop.

But what was so maddening about hosanna? If we knew the Old Testament as well as the Jewish religious leaders did, we wouldn't even need to ask. In the 118th Psalm, the the Davidic King praises God for his enduring, loyal love (vv. 1–4). When God's people, the nation of Israel, are being afflicted by their enemies, they can trust in God's care and expect his deliverance (vv. 5–21). God's king (the anointed Davidic king) expects to be vindicated as his trust is in God, returning victorious through God's help. In light of this, the psalmist looks forward to rejoicing in God's salvation and calls for God's deliverance and salvation (vv. 22–26). The result of God's deliverance is thanksgiving and worship coming from his people Israel (vv. 27–29).

You may still be wondering what "hosanna" has to do with Psalm 118. The word hosanna is a transliteration of the Hebrew words that are translated "Save us, we pray" in verse 25. You'll also notice that the crowd in Matthew 21:9 also quoted the following verse in Psalm 118: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" (v. 26a).

The problem the priest and scribes had was that the people were affirming that Jesus was the Christ, the anointed Davidic king whom God had promised to send. They were agreeing with Jesus' claim that he was the Messiah. They were celebrating the very claim for which the religious leaders would crucify Jesus within the week.

A Problem with Man's Sovereignty

2006-05-23T15:47:00.000-04:00

I cheerfully affirm the sovereignty of God in all things, even man's salvation. Some feel that this is a major problem, absolving me of the responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel (which charge I categorically deny) and making man into some sort of fatalistic robot (which charge I, along with the apostle Paul also deny— see Romans 9:19–20).

The sticky point about sovereignty is that it is exclusive. If God is sovereign, then all things must be under his control. There is no such thing as some sort of "limited sovereignty." If it is limited, then he is no longer sovereign. Imagine an employer telling an employee, "You have complete freedom to do whatever you want, but you must run all decisions past me for approval." Similarly, if God must have his decrees approved by man's "free will," he is not sovereign, man is.

The sovereignty of man is not a problem for many. In fact, many build their presentation of the Gospel upon this assumption. However, this point of view seems to fail to take into consideration God's judgment of the wicked. Most would affirm the existence and reality of eternal punishment (in fact, this is why man should choose God— he should evaluate heaven and hell, and pull the lever and vote for the right choice). However, when man is sovereign, we are left with a bad taste in our mouth when God condemns people to eternal punishment just for making the wrong choice. And why can't they make the right choice later when they know better (as they stand before God)?

A few years ago, I was listening to a series of books on tape. The series was a fictional depiction of what might happen following the Rapture. For the most part, the events seemed to line up well with the biblical data. However, the writers adopted the sovereignty of man as the determining factor in salvation, which fact was repeatedly emphasized throughout the series of books. I endured this for the first several books, but I finally reached the breaking point when the Antichrist was standing before Jesus Christ.

I was appalled as the writer depicted Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, almost apologetic as he consigned the Beast to eternal punishment. I don't remember the exact wording anymore, but it was something to the effect of "You had so much potential, if only you had chose to serve me instead of Satan." At this point, I turned the tape off because I was so steamed!

The judgment of the wicked is a huge problem for those who place man's will over God's sovereignty. God is not glorified by judging the wicked; he is embarrassingly apologetic. This is nothing like how the Bible describes God's judgment. Consider Revelation 16:4–7.

The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water, and they became blood.
And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, "Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!"
And I heard the altar saying, "Yes, Lord God the Almighty, true and just are your judgments!"

In conclusion, the thinking that man's will is sovereign simply cannot explain how God is glorified by his judgment of the wicked. God is glorified both by those whom he saves and by those whom he judges.

Hebrews 11: Persevering Faith

2006-05-23T14:35:00.000-04:00

Faith is the foundation of all we believe (11:1–3).
In the first nine and a half chapters, the writer of Hebrews has made his case theologically for the superiority of faith in Jesus Christ to the Judaism of Israel. His conclusion is that, in spite of the persecution, the readers must persevere in their faith in Jesus Christ. If they turn away from Jesus Christ, they can only expect judgment and destruction.

But to persevere in faith through persecution? The writer’s answer is that godly men and women from ages past were commended by God because of their faith (v. 2). Faith in God is the foundation of our understanding of everything, including the very existence of the universe (v. 3).

Persevering faith through persecution was the hallmark of Old Testament believers (11:4–38).
This idea of perseverance in faith in spite of difficulties was nothing new; in fact, the writer walks through Old Testament history, demonstrating that the godly men of the past had something in common: they all persevered in faith through difficulty. Look at the list:

Abel obeyed God and brought a pleasing sacrifice. He was murdered by his brother for his obedience, but God was pleased with him (v. 4).
Enoch pleased God and God took him up (v. 5).
Noah obeyed God and demonstrated his faith by building an ark for 120 years when there was no rain. The flood proved his obedience was right (v. 7).
Abraham left his family and his homeland and obeyed God. He never actually inherited all the land God promised to him (vv. 8–10).
Sarah believed God's promise of a great nation to come from her and Abraham, even though she never lived to see the nation of Israel (v. 11).
Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac in obedience to God, even though he knew that Isaac was the promised son. As far as Abraham could figure, the only way the situation could work out was if God raised Isaac from the dead (vv. 17–19).
Isaac demonstrated faith by giving the blessing to Jacob, his younger son, instead of Esau (v. 20).
Jacob demonstrated faith by blessing Ephraim, again, the younger son, over Mannasseh (v. 21).
Joseph demonstrated his faith by charging his descendants to take his bones back to the Promised Land from Egypt (v. 22). It was more than four hundred years before this happened.
Moses, the mediator of the Old Covenant, demonstrated faith throughout his life, as he led the children of Israel out of Egypt and to the Promised Land (vv. 23–30). He made choices based on God's revelation and not on what appeared to be enjoyable around him.
Rahab demonstrated faith by siding with the Israelites over her own people (v. 31).

Others also demonstrated faith by obeying God and were victorious in their exploits (vv. 32–35a). Yet others endured persecution (does that sound familiar?) and were even martyred for their faith, but still remained faithful (vv. 35b–38). The thing that they all had in common was that they believed God and obeyed the revelation he had given, even though they never received the eternally complete salvation that we now have available in Jesus Christ (vv. 39–40; 13–16).

Now the readers of the book of Hebrews have before them the perfect and complete salvation that these great men and women of faith never enjoyed. They had simply believed what God told them and obeyed, but they never had the "perfect" salvation that we have available. Why would anyone turn away from "so great a salvation"?

Four Small Things

2006-05-17T14:10:00.000-04:00

In James 3:1–8, we find four examples of small things that have a big effect. James gives three examples that correspond to the fourth, with which James deals in this chapter. All four seem relatively minor and insignificant, but they can have a tremendous effect, good or disastrous.

In verse three, the example is a bit in a horse's mouth. "If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well."

A horse is a huge animal. For example a Clydesdale can be up to six feet tall (not counting its head) and weigh between 1600 and 2400 pounds, or as much as a small car. That's a massive animal!

But this huge animal is controlled, turned, or stopped by a small piece of metal in its mouth: a bit. Compared to the size of the horse, the bit is hardly worth noting; however, that little bit makes a big difference! A little bit of metal controls a huge and powerful horse.

In verse four, the second example is the rudder on a ship. "Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs."

(This is a picture of the rudder of the USS Texas, a battleship from the first half of the twentieth century. This is an awfully big rudder, but the ship is 537 feet long!) A huge ship can be turned and guided by a relatively small piece of metal, the rudder. Compared to the size of the boat, the rudder is not that big, but it has a huge effect.

Now we might be tempted to think that these examples have to do with control: the bit controls the horse, and the rudder controls the ship, and so we should control our tongues. Indeed, James speaks of "bridling" one's entire body in verse two. However, he precludes the possibility of controlling our tongues in verses seven and eight: "For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue."

The "punch line" is found at the beginning of verse five: "So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things." Just like the bit is small but affects a huge animal, and just like the rudder is small in comparison to a big boat, so the tongue is small and seems insignificant, but it can have a huge effect.

James has one more example: a raging fire. The second half of verse five says, "How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" Out west, massive forest fires destroy thousands of acres. Are these fires started by gigantic fireballs or flamethrowers or huge explosions? Rarely. Usually they begin from a discarded cigarette or a campfire that somebody forgot to put out. That little spark or burning fire seemed small, but it caused an enormous conflagration.

And, as James tells us in verse six, "The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness." Our tongues and the words we say may seem insignificant, but they can have a huge effect. They can destroy people. They can feed the fires of jealousy, greed, and lust. We need to take our tongues seriously. They may be small, but they pack a big punch.

Hebrews 10: A "Once-for-all" Sacrifice

2006-05-17T12:41:00.000-04:00

Jesus' sacrifice is eternally complete (10:1–18).
As the writer of Hebrews continues his discussion of the superiority of Jesus Christ to Judaism, he brings up another aspect: the inability of animal sacrifices to deal permanently with sin. The sacrifices had to be offered over and over, every day, week in and week out. They could not cleanse the worshiper once and for all. They offered forgiveness, but another sin demanded another sacrifice because those animals did not have an infinite life (vv. 1–4).

The writer quotes from Psalm 40:6–8, showing that God was not pleased with external sacrifices that were not accompanied by obedience and faith. There was nothing special about the external ritual; rather, they demonstrated faith and obedience to God. Jesus, by coming and obeying his Father completely, "abolished" the need for sacrifices. By his sacrifice we have been sanctified once for all (vv. 5–10).

By contrast, the priest stood every single day, ministering in the temple (there was nowhere for the priest to sit because his work was never complete). He offered the same sacrifices over and over, because they could not permanently remove sins (v. 11). However, Jesus Christ offered himself as the infinite Sacrifice for sin and sat down at God’s right hand, having finished what God sent him to do (v. 12–13). Therefore, the one who exercises saving faith in Jesus Christ can be sanctified once for all with the single sacrifice of Christ— far superior to offering animal sacrifices repeatedly (v. 14).

Recalling his discussion of the New Covenant in chapter eight, the writer of Hebrews points out again the promise of forgiveness of sin found in that covenant (vv. 15–17). His point is that if sins have been forgiven, there is no need of any further sacrifice (v. 18). Therefore, faith in Christ is far superior than reverting to the old Mosaic sacrifices.

Because of Jesus' sacrifice, we can come boldly to God (10:19–39).
Having just completed his doctrinal section of the book (faith in Jesus Christ is superior to Mosaic Judaism), the writer begins to apply these truths to those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ. Instead of coming timidly to God, we can approach him boldly because of the finished work of our Priest, Jesus Christ— something Old Testament believers could never do (vv. 19–22). In addition, the writer encourages his readers to hold fast their faith in Jesus Christ, because he is trustworthy (v. 23). Furthermore, the readers should encourage one another to continue on in faith in Jesus Christ amidst the persecution which surrounded them (vv. 24–25).

Again, the writer warns that apart from Jesus Christ, there is no hope of escaping eternal judgment. God will not spare those who have rejected his Son. He will judge all who have sinned and have not received forgiveness, and that punishment will be fearsome indeed (vv. 26–31).
The readers have certainly endured persecution (vv. 32–33), but they should continue in faith joyfully, because they look forward to eternal rest and reward (vv. 34–36). The writer quotes Habakkuk 2:3–4, encouraging his readers to persevere in their faith in Jesus Christ and not shrink back to their own destruction (vv. 37–39).

Mission Trip Myths

2006-05-16T11:10:00.000-04:00

I have had the opportunity to take several short-term mission trips, and several years ago I wrote an article for Student Global Impact about some of the "myths" of mission trips. Some of these myths cause people not to take a trip that they should or, worse yet, make them want to go on a trip they shouldn't. I'm all for short-term mission trips, but they should be well thought out and carefully guided.

You can read the article here.

Psalm 2: God, I Trust in Your Word

2006-05-08T12:54:00.000-04:00

Because we believe in inspiration, we know that what the human writers of the Bible wrote was exactly what God wanted it to say: it is the Word of God. In order to know what a human writer means, we must examine what he has written and determine his intent. In order to know what God means in the Bible, we must also look at what the human writer has written and determine his intent. This is what inspiration teaches us.

The Psalms can be categorized in many different ways. We could group them by their literary components, such as acrostic psalms (where each line begins with a different letter of the alphabet, such as 119). We can also group psalms by their usage, such as the "Songs of Degrees" (120–134) or "Hallel Psalms" (113–118). Another way to categorize the Psalms is by content, such as penitential psalms (34, 51).

One type of Psalm is the theocratic kingship psalm, identified by its emphasis on Israel’s king. The theocratic kingship psalms are sometimes called "messianic psalms," because they deal with God’s "anointed" (Hebrew, messiah). In this case, the "anointed" is God’s king, David, but as we will see, the promises God gave to David extend to his dynasty.

The key feature of the theocratic kingship psalms is an emphasis on God’s promised Davidic dynasty and his universal kingdom, which flow from the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7:12–16. God had promised David that his dynasty would reign forever over a universal kingdom, and these psalms are based on that promise. They talk about Israel’s king, sometimes referring to him as "David" (representing David and his descendants), other times as "the king," and other times as the "anointed" (or "messiah").

Many of the theocratic kingship psalms were written by David himself, the king of Israel. As he writes, he refers to himself as God’s anointed king, but as we look back with the advantage of progressive revelation, we see that some of these things (such as an eternal and universal kingdom) will only be realized in the reign of the ultimate Son of David, Jesus Christ.

In Psalm 2, David reflects on a rebellious uprising of some of the surrounding nations he had conquered. In light of his enemies’ rebellion, David comforts himself in the faithfulness of God to the promises he has made. God has promised David an eternal and universal kingdom, and although the situation appears grim from a human perspective, David affirms his trust in God’s Word.

What the Enemies of God's Anointed Say (vv. 1–3)
"We do not want God or the ruler he has appointed to reign over us" (vv. 1–3). By rejecting God's anointed king, they have rebelled against God. These nations have rebelled against David, God's anointed, and they have rebelled against God.

What God Says (vv. 4–6)
He laughs at their ineptness (v. 4). He is angry with their rebellion (v. 5). He has promised to uphold his anointed king (v. 6). God is in complete sovereign control of the situation.

What David Says (vv. 7–12)
God has promised to establish and guide the kingly line of David (v. 7, 9). God has promised David and his descendants that they will rule the whole world (v. 8). Because God is sovereign, and because he has promised this to David and his descendants, the nations should submit to God's anointed king (vv. 9–12). Therefore, the nations should fear God and submit to his anointed king.

In conclusion, we should ask the question, "In what way does this Psalm describe or facilitate worship?" (since that is what the psalms do). I believe that this Psalm describes the confidence and trust in God's Word that is the foundation of true worship. David, in the face of seeming difficulty and trouble, turns to God's promise and his reaction demonstrates his trust in God and what he has said he will do. This kind of trust or faith is foundational to worship. Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." Psalm 2 demonstrates a trust in God's Word that is foundational to worship.

A final question that needs to be answered is, "Wasn't David writing this Psalm about Jesus Christ?" After all, many translations capitalize the word "Son" in verses seven and twelve. Indeed, this Psalm is quoted three times in the New Testament, applying the Psalm to Jesus (Acts 4:25–26; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5). Does this not mean that David was writing the Psalm with Jesus Christ in mind?

The short answer is no. David was writing with himself (as God's anointed king) and his promised dynasty in mind. Do these verses apply to Jesus Christ? Yes, because Jesus was "the Christ" (the messiah), these verses rightfully apply to him as the ultimate Son of David. In fact, he will be the one who will reign over the entire world from Mount Zion (none of the Davidic kings accomplished that feat) and he will of course be the one who reigns forever.

Hebrews 8: A Better Priest for a Better Covenant

2006-05-04T12:10:00.000-04:00

A heavenly priest is better than an earthly one (8:1–5)
Chapter eight is a sort of bridge between the writer of Hebrews' discussion of our perfect high priest, Jesus Christ (Heb 5–7) and his discussion of the new covenant (Heb 9). Verse one begins with a clarification about the main point of the previous discussion: Jesus is a better high priest than any descendent of Aaron. He is a better priest because he ministers in heaven, in the very presence of God, rather than in an earthly temple (vv. 1–2). Jesus Christ must minister as a high priest in heaven, because the Law precluded him from being a high priest in the earthly temple (vv. 3–4). However, the earthly temple, the Mosaic system, is inferior to the heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ, because the temple is just a picture of the reality of God’s presence (v. 5).

A new covenant is better than an old one (8:6–13)
Jesus Christ is better then, because he is a priest that ministers directly in the presence of God, and because he is the Mediator of a better covenant (v. 6). Again, the contrast is between the old covenant (mediated by Moses at Mt. Sinai and represented by the tabernacle and Aaronic priesthood) and the new covenant, mediated by Jesus Christ.

The very fact that there is a "new" covenant means that the first was flawed. If something is perfect, you don't need to replace it (v. 7). What was the "fatal flaw" in the old covenant (the Mosaic Law)? Actually, the problem wasn't with the covenant, it was with the people. They did not and could not keep God’s laws. They did not obey God (v. 9).

The writer of Hebrews quotes God's promise of future restoration from Jeremiah 31:31–34 (vv. 8–12). This new covenant would be with both Israel and Judah (v. 8), indicating a restored nation of Israel. Unlike the old covenant, which could not cause those under it to obey, the new covenant guarantees a new heart (v. 10), obedience to God (v. 11), and God's forgiveness and mercy (v. 12).

The Jewish readers should not be afraid then to turn away from Judaism and continue in faith in Jesus Christ. The Mosaic Law was an "old" covenant, even back in Jeremiah's day! God had promised something better and something that would last, and Jesus Christ is the mediator of that covenant.

Psalm 51: God, Forgive Me So I Can Worship You

2006-05-01T14:40:00.000-04:00

The Psalms are songs of worship. It is the “hymnbook” of the nation of Israel. They describe her worship of the Lord. They are prayers to God. An important part of prayer involves confession of sin. Confession of sin is absolutely essential to worship; for that reason, we find many penitential psalms in the Psalter.

Psalm 51 was written by King David, following his affair with Bathsheba and the resulting murder of her husband Uriah (cf. 2 Sam 11:1–12:25). A period of close to a year ensued, during which David was covering his sin, continuing on in ritual worship, although Psalm 32 describes the misery of this time. God sent Nathan the prophet to confront David, and he confessed his sin. This prayer to God is written as David reflects on his need for God’s forgiveness.

Confession is essential to worshiping God. We might be tempted to think that confession of our sin is good, but not necessary to worship. David makes the connection between God’s forgiveness and our ability to worship God very clear. God must forgive me so I can worship him.

God, Please Forgive Me (vv. 1–9)
I need your forgiveness because I have sinned (vv. 1–3). David is not squeamish about confessing his sin. He asks God for mercy— because he has sinned. He needs God's forgiveness and cleansing.

I need your forgiveness because I have sinned against you (v. 4). One might be tempted to think that David's sin was primarily against Bathsheba, Uriah, and the child who died. But first and foremost, David realized his sin was against God. The king of Israel had disobeyed the Sovereign King of the Universe, his Creator.

I need your forgiveness because I am sinful (v. 5). Oftentimes, we are content to think that our sins are really "just mistakes" and anomalies since we are basically good. But David says otherwise: we are not sinful because we sin, but we sin because we are sinful. We are sinners by nature and by choice.

I need your forgiveness because you are sinless (v. 6). Compared with the holiness and sinlessness that characterizes God and the obedience that God commands, we are sinful. We must be forgiven by God.

I need your forgiveness because I am unclean (v. 7). The imagery of the hyssop and the cleansing spoke of defilement, such as one who suffered from leprousy. Our sin is not just a matter of "nobody's perfect"; rather, it is defiling and revolting to a pure and holy God.

I need your forgiveness because I cannot worship and praise you as I ought (v. 8). David sought God's forgiveness not to be relieved of his guilty feelings or low self-esteem. He realized that without forgiveness, he could not worship God.

God, Please Restore My Worship to You (vv. 10–19)
You must forgive me in order for me to worship you because my sin affects my relationship with You (vv. 11–14). David had seen how Saul was reduced for all practical extents and purposes to an imbecile when God removed the ministry of his Holy Spirit from him. This theocratic anointing, a ministry of the Holy Spirit that enabled the mediator of the theocratic kingdom to perform his tasks well and be an effective leader, had transformed Saul from a tall yet backward bumbler into a dynamic leader who lead thousands into battle. Yet because of Saul's disobedience, this ministry of God's Spirit was removed, and Saul become virtually unfit for society, much less the kingship.

David had seen all of this happen. He had a front-row seat to observe Saul's demise. Now he had disobeyed God in a huge way. He did not want what happened to Saul to happen to him. He could not continue as the king of God's people if God removed the ministry of his Holy Spirit. In order for David to continue as king, he needed God's forgiveness.

You must cause me to praise You because my sin affects my worship to You (v. 15). It was not a matter of David simply wanting to worship God. He was unable to worship God because of his sin. Attempting to worship God with unconfessed sin in our lives is futile. Sometimes we tend to think that having sin in our lives makes prayer a little less effective and makes worship not quite as fruitful. Rather, sin makes worship impossible. How can we worship God as the one and only God when we have set up another god in his place? When we sin, our disobedience to God has displaced him from the place of priority that he deserves.

You must enable me to please you because my sin affects others’ worship (vv. 16–19). For the months when David's sin was still hidden from the eyes of men, I am certain he continued with the daily and weekly sacrifices the king was expected to make. Hundreds of animals met their demise as David sacrificed sin offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings, and many more. But this worship was wasted time and effort. God was not pleased with David's worship when he still clung to another idol in his heart, his sin. Only after receiving God's forgiveness could he truly worship God and expect his blessing on the city of Jerusalem and the people of Israel.

A Solemn Thought

2006-05-01T14:16:00.000-04:00

"Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, 'declares the LORD.'" (Jer 23:31).

I had a teacher who said that the last thing he would want would be to get to heaven and have God say to him, "I never said what you claimed I did. Why did you tell my people that I did?" That solemn reminder is never far from my mind as I prepare a message or lesson.

Scratching My Head

2006-04-30T16:01:00.000-04:00

I have to admit, I'm struggling to figure this out. In Mark 13:30, Jesus tells his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

The "all these things" the verse refers to includes: the destruction of the temple (v. 2), the appearance of false messiahs (vv. 5–6, 21–23), wars and international tension (vv. 7–8), earthquakes (v. 8), famine (v. 8), political persecution and pressure of Christ's followers (vv. 9–13), the "abomination of desolation" (vv. 14–18), the greatest tribulation yet seen on earth (v. 19), the sun and moon darkened and the stars falling (vv. 24–25), and the coming of the Son of Man in glory (v. 26). So how or in what sense did all these things take place during the generation of the disciples?

All I can figure is that some parts of this chapter refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (an "abomination of desolation"), but clearly, the Son of Man did not come in glory in A.D. 70. Anyone done any more work on this passage?

A Future Unifying Point for National Israel

2006-04-30T15:39:00.000-04:00

"Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when they shall no longer say, ‘As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the LORD lives who brought up and led the offspring of the house of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.’ Then they shall dwell in their own land" (Jer 23:7–8).

The exodus from Egypt was the unifying event for Israel as she entered the promised land the first time (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–2). Similarly, the future regathering of national Israel under the rule of the righteous Branch of David (cf. vv. 5–6) will be that same kind of unifying event. Just as God's special concern and faithful care for his nation was demonstrated by his deliverance of Israel from Egypt, even more so will his renewed care and mercy be shown by the restoration of the nation. That momentous event in Jewish history, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, will be eclipsed by an even greater event, the coming of the Kingdom of the Messiah, Jesus the Christ.

Do Not I Love Thee?

2006-04-30T12:33:00.000-04:00

Do not I love thee, O my Lord? Behold my heart and see
And turn each cursed idol out that dares to rival thee.

Do not I love thee from my soul? Then let me nothing love
Dead be my heart to every joy when Jesus can not move.

Within the darkness of this heart other gods would vie for my affection
But thou art exalted, but thou art exalted, thou are exalted far above all gods!

Let nothing keep me from thy love.

Thou know'st I love Thee, dearest Lord, but O, I long to soar
Far from the sphere of mortal joys and learn to love Thee more!

—Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

Consequences of Incomplete Obedience

2006-04-26T13:52:00.000-04:00

King Saul, the first king of Israel, was a "king after man's heart." He was tall, good-looking, and a strong leader. However, God rejected Saul as king because of his partial obedience. God commanded Saul to destroy the Amalekites because of what they had done to Israel during their time in the wilderness (1 Sam 15:2–3). Saul did not completely obey God's command, and God's message to Saul through Samuel was that he would be lose the kingdom (1 Sam 15:23). By "losing the kingdom," I understand this to mean that Saul's sons would not inherit the throne— in other words, Saul would not be the head of a dynasty of kings.

Again, God prophesied the demise of Saul (and his sons) in battle against the Philistines (1 Sam 28:18–19). In almost poetic justice, an Amalekite happened along following Saul's defeat and death and stripped Saul of his crown and kingly jewelry (2 Sam 1:6–10). The irony is bitter: one of the Amalekites whom God had commanded Saul to exterminate ended up killing Saul. It seems that the narrative about the Amalekite man who claimed to have killed Saul has been included to point out once more that Saul was not God's choice for king because of his disobedience to God. On the other hand, the narrative also points out again David's godly responses as a "man after God's own heart."

Unwilling Clay?

2006-04-24T15:23:00.000-04:00

The Bible uses the language of potter and clay in several places, dealing with God's sovereignty over man. Unfortunately, we have taken this idea and made it sort of an optional program, something we might want to try as we gain spiritual maturity. "God, I have finally decided that I will be your clay and you can be my Potter. Go ahead, I give you my permission to mold me and make me after your will."

However, in Jeremiah 18:6 (to which Paul strongly alludes in Romans 9), God tells Israel, "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." He does not say, "You are my clayÂ if you freely choose to be." Nor does he tell them that if they achieve full surrender and the deeper life they can be like clay. No, the image of potter and clay is one of complete and sovereign control. In fact, God says through Isaiah, "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, 'He did not make me'; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, 'He has no understanding'?" (Isa 29:16).

Being clay in the hands of the Potter is not a choice, it is reality. Paul calls attention to the right of the Potter over the clay in Romans 9:21: "Has the potter no right over the clay?" God is completely sovereign over man. He is not waiting for us, wringing his hands, hoping that we will accede to his commands. God is the sovereign Potter; we are just clay.

Following a Good Example

2006-04-24T15:12:00.000-04:00

Yesterday evening, our pastor preached on the submission of wives to their husbands from 1 Peter 3:1–6. He made an excellent point that I had never noticed before. Clearly, Peter calls on the women who were reading his letter to submit to their husbands, following the example of Sarah and the other godly women of the Old Testament (vv. 5–6).

This is well and good, and what a blessing to follow in the footsteps of such godly women of faith. But first and foremost, a woman who submits to her husband is following the example of Jesus Christ. Verse one begins with "Likewise, wives. . ." referring back to the previous paragraph (2:18–25). Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of humility and submission, even in the face of persecution and suffering.

King and Priest

2006-04-20T09:29:00.000-04:00

In Old Testament Israel, the tribe of Judah was the kingly tribe. It was from Judah that David, the quintessential Israelite king sprang. It was to David's descendents that the throne of Israel was promised forever (2 Sam 7:12–16). In that sense, the Northern Kingdom (the ten tribes of Israel whose capital was Samaria) never enjoyed a legitimate kingship.

On the other hand, the tribe of Levi was the priestly tribe, with the priesthood falling to Aaron and his sons (Num 3:5–10). God set up a division between the kingship and the priesthood, one that Saul violated (1 Sam 13:8–14). The Old Testament Law made no allowance for a king of Israel to minister as a priest.

In light of this, the writer of Hebrews, describing the high priestly work of Jesus Christ, goes back to a seemingly obscure narrative about the patriarch Abraham and a shadowy priest named Melchizedek. In Hebrews 5–7, the writer refers repeatedly to the incident of Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek (cf. Gen 14:17–24), as well as quoting another line about Melchizedek from the Psalms three times (Ps 110:4).

The writer of Hebrews compares Jesus Christ and his high priestly ministry to the ministry of Melchizedek, rather than that of Aaron, the high priest of Israel. I think the reasons are two-fold.

First, and essential to the main message of the book of Hebrews, faith in Christ is superior to Judaism. In this case, the priesthood of Melchizedek was superior to the priesthood of Aaron, since Levi's great-grandfather (Abraham) paid tithes to and was blessed by Melchizedek. This is just one more argument for the superiority of faith in Jesus Christ over Judaism. Belief in Jesus Christ is setting aside the Mosaic Law, not simply adding to it (Heb 7:18–19). The writer continues to highlight in bold language the futility (and eternal danger) of turning back from faith in Jesus Christ to the Jewish religion of the Old Testament.

Second, this Melchizedek was both a king and the priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). The writer of Hebrews makes mention of the fact that Melchizedek was the "king of righteousness" (the meaning of his name) and the "king of peace," making a play on the word "Salem" (Heb 7:2). This opens the way for Jesus, a descendant of David and part of the tribe of Judah, to minister as an eternal priest (Heb 7:14). Because of the resurrection and endless life of Jesus Christ, he is the ultimate high priest. In the words of the writer of Hebrews, "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25).

You Know. . .

2006-04-19T21:26:00.000-04:00

I was told that you know we have an abundance of Bibles in our country when we choose which Bible matches our outfit.

Something Caught My Eye

2006-04-17T14:31:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, we were in 1 Corinthians 15 (as I assume many congregations were), and I noticed something for the first time. In verses three and following, Paul tells the Corinthians that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely essential to the Gospel and to verify its historical authenticity, he gives a long list of eyewitnesses to the risen Lord.

Now, it would be beside my point, but I can't resist pointing out that Paul is not giving a gospel tract definition of the Gospel: the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You will notice that he gives four truths that are essential to the Gospel, each marked by the word "that" (οτι). And, as you can plainly see by the following verses, Paul's emphasis is on the fourth item (which most people conveniently overlook or omit).

My gaze fell on Paul's list in verses five through eight of those who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection:

Cephas (Peter)
The twelve
More than five hundred brothers, most of whom were still alive
James (presumably the half-brother of Jesus Christ)
All the apostles
Last of all, as to one untimely born, Paul

Do you notice anything strange about that list? See any redundancies? My guess is, that if I asked you who the phrase "all the apostles" referred to, you would answer, "the twelve disciples." At least that's what my first response would have been— but "the twelve" is already on that list. I suppose I would have to lump this under the "non-technical use of the word αποστολος."

Under Law or Lawless?

2006-04-14T13:35:00.000-04:00

I have argued before that the New Testament believer, a member of the Church, the Body of Christ, is not under the jurisdiction or the condemnation of the Mosaic Law. Does this mean that I am "lawless" or an "anti-nomian"? I'm sure some would gladly hurl that epithet at me.

I have tried to be careful with the word "law," usually qualifying it as the "Mosaic Law." By that, I mean the Law given by God through Moses to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. With the exception of theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists, almost all are agreed that the Mosaic Law is not entirely binding on the Christian. At the very least, most are willing to arbitrarily dismiss the sacrificial system and the priesthood for Christian believers today.

However, when I say that the Christian is neither under the jurisdiction nor the condemnation of the Mosaic Law, this does not mean that I am advocating anarchy or individual autonomy. The Christian is under the authority of God. He is still responsible to obey what God has commanded him. As Paul said, "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law" (1 Cor 9:21). In other words, although Paul was a Jew (a Mosaic Law-abiding Jew), he was willing (and able!) to give that up in order to minister the Gospel to Gentiles. The very fact that Paul could give up his adherence to the Mosaic Law speaks to its non-permanent nature. By giving up his adherence to the Mosaic Law, Paul was not lawless, but under the law of Christ.

The Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20) instructs us to teach the nations what Christ has commanded us. It does not mention the Law of Moses. We are at the command of Christ. We obey his words and the inspired words of his apostles. We are not "lawless," but we are not under the Mosaic Law.

Hebrews 6: It’s Time to Grow Up

2006-04-12T19:53:00.000-04:00

An Encouragement to Grow Up Spiritually (6:1–3)
Chapter six begins with an encouragement not to stagnate in our spiritual growth. At the end of chapter five, the writer describes his readers as spiritual babies, not mature Christians ready for a solid diet of doctrine. Instead of giving his readers more milk, he insists that they grow up and gives them "strong food" or deeper teaching. It is not enough, he says, to remain in our "infant" understanding about the Gospel, about Jesus Christ, or about our spiritual lives. We must move on and continue to grow in our faith.

Another Warning about Turning Back from Following Christ (6:4–12)
In the following verses, the writer again gives a severe warning to his readers about turning back from Christ. He uses a hypothetical situation: what if someone were saved and then turned his back on Jesus Christ? What hope would there be for that person? How could they be saved apart from Jesus Christ? Their only future would be certain and eternal punishment. Think of land that was carefully cultivated, fertilized, watered, and seeded, but never produced fruit. What a worthless piece of ground that would be! The writer however is convinced of better about his readers, but again, they must continue to press on in faith in Jesus Christ. They must demonstrate in their own lives the faith that godly men of the past have demonstrated.

A Reason to Put Your Faith in God: His Promises are Certain (6:13–20)
In spite of possible persecution, God is always faithful to his Word. When he makes a promise, he never goes back on it. There is no one more faithful than God. When he promised to make a great nation out of Abraham, he did it— in spite of unbelievable odds. God continues on faithful to his word. His faithfulness is pictured like an Old Testament city of refuge, where someone could flee for safety. His faithfulness is like an anchor, that keeps a ship safe in the harbor. We can safely trust in God’s faithfulness in the Person of Jesus Christ, our perfect Mediator and High Priest. The only way to be safe from God’s eternal judgment is by faith in his Son, Jesus Christ.

On Cross-References and Preaching

2006-04-12T11:10:00.000-04:00

In the comments of a recent post, a question was raised about the advisability and expediency of having people turn to different passages during a message. I generally do not ask people to flip around too much during a message.

There are exceptions: if the message is topical, or if the cross-reference is a "you just have to see this for yourself" type of point. Of course, the analogy of Scripture is based on the fact that the Bible is inerrant and does not contradict itself. I also like to illustrate using biblical examples. That gives a double benefit: it improves our people's biblical literacy while illustrating the point.

Expediency plays a big part in how much turning from passage to passage you do in a message. If you have an hour and a half to preach and a biblically literate congregation, then it's a great way to show where you are getting these things. Also, if you are teaching in a Sunday School or even more formal educational setting, this kind of cross-referencing should be expected.

However, the biggest reason in my mind that keeps me from doing too much cross-referencing is theological: it can lead to an implicit denial that each book of Scripture can stand on its own. If we believe that the Bible is both a human and a divine book (inspiration), then we must take very seriously the intention of the human author. We should interpret Scripture in grammatical and historical way. We know what the author means by what the author says.

Perhaps nowhere is this more patently demonstrated than in the Gospels. Matthew did not write his gospel to be read in conjunction with, or as a commentary on, Luke's gospel. Mark was not penning a "CliffsNotes" version of Matthew's gospel. John was not trying to "fill in" the missing information from the synoptics. But when we study the gospels, how quickly do we run to the parallel passages? Matthew wrote his gospel to a specific group of people with the understanding that they could understand his message from the words that he wrote.

Cross references are helpful. They can give us a background on how the author uses words, they can eliminate interpretive possibilities based on the clear teaching of other passages, and they can illuminate allusions the author has made. However, I would submit that we ought to preach what the text means from the text itself.

Where to Look When I'm Preaching

2006-04-10T17:05:00.000-04:00

I was thinking recently about what I like to see when I look out during a message. You might think that I would enjoy seeing people watching me in rapt attention, drinking in the riveting content, the sonorous strains of my voice, and my outstanding delivery. Yeah, right.

That would make me feel kinda special, but what I would most like to see is the tops of people's heads. Yep, you heard me right. I'd like to see them bent over their open Bibles, following the text I am trying to unpack and explain. I do not mind the occasional scowl, followed by frantic flipping as they look for another reference that just popped into their minds. I like to see people taking notes (or not— I struggle taking notes and listening at the same time, so I understand), underlining thoughts in their Bibles, or just reading along with me.

As I see it, the focus of the preaching of God's Word should be just that— God's Word. I try to call attention to the passage over and over. I make a point to say, "Look at verse six" and continually direct and re-direct their eyes and thoughts to the text. It seems that this kind of focus is in keeping with the attitude of receiving the Word of God commended in the Jewish believers in Berea: "they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11).

Romans 14: Christian Conduct in Doubtful Things

2006-03-24T15:23:00.000-05:00

Because of God's sovereign and gracious mercy to those whom he has justified, their only reasonable service of worship is to obey him. This results in total transformation of life, both in the church and in the world. In the church, they are to practice selfless love with a servant's heart (12:3–21). In the world, they are to submit to all of God's authorities and model God-fearing love to all (13:1–10). The time is short; we must live out the time God has given us with a sense of urgency. Sin is serious and should be avoided at all costs (13:11–13). Sometimes the best way to avoid sin is to avoid the temptation; to "fence off" that area lest we wander into temptation and sin and fulfill our sinful nature’s desires (13:14).

However, where each individual Christian places his "fences" is different. We are all tempted; but we are not all tempted by the same things. Our backgrounds, the proclivities of our sinful nature, our past moral failures and sins— all of these affect where we set up our boundaries. These boundaries can become something of a problem in a church body: one person has strict standards, while another has looser standards. In this discussion, Paul refers to the former as a "weak" brother, because this brother sees himself as "weak" and erects more stringent standards to avoid fulfilling the desires of his flesh. The other group, in which Paul includes himself (cf. 15:1), he calls the "strong."

The Issues at Hand
Two primary issues frame Paul's discussion in this chapter, and they both have Jewish overtones. The first was eating meat and other foods, while the second was observing certain days as "holy days." Both abstaining from meat and observing the days was practiced out of a carefulness and a continuing loyalty to the Mosaic Law. In reality, as Paul makes clear, these are not moral issues at all. It was common for Jews to avoid meat and wine altogether in case the meat had not been prepared in a "kosher" way or the wine had unknowingly been offered to an idol. Therefore, while there was nothing wrong with the food itself, there was a caution, special care taken on the part of the "weak" brother to avoid doing something that might be construed as sinful or defiling.

Paul never condemns the position the "weak" brother holds, even though he did not hold that position. From this, we can ascertain that the position itself was not sinful, although Paul cautions them against sinful actions and reactions (such as passing judgment on others who do not follow their personal standards). Therefore, this passage refers to differences of opinion on abstaining from activities that clearly are not sinful.

It is at this point that most discussions and applications of Romans 14 to modern applications fail. Paul states that both of these activities may be done or not done to God's glory (14:6). Questioning whether something can be done to God's glory is legitimate, because one cannot disobey to the glory of God. If biblical commands or principles preclude an activity, it is not a Romans 14-type "doubtful thing" or a matter of "Christian liberty." It seems that the vast majority of issues need to be discussed regarding biblical commands and principles rather than going to Romans 14.

Paul's Commands Regarding Doubtful Things
Paul reminds both brothers that they are accountable to God (14:10–12), and they are responsible to maintain peace with each other (14:19; 15:6–7). Above all, the believer's responsibility is not simply to please himself, but he is responsible to build up others around him (14:19; 15:2). All must be done for God’s glory (14:6).

The main responsibility that Paul lays on the shoulders of the "weak" brother is not to judge or condemn the "strong" brother because he does not maintain the same standards (14:3). The brother in Christ must answer to God for himself, not to us.

Interestingly, the burden of responsibility Paul lays on the shoulders of the "strong" brother. He commands the "strong" brother not to look down on his "weak" brother (14:3) nor to despise him. Repeatedly, Paul commands this "strong" brother to use great care and be lovingly sensitive toward his "weaker" brother. The "strong" brother must not cause his brother to stumble by what he allows (14:13, 15–17, 20–21; 15:1).

In Conclusion
In areas of legitimate disagreement between believers, the goal of all involved must be mutual edification instead of pleasing one's self. This is an important point, because Paul's emphasis in this chapter is the opposite of how it is normal used in current application. Generally, those who wish to excuse, defend, or rationalize some practice run to Romans 14 and tell anybody who would question them, "Don't judge me!"

Usually, they avoid the point that the chapter really lays the burden on the "strong" brother to defer lovingly to his weaker brother. These things are really not necessary or essential to life. To demand one's "rights" is neither Christlike nor loving. Romans 14 is not about my rights— it is about my responsibility to build up others in Christ, even if that means foregoing my supposed rights.

A Sense of Urgency

2006-03-10T08:56:00.000-05:00

When I was in seminary, I worked at night loading airplanes for UPS (back then it was actually called United Parcel Service). It was a three-hour shift, but for the first two hours or so, we really didn't do very much. The packages were sorted inside and placed into large aluminum and clear plastic containers about eight feet by twelve feet and about seven feet high, rounded so they fit perfectly into the airplane. Then those containers were loaded onto trailers and brought out to the planes where we used an elevator system called a "K-loader" to put the containers into the airplane. Topside, there was a system of rollers, ball bearings, and locks that enabled us to push the containers back inside the plane and lock them into place.

Each night, we loaded three DC-8's which held eighteen positions of cargo. As I said, in the first two hours, we would put in maybe three or four of those containers, but as the night wore on, and the inside started wrapping up their sort, the cans started coming out in a hurry! Their sort finished about 10:00, and the first plane had to be buttoned up and ready to move about 10:10, the second a few minutes later, and the third a few minutes after that. In other words, after standing around all evening (in the cold or the heat), we had to really move for that last hour!

One of the supervisors always liked to talk about a "sense of urgency." By that, she did not mean that we were to run around (heaven help us if she caught anybody running on the ramp!), but that we were to be focused on the job, thinking ahead to avoid problems, and operating safely and efficiently.

I think that a proper understanding of the sinfulness of sin gives us a sense of urgency in our Christian lives. These verses stood out to me as I was studying for a message in Romans this week:

"Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (Rom 13:11-14).

Life is short. There just isn't time for sinfulness, selfishness, and immorality. Our ultimate salvation (glorification) is one day closer than it was yesterday. Jesus Christ will return at any moment for his Church. We ought to be walking "carefully, not as unwise but as wise" (Eph 5:15). The stakes are too high to dabble with sin. The danger is so great that the wisest course of action is sometimes to steer clear of something that would give our sinful nature any advantage. We need to live with a sense of urgency.

Hebrews 2: How Shall We Escape?

2006-03-09T15:17:00.000-05:00

A Solemn Warning (2:1–4)
Chapter two begins with the first of four "warning passages" we find in the epistle of Hebrews. The writer begins with "therefore," which means he is drawing a conclusion based on what he has said previously. In chapter one, he has made the point that God's Son is superior to God's angels (1:4). The Old Testament Law, mediated by angels (Gal 3:19), was familiar to the readers. If those who disobeyed God's Law in the Old Testament were punished, what would happen to those who ignored or neglected the way of salvation given to them by the Son?

The readers had every opportunity: they had heard God's Son, Jesus Christ give them the message of salvation (e.g., "I am the way, the truth, and the life"). They had access to eyewitnesses who had heard these same things from Jesus' lips. They were familiar with the signs and wonders that verified Jesus' claim to be the Son of God. If those who despised God's Law, given by angels, were punished, how will we escape if we shrink back from the Son?

We must pay close attention to the message about Jesus Christ so that we do not drift away. The writer says that we have only two options: continue in faith in God's Son, Jesus Christ, or stand in judgment before God's Son.

The Submission of God's Son (2:5–9)
The writer of the book of Hebrews continues on outlining the superiority of the Son of God to angels. Certainly, Scripture assigns greater position to the Son over angels, but what about the Son's incarnation? In coming to the earth to suffer for sin, Jesus humbled himself and became a man, "lower than the angels." Does this mean he is not superior to the angels?

Jesus, being God, never became less than God, but he submitted to God's authority just like the angels do (remember, they are God's servants). The writer of Hebrews points out, however, that Jesus' subjection was temporary. Angels will not rule in the coming Kingdom of God, but the Son will. The reason Jesus was humbled and came to earth was to suffer and to die for mankind. Now he has ascended to heaven, where he is "crowned with glory and honor."

The Suffering of God's Son (2:10–18)
The Son is superior to angels in Scripture, and even his incarnation and temporary humbling do not render him inferior to angels. But the Son did not come to earth and enjoy great privilege and acclamation; no, he came to earth and suffered. Great people, powerful people, do not suffer. How does this suffering display the greatness of the Son?

The writer of Hebrews says that it was fitting for the Founder of our salvation, Jesus Christ, to suffer while here on earth. He has experienced the full range of human being. In this way, he is our "brother" and not an impersonal God who doesn't know how bad we have it. The recipients of the book of Hebrews are suffering persecution, but Jesus knows what it is like— he suffered the worst possible persecution during his time on earth. The angels do not enjoy this kind of help or companionship; only those who exercise saving faith like Abraham did can enjoy the comfort and help of the Son of God. Furthermore, as the writer of the Hebrews will expound later, Jesus was the ultimate High Priest: he is compassionate and merciful because he knows what it is like to suffer. He can help us because he has suffered before us.

Stitching It All Together

2006-03-08T16:58:00.000-05:00

The intersection of several different themes and topics between Romans 11 and 12 is sometimes overlooked in our hurry to get to a certain thought or idea we want to bring out. The marvelous benediction at the end of Romans 11 stands as the capstone of the first eleven chapters, dealing with God's justification of sinners through faith in Jesus Christ. It also stands as a summary of chapters 9-11, dealing with God's sovereign election in salvation, man's responsibility before God, and God's future dealing with national Israel. In that context, the words of Romans 11:33-36 ring out with rich significance.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
"For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
"Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be glory forever. Amen.

In light of God's gracious salvation and sovereign election, the all-wise ways of God are completely beyond us. We try and fail to wrap our human minds around God's sovereignty. We struggle to correlate the truths of God's justice and sovereignty with man's responsibility. We find ourselves completely inadequate to comprehend an infinite God.

The entire universe was created by God. He spoke into existence everything around us. He maintains and preserves every detail of his creation, upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3). In him all things hold together (Col 1:17). The purpose of all things is his own glory— that is why they were created (Rev 4:11).

This universe, which so manifestly declares God's power and "Godness" (Rom 1:20), is a testimony to his infinite wisdom and power. And his glorious salvation, also displaying his wisdom and power, boggles the human mind. But to which one of us has God ever come seeking advice? To which one of us is God indebted? Are we not simply creatures, beholding with awe the working of our Creator? To him be the glory!

Then, close on the heels of this outburst of awestruck praise, we find this plea: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Rom 12:1). In light of God's abundant and gracious mercy to us, guilty sinners, our only reasonable course of action is to give our entire lives to God. While we no longer offer animal sacrifices, we do offer this spiritual sacrifice. The Old Testament burnt offering, which completely burned up the sacrifice, symbolized complete devotion to God. The New Testament believer's response to God's salvation is to offer himself as a complete and total sacrifice before God.

This is not emotional outburst at a campfire service; this is the carefully reasoned and understood (Romans 1-11) response to God's outpouring of mercy. This is a daily commitment to obey the God who has justified guilty sinners (Rom 1-3) by faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 4), destined us for glorification (Rom 5), freed us from the bondage of sin (Rom 6) and the condemnation of the Law (Rom 7) so we could please God (Rom 8). He graciously and sovereignly chose us (Rom 9), instead of passing us over to remain in unbelief, which would have been completely just for him to do (Rom 10-11). In light of God's abundant mercies, our only option is to present our lives to God in obedience.

Christian Circumlocutions

2006-03-06T15:52:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking lately about how many times in our Christian lives we use phrases or words to describe, defend, or justify ourselves. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with some of these things, but I wonder if we may use them to avoid being honest and completely straightforward.

For example, think about the common expression (not just among Christians) of "I'm sorry." The words "I'm sorry" mean to say, "I feel bad." They do not admit any guilt at all. If someone drops and breaks a glass, it may be appropriate for me to say "I'm sorry." It wasn't my fault they dropped the glass. I just feel bad for them, I can sympathize with their embarrassment, and I'm glad I don't have to clean it up!

There's a big difference between "I'm sorry" and "I was wrong— will you forgive me?" The first expresses our dismay at the unpleasant circumstances in which we find ourselves, while the latter assumes responsibility for them. The first does nothing to make amends for the situation, while the second seeks restoration.

Maybe some other examples would include "I have been struggling with __________" or "I haven't done all that I should" or "I have backslidden" when what we should be saying is "I have sinned and disobeyed God." Joseph didn't mince words when he refused Potiphar's wife's solicitation: "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Gen 39:9).

It may damage our "self-image" a little, but think about being painfully honest with yourself and others the next time you are tempted to speak euphemistically about your sin. James encourages us to confess our sins to each other and pray for one another. In fact, that is the context of the phrase about prayer that we quote often: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working" (James 5:16).

The Future of National Israel (Romans 11)

2006-03-05T19:21:00.000-05:00

The Future of National Israel (11:1–36)
Because God has chosen Gentiles to obtain his salvation and hardened Israelites, who are responsible for their unbelief, what will happen to God’s nation, Israel? God has not completely rejected his nation, has he? (11:1). By no means! For proof, Paul points to himself: a Jew, and also justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

Paul gives another Old Testament example: the nation of Israel during Elijah’s time (11:2–4; cf. 1 Kgs 19). The nation had rejected God’s messengers, the prophets, they had destroyed the true worship of God, and they were trying to kill Elijah. God told Elijah that he had a remnant of seven thousand people who still served and obeyed God. In the same way, God has preserved a remnant of Jewish believers in this age by his gracious choice (11:5). The individuals in national Israel who have not failed to obtain God’s salvation enjoy God’s favor because of his electing grace (11:6).

The doctrine of God’s sovereign election set forth in chapter nine as the reason why the nation had not received God’s salvation is now given as the assurance that God will once again restore his people. Thus, God’s election, which seemed so threatening in chapter nine, is the ultimate comfort in chapter eleven. Israel’s rejection of God’s Messiah is not total, but partial, because the elect will enjoy God’s salvation (11:7–10; cf. Deut 29:3; Isa 29:10; Ps 69:22–23).

Paul asks a second question in verse eleven: is Israel’s rejection final? Not at all! Israel’s rejection was part of God’s purpose in offering salvation to the Gentiles (11:11). So then, if in Israel’s fall, the rest of the world was blessed (by the offer of salvation), think how much more blessed the world will be when God restores his nation in the Millennial Kingdom (11:12). This idea of provoking the Jews to jealousy was behind Paul’s own ministry of giving the gospel to Gentiles (11:13–14).

Paul gives an extended illustration of Israel’s rejection using the idea of an olive vine and branches from a wild olive vine that are grafted into the natural vine (11:15–24). To those wild branches grafted in, he extends a warning and caution against pride. To the original branches, he extends the comfort that God can graft them back in. This leads to Paul’s prediction, buttressed by Old Testament Scripture, that national Israel will be restored (11:25–32).

Paul concludes the chapter and this section with an exclamation of God’s glory. His wisdom and his ways are far beyond ours (11:33–34), and his power and sovereignty is demonstrated in all things (11:35). Everything in the universe has its source in him as Creator, is preserved by him as Sustainer, and finds its ultimate purpose in glorifying him as God (11:36).

The comfort we find for the nation of Israel in chapter eleven is that their rejection of God’s Messiah is temporary, not final.

Israel's Responsibility for Unbelief (Romans 10)

2006-03-05T19:19:00.000-05:00

The Responsibility for National Israel’s Failure to Obtain God’s Salvation (9:30–10:21)

Paul has just addressed the question of why Israel has failed to obtain God’s salvation and Gentiles have obtained it. God’s chooses those to whom he will show mercy and those whom he will harden. The Old Testament supports the fact that God has the right to offer his salvation to the Gentiles (9:24–26) and also that the majority of ethnic Israel will reject Jesus Christ (9:27–29). What is the conclusion? On the one hand, contrary to expectation, Gentiles, who previously did not enjoy God’s revelation or spiritual privilege, have now been justified by faith (9:30). On the other hand, contrary to expectation, the nation of Israel, pursuing the Law as a way to be right with God, failed to obtain salvation (9:31).

Why did this happen? Based on Paul’s discussion in chapter nine, we might expect him to say that the responsibility for Israel’s failure to obtain salvation should be laid at the feet of the Sovereign God, who chooses people according to his purpose. However, Paul’s answer is that the responsibility for the nation of Israel’s rejection of God falls squarely on her own shoulders. The reason Israel did not obtain God’s salvation was because of her unbelief (9:32). Instead of putting their faith in God, they tried to earn God’s salvation and stumbled in unbelief (9:33).

Paul desired to see the salvation of ethnic Jews (10:1). They desired to please God, but they pursued this in an ignorant zeal that refused to submit to God (10:2). Instead of being justified by faith, they tried to establish their own righteousness before God by keeping the Law (10:3). However, Jesus Christ was the termination and fulfillment of the Law for the believer (10:4). Trying to be right with God by keeping the Law is impossible. Moses himself said that would require life-long, perfect obedience (10:5; cf. Lev 18:5). On the other hand, the righteousness that comes by faith is accessible (10:6–10). Whoever believes (has faith) in Jesus Christ will not fail to obtain God’s salvation (10:11, 13), no matter whether he is a Jew or a Gentile (10:12).

Israel’s rejection of the Messiah and unbelief is inexcusable because of her spiritual privilege. In order for a person to call on the Lord, Paul gives four conditions: there must be a commission (10:15), preaching, hearing, and believing (10:14, 17). In Israel’s case, the first two conditions were met: Isaiah says that God sent people to give the good news of peace (10:15; cf. Isa 52:7). Yet Israel failed to call on the Lord (10:16)!

There was a commission, there was preaching, but did they hear? Not only did they hear the preaching, they rejected the incessant testimony of general revelation through nature (10:18; cf. Ps 19:4). Maybe they heard, but did they know what was being communicated to them? No, Moses made it very clear that if Israel disobeyed God’s Word that God would show his favor to other nations to make them jealous and provoke them to repent (10:19; cf. Deut 32:21). Paul also quotes from Isaiah to show that God will bless other nations instead of Israel if they remain disobedient (10:20–21; cf. Isa 65;1–2).

Romans chapter ten teaches us that those who reject Jesus Christ bear the responsibility for their unbelief.

A Discouragement to Would-be Commenters

2006-03-03T14:46:00.000-05:00

I was doing some study on wise speech in Proverbs yesterday, and I came across this verse.

"If one gives an answer before he hears,
it is his folly and shame" (Prov 18:13).

I must admit, I thought immediately of many threads of blog discussion in which I have been involved. The more study I did, the more I wonder how compatible blogging is with the way of wisdom outlined in the book of Proverbs.

God's Sovereignty in the Gospel Defended (Romans 9)

2006-02-26T18:40:00.000-05:00

God’s Justice and Sovereign Right to Choose (Romans 9:1–29)
In Romans 9, Paul begins a section of three chapters (9-11) answering several objections that might rise in someone’s mind as they read the first eight chapters. These chapters are a theodicy, or a vindication of the righteousness of God in the matter of who has obtained eternal life through justification.

At the close of chapter eight, Paul concludes with a strong affirmation that those whom God has chosen to salvation will never lose that salvation (8:31–39). However, one’s mind might immediately run to the nation of Israel, God’s chosen people, and ask the question, "What about Israel? How did they fail to obtain salvation?" As Paul and anyone else look around, they see that the nation of Israel has rejected Jesus Christ and the salvation.

This pains Paul, as both a Jew and a Christian (9:1–3). It seems hard to believe that a people with such unique spiritual privileges would reject God’s Christ (9:4–5). Why has this happened? Why has Israel failed to obtain this salvation? And furthermore, what about the promises that God made to that nation? If God is going back on his promises to them, how can we be sure of his promises to us in Jesus Christ? And finally, how can God be faithful and righteous in choosing Gentiles to be saved?

However it may seem, Paul is quick to point out that God’s Word has still been fulfilled (9:6). There is a distinction that we must be careful to make: just because someone was physically a part of ethnic Israel did not make him spiritually a part of ethnic Israel. In the same way, just because someone was Abraham’s child (physically related) did not make him Abraham’s seed (heir of the promises). Remember, Abraham had two children, but God told him that the seed would only be through Isaac (9:7; cf. Gen 21:12).

This brings us to Paul’s first important conclusion: God makes distinctions between people. Both Isaac and Ishmael were rightfully sons of Abraham, but only one of them received the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed (9:7). Therefore, it is not necessarily those who are physically a part of ethnic Israel that will receive the blessings promised to Abraham (9:8–9). God made a distinction between Isaac and Ishmael.

Continuing on in the lives of the patriarchs, Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, became pregnant with twins (9:10). Both of these boys were sons of Isaac, but God told Rebekah, "The older will serve the younger" (9:12; cf. Gen 25:23). This happened before they were born! God did not make this distinction between Esau and Jacob because of their actions, but arbitrarily— making clear that God chooses according to his own plan (9:11). In fact, God’s attention to Jacob was so lopsided that the prophet Malachi, speaking for God, said, "I loved Jacob and hated Esau" (9:13; cf. Mal 1:2–3). God made a distinction between Jacob and Esau.

Paul anticipates our human response perfectly: Doesn’t that make God unjust? Of course not. God has every right to do as he pleases (9:14). In fact, God himself, in the aftermath of the golden calf incident, told Moses, “I will show mercy to whomever I choose” (9:15; cf. Exod 33:19). Paul’s second conclusion is that God’s distinctions are not conditioned on human effort, but on God’s purposes (9:16).

An example from the Old Testament of someone whom God singled out for his purposes is Pharaoh. God allowed Pharaoh to come to power and then be removed from power solely for his own glory (9:17). Not only then does God sovereignly show mercy to some, he sovereignly hardens others according to his own purpose (9:18; cf. Exod 4:21; 7:13; 9:12).

Someone who hears this might raise another objection: "So if nobody has resisted God's will, then nobody is responsible to God" (9:19). This is an almost flippant charge of determinism or fatalism: if God has willed to harden people, then God cannot hold them responsible! Paul’s answer to this objection is a series of questions. Should a human being talk back to Almighty God? Can a creature question the Creator (9:20)? Does not the Potter have authority over his clay (9:21)?

Paul continues on in his response with a theoretical possibility that he never finishes (9:22–24). He expects his listener to fill in the conclusion from the context. What if God willed to demonstrate his wrath and power (like he did with Pharaoh), and patiently endured vessels headed for destruction, so he could show the wealth of his glory upon vessels destined for his mercy (like he did with Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and the whole nation of Israel), then could he do it? Does he have the right to do that?

Who are these "vessels of mercy" that Paul speaks of in verse 23? In the following verses, he identifies them from Scripture. Ethnically, these chosen individuals are singled out from both the Jews and the Gentiles (9:24).

What about these Gentiles? Didn’t God make his promises to ethnic Israel? Can this be proven from Scripture? In answer, Paul goes back to the Old Testament and quotes from Hosea (9:25–26; cf. Hosea 2:23; 1:10). Paul points out from the Jewish Old Testament that God is able to show his love to Gentiles who previously had been outside of his favor.

What does the Scripture say about the Jews who will receive God's mercy? The point that Paul makes is that it will only be a small number. He quotes Isaiah, who speaks of the small remnant that God chooses (9:27–28; cf. Isa 10:22–23). In his second quotation from Isaiah, the Word of God says only a “seed” will be spared (9:29; cf. Isa 1:9).

Therefore, we see from Romans 9 that God is entirely sovereign and righteous in his election to salvation.

The Target of Apologetics

2006-02-24T14:10:00.000-05:00

An important part in determining an apologetic is examing the nature of the target of the apologetics. What do we know from the Bible about the unbelievers to whom we have been sent with the Word of God?

The Future of the Unbeliever
The Bible is quite clear that the unbeliever is subject to the wrath of God. Romans 1:18 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

The unbeliever is condemned by God for not putting his faith in God’s Son, Jesus Christ. John 3:18 says, "Whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." It is not a matter of God waiting to see if the unbeliever will do something wrong; rather, he is condemned from the start.

The ultimate fate of the unbeliever will be eternal punishment separated from God. In Revelation 20:11–15, John clearly explains the destiny of the unbeliever.

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

The Heart of the Unbeliever
Man is totally depraved. This means that sin has penetrated and corrupted every part of man’s being. Isaiah describes the cancerous effects of sin in Isaiah 1:6, "From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds."

Total depravity does not mean that every human being commits every possible sin or is as bad as he could possibly be. Due to God’s common grace, his gracious restraining of the full effects of sin, man is able to achieve cultural and civic good. It does not mean that all have all made the same progress in sinning (in other words, all are equally dead but not equally corrupt).
Total depravity does mean that, first, every human being is capable of even the most heinous of sins. Second, the unbeliever only does right for selfish purposes (Rom 3:23). Third, he is completely destitute of God’s love, both the ability to love (1 John 4:8) and he is subject to God’s hatred (Ps 5:5; 11:5). Fourth, he has no hope of saving himself (Eph 2:1, 8). Last, sinful man, apart from God’s grace, will continue to grow worse and worse (2 Tim 3:13).

There is no desire for God within him (Rom 3:10–11). There is no capacity for pleasing God within him (Rom 8:8). He is self-deceived by his own heart (Jer 17:9).

The Mind of the Unbeliever
This is really the key to determining the content of our apologetic. When we communicate the gospel with an unbeliever, primarily we are talking about a mental communication of facts, words, and propositional truths. Is man’s mind "neutrally autonomous," as some have assumed? Can he grasp and accept God's truth if he applies his reasoning powers to it?

The biblical teaching about the unbelieving mind is clear: the mind of the unbeliever is depraved and corrupted by sin. In Ephesians 4:17–19, Paul exhorts the Ephesian believers, "Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity."

Notice the phrases Paul uses to describe the depravity of the Gentile unbelievers. He says they live in the futility of their minds. Their understanding has been darkened. They are ignorant. Their hearts are blinded. This results in an immoral lifestyle. Indeed, the Bible clearly teaches that sin does affect the mind!

The unbeliever’s mind is corrupted by sin. Titus 1:15 tells us that he is defiled and impure, including his mind and conscience. Ephesians 2:3 says that when we were unsaved we lived for "the desires of the body and the mind."

His mind is hostile toward God. Romans 8:7 says that "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot." There is no unbeliever who is a "seeker" or even "neutral." Rather, his mind is completely opposed to God and God’s Word.

He cannot accept the truth of God. A passage that helps us understand this is 1 Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." This should not be understood to say that the unbeliever cannot understand the Bible; indeed, he can! He can understand the words of the Scripture because the Bible is both a human and a divine book. It employs human language and that is perfectly intelligible to the human mind.

However, he cannot and in fact, refuses to accept the Word of God. He is dead in sin (Eph 2:1), and every unbeliever without exception rejects the Word of God. He has no ability to respond to the truth. He refuses to submit his life to the truth found in it. It is not until the Holy Spirit regenerates him and gives him life that he is able to accept God’s Word as true.

For this reason, it is useless to try to persuade an unbeliever to be saved. He does not need to be persuaded; he needs to be regenerated! For example, it is pointless to attempt to prove the existence of God to an unbeliever. He already knows that God exists and is suppressing that truth (Rom 1:18–19). Psalm 14:1 says that the fool (another name for an unbeliever, not a mental incompetent) has already decided in his heart that God does not exist. It is not necessary to prove that creation is superior to evolution—every man already knows that God exists from the creation that is around him (Rom 1:18). The unbeliever does not require persuasion; he needs life!

Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews

2006-02-22T19:35:00.000-05:00

The Recipients
The epistle of Hebrews was written to— you guessed it— Hebrews. Although the book does not mention the specific group of Jewish people, everything in the book is seen through Jewish eyes. These Jewish Christians had professed Jesus as their Messiah (Christ) and had become "Christians," or followers of Christ. The time was between the persecution begun by the emperor Nero (A.D. 64, cf. 12:4) and the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70, cf. 10:1-2).

The Writer
The writer of the book of Hebrews is something of a mystery. Nowhere in the book does he identify himself, but he is very familiar with the Old Testament, quoting it more than 35 times in just thirteen chapters. He references the Israelite sacrificial system and priesthood, talks about Moses, Joshua, and Melchizedek, and lists the great Israelite men of faith. Some have speculated that Paul wrote the book, but the style of Hebrews is completely different than the other thirteen epistles we have of Paul. Other suggestions are Luke, Apollos, or Barnabas, but we have to admit, nobody really knows who wrote the book.

The Point of the Book
What is the book of Hebrews all about? These Jewish people had professed Jesus as their Messiah, but now they were beginning to suffer persecution. Not only were they persecuted by the Roman government, other Jews, their former friends and family, were turning on them as well. The Jewish religion was allowed under Roman law, so if they gave up Jesus Christ, they could become Jews again and avoid this persecution. The writer tells them that if they turn back from Jesus Christ, it will be to their own destruction. There is no one else in whom they can place their faith. Therefore, they must press on in faith in Jesus Christ.

The Warning Passages
In the book of Hebrews, we find four warning passages (2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:20; 10:26–31). In no uncertain terms, the writer tells these Jews that if they turn back from faith in Jesus Christ, they will suffer eternal punishment. When we read these warnings, it may sound like the writer is saying that believers can lose their salvation. However, we know that is not true from other passages in Scripture (e.g., John 10:28–30; Rom 8:31–39). The writer of Hebrews is saying that by turning away from Jesus Christ, they demonstrate that they never had true faith.

A Brief Outline of the Book

Jesus Christ is superior to the Old Testament prophets (1:1–4).
Jesus Christ is superior to the angels (1:5–2:18).
Jesus Christ is superior to Moses, the mediator of the Old Covenant (3:1–4:16).
Jesus Christ is superior to Aaron, the Old Testament high priest (5:1–7:28).
Jesus Christ's ministry is superior to the Old Testament ministry (8:1–10:18).
An encouragement not to turn away from Jesus Christ (10:19–39).
An encouragement to continue in faith in Jesus Christ (11:1–12:29).
An encouragement to continue in Christian conduct (13:1–25).

Medal Ceremonies and the Judgment Seat of Christ

2006-02-15T16:40:00.000-05:00

I love watching the Olympics! Even though I don't understand all the winter sports and have only participated in a handful of them, I love watching athletes from around the world competing for their countries. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:24 are very appropriate: they all compete, but only one wins the gold medal.

Whenever I watch the medal ceremonies, I compare them to the judgment seat of Christ. Some have confused the judgment seat with the Great White Throne where the unsaved will be judged and condemned for their disobedience and rejection of Jesus Christ. Yet no one at the judgment seat of Christ will be condemned to the lake of fire.

Others have transformed the judgment seat of Christ into a sort of Christian purgatory, where the shame and embarrassment of God exposing our sinfulness and failures sort of burns away those sins. I must reject that kind of thinking, because in Christ I am justified. My sins have been paid for in full. The words of Romans 8:33-34 ring out with comfort and assurance here: "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died---more than that, who was raised---who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us." No, we will not stand trial for sins already judged by God at the cross.

What then of Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 5:10? "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." I believe in the context of 2 Corinthians 5, this verse is an encouragement, not a Pauline scare tactic. In chapter five, Paul claims that he and all Christians are not afraid of death because we are expecting perfect bodies (vv. 1-5). Furthermore, Christians do not fear death because it is the event that will allow them to finally be at home with the Lord (vv. 6-9). The key to all of this is found in verse seven: "for we walk by faith, not by sight."

To the human eye, dying looks like losing. Serving the Lord for one's whole life is certainly not monetarily rewarding. It will not garner one fame or notoriety. Death looks like the end of any hope from a human perspective. However, to the eye of faith, death is merely a doorway. It is in death that we receive perfect bodies, and it is at death that we go home to be with the Lord.

The final benefit of death that we see through the eye of faith is found in verse ten: we will be rewarded for what we have done here on this earth. We may never get rich by serving the Lord, we may never become famous, but God will fairly and justly reward each one who has sacrificed and served him on this earth. The judgment seat of Christ will be that award ceremony.

The emotions at the medal ceremony run the gamut: there is the joy of the winner, the disappointment of those who fell just hundredths of a second short of winning, and the frustration of those who did not perform up to their expectations because of injury.

I am sure that if you asked any gold medal winner on the podium if it was worth it, he would respond with an immediate and enthusiastic yes! All the hours, months, years of preparation, of torturous workouts, of denying themselves things they wanted are now vindicated. They would not take back one second of that work for the achievement of their goal.

On the other hand, there is disappointment for those who have not won. Perhaps thoughts of regret are running through their minds: regret for not working just a little bit harder, for not giving up something that could have made them just a tiny bit better, or for not running the race a little faster.

The judgment seat of Christ gives us encouragement to continue persevering in our Christian lives. We will be rewarded for our service to the Lord. We will be accountable for what we do. If we squander the opportunities God has given us, we will miss out on the rewards that God has prepared for those "who have loved his appearing" (2 Tim 4:8).

Don't give up! It is worth it! Continue working, continue enduring, continue denying yourself and following Christ, "for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God" (Rom 14:10).

Choosing a Christian College

2006-02-15T15:34:00.000-05:00

We have been talking in our youth group about college the last several weeks. Realizing that each young person is different, we still encourage them to consider a Christian college over a secular institution, at least for their undergraduate work. That being said, there are still differences between Christian colleges.

Not all Christian colleges are created equal. There are many differences: location, focus, academics, quality of education, extracurricular opportunities, campus, theological position, and the list could go on. The “feel” of each college campus is different, and different people will be attracted by different things.

Why the Choice Is Important
More than likely where you choose to go to college will be one of the biggest decisions you make in your life. It will impact the rest of your life. Where you go to college will probably affect:

Who you marry
Where you go to church
What circles of churches you will fellowship with
Many of your friends
Your position on many theological issues (whether you realize it or not)
Your personal convictions in many areas, such as entertainment, music, and dress

What to Look for in a Christian College
So what should you be looking for in a Christian college? What is important and what is not?

Academically: Classes are important— after all, isn’t that why people go to college? Are the teachers well-educated themselves? Your teachers can’t take you farther than they have already been.
Philosophically: What is the direction of the school? What are they trying to produce? Do they just want to give you a good education so that you can go out and earn lots of money? Or are they trying to disciple young people to be more like Christ, regardless of their occupation?
Theologically: What does the school believe? What would they think of your church or your pastor? Would they be in agreement with your church? Remember, more than likely, you will believe what your school does after four years.
Spiritually: What is the condition of the student body? Are they interested in serving the Lord? Do they look like what you hope to look like in four years? Are they at the school because they want to be or because their parents made them go? Will you be able to find good friends who will help you grow in the Lord?

What Really Matters?

2006-02-05T14:57:00.000-05:00

The world's philosophy, as often presented, is "live for the day." In other words, go for whatever is in front of you--- that's what's most important. It may be school work, friends, your reputation, the clothes you wear, your career, your weekend, whatever. Live for the day.

In light of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians, "Walk by faith and not by sight" (2 Cor 5:7), that simply is unacceptable for the Christian. Consequently, some fall into a second pitfall of the world's thinking: "live for tomorrow." In other words, what is ahead of you is most important. It may be college, a promotion, bigger house, better things, more stuff, future dreams, or retirement. You have to live with the future in mind.

This is also unacceptable for the Christian, because it still limits our focus to the temporal and the material. As Jesus warned his disciples, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" (Luke 12:15).

Therefore, the correct outlook must be "live for eternity!" For my own thinking, I have developed this philosophy along four lines.

People are more important than things. Again, Jesus' warning speaks to this: life is more than what you can see, feel, and touch (Luke 12:15).
Pleasing God is more important than pleasing self (or anybody else). The most important goal we can have in life is to please God. That is what is really important. "And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever" (1 John 2:17).
Serving others is more important than serving self. Again, Jesus is the example. His goal in life was not to be served, but to serve others (Mark 10:45), and he commanded his followers to do the same.
Attendance and service in the local church should be a priority. The church should come before job commitments, school, and even extended family. Conflicts are inevitable, but if one decides beforehand what is most important, the situation is often alleviated. For example, I never experienced any conflicts between church and school because I had already solidified my commitment to my church. I worked ahead or worked around church services and special events.

Shedding Some Light

2006-02-05T10:34:00.000-05:00

Ever learn something and then think, "Oh now I get it"? This week, we were studying the Old Testament peace offerings in Sunday school.

The distinctive part and the main emphasis of the peace offering ritual was the eating of the common meal afterward. The kidneys, liver, and fat were offered up in the sacrifice. Fat was considered the choicest and most precious part (cf. Ps 63:5). The fat was not consumed in general eating nor during any sacrificial ritual (Lev 3:16; 7:22–25). The breast was given as a wave offering (Lev 7:30–34), probably a symbol of giving it to God who then gave it back again. The rest of the animal was eaten by the offerer and his family.

There were three types of peace offerings: the thank offering, the votive offering, and the freewill offering. The rules for the common meal differed with each offering. The thank offering had to be eaten in the sanctuary precincts, and it all had to be eaten the same day. For whatever reason, the votive and freewill meals could be eaten the next day but not on the third day.

You may be asking what the point of all of this is. As I studied this information, another passage of Scripture suddenly became much clearer to me. In Proverbs 7, the father warns his son about the "strange woman" who is stalking simple men to destroy them. He describes such a scenario in which the woman catches a man who is in the wrong place and completely clueless. I was always puzzled however, by her opening line.

She catches him, kisses him, and then says, "I had to offer sacrifices, and today I have paid my vows; so now I have come out to meet you, to seek you eagerly, and I have found you" (Prov 7:14-15). She continues on talking about her bed and her husband being gone, and I understood that part, but the first part never really clicked in my mind.

But she was saying that if she had just made a votive offering, she was bringing the meat home with her. The meat had to be eaten the second day; the leftovers would have to be burnt on the third day. She is inviting him to a big meal! All the steak he can eat!

Gifts That Differ

2006-02-05T08:11:00.000-05:00

In my Bible reading today, I came across three verses that have been of incalculable comfort to me in my short time in Christian ministry.

"Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness" (Rom 12:6-8).

The relief that came to my heart when I realized that I didn't have to be a carbon copy of every great pastor that I have known and respected. The Lord comforted me in knowing that he had gifted me for specific tasks. Instead of trying to do other things (for which he may not have gifted me), I should concentrate on the ministries in which he has gifted me.

My Day

2006-02-04T17:59:00.000-05:00

I spent the better part of my day working on my taxes. Due to some withholding errors (some on my part), I will be sending a rather large check to the IRS in April. I was reminded of the following verses:

"Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed" (Rom 13:5-7).

A Dry and Weary Land

2006-01-31T15:28:00.000-05:00

O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you;
my flesh faints for you,
as in a dry and weary land where there is no water.
So I have looked upon you in the sanctuary,
beholding your power and glory.

Because your steadfast love is better than life,
my lips will praise you.
So I will bless you as long as I live;
in your name I will lift up my hands.
My soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food,
and my mouth will praise you with joyful lips,
when I remember you upon my bed,
and meditate on you in the watches of the night;

for you have been my help,
and in the shadow of your wings I will sing for joy.
My soul clings to you;
your right hand upholds me.
But those who seek to destroy my life
shall go down into the depths of the earth;
they shall be given over to the power of the sword;
they shall be a portion for jackals.
But the king shall rejoice in God;
all who swear by him shall exult,
for the mouths of liars will be stopped.

Psalm 63

Like a Rock

2006-01-31T15:22:00.000-05:00

"There is none holy like the LORD;
there is none besides you;
there is no rock like our God."
1 Samuel 2:2

The Impeccability of Christ

2006-01-30T09:14:00.000-05:00

Could Jesus, the Son of God, have sinned during the course of His earthly ministry?

This is a question about the impeccability of Christ. Impeccability means that he was unable to sin. Although some might question this fact, because Jesus Christ is fully God, it would have been impossible for him to sin. This answer gives rise to a second question:

If he could not have sinned, what then was the purpose of his temptation?

One might wonder, if Christ were unable to sin, what was the point of his temptation? It seems almost ludicrous to be tempted with something one is unable to do. In order to understand, we need to realize that Jesus Christ was both God and man. While remaining one indivisible person, he had two distinct natures.

Therefore, Christ’s temptations were different than those of ordinary man. Since he is infinite and holy God, the temptations must have come to him differently than to finite, sinful man. Sin had nothing in Christ onto which it could take hold. Hebrews 4:15 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." The difference between Christ and other men was that Christ did not have a sin nature. Nothing within Jesus Christ responded to the solicitation to evil. This could be compared in a limited sense to someone addressing you in a language you did not know. You do not have the facility to respond to that address.

How valid really then were these temptations?

One must always keep in mind that simply because someone is tempted does not demand the possibility of sin. We cannot assume, however logical it may seem, that just because the Devil solicited the Lord Jesus Christ with evil that he could have responded in a sinful way. One must not make an unbiblical assumption, especially one that strikes at the very core of the doctrine of Christ and salvation.

Why is it important to establish the truth that He could not have sinned (i.e., what problems arise if we were to affirm that he could have sinned)?

If Christ could have sinned, then he is not God. To say that God can be tainted with sin is to blaspheme the holy person of God. Since Jesus Christ is fully God, he cannot sin. Based on this truth, one can extrapolate along three lines:

Because Christ is eternally immutable (Heb 13:8; 1:11-12), he is always holy and therefore unable to sin. Just as he was completely holy in eternity past, he remained holy at his incarnation. While Adam was originally created holy and free from sin but later fell into sin, Jesus' holiness infinitely transcends that of Adam's. Because he is infinitely, eternally, and unchangeably the God-Man, he has always been and will always be unable to sin.
Because Christ is all-powerful, he could not be overpowered by sin. If Jesus could have been overcome by sin, which is finite, then he would not be omnipotent (infinitely powerful).
Because Christ is one person with two natures, his divine nature cannot be overcome by his human nature. The two natures (human and divine) cannot be mixed or confused. If Christ's human nature could have violated his divine nature, then he would no longer be God.

In conclusion, it must be noted that if Christ could have sinned, he could not have been God. If he was not God, he could not have lived a perfect life, satisfying God’s righteous requirements, and he could not have died in our place, taking the punishment for our sin. To say that Jesus Christ could have sinned does violence to the very core of our faith and our salvation.

"It’s Only Rated ‘R’ for Violence"

2006-01-28T09:50:00.000-05:00

One of the weakest arguments I've heard for Christians watching movies, DVD's, or videos they should not is this: "It's only rated 'R' for violence." As if that makes it any better! First, if the ungodly movie industry restricts the audience of a film because of its content, that ought to send up a red flag for the Christian, whose standards of life and thought should be much higher than the unbeliever (Eph 5:3-4; Phil 4:8). Second, gratuitous violence is supposedly better or more palatable than sexual content, nudity, or profanity. This distinction seems difficult to maintain from a scriptural standpoint.

Viewing violent content is simply not compatible with godly Christian living. God hates the person who loves violence (Ps 11:5) and promises to punish violence (Gen 6:11-13; Ezek 7:23–27; Obad 10). God warns the godly man to avoid the "violent man" (Ps 140:1, 4; Prov 4:17; 16:29). He promises to eliminate violence in the coming Millennial Kingdom (Isa 60:18). Furthermore, God condemns both those who commit violence and those who view it with approval (Rom 1:28–32).

Human life is created in God’s image and gratuitous violence cheapens the lives of those for whom the Son of God sacrificed his infinite life. God alone has the right to give and take life. God is the Creator of life (Gen 2:7) and is also in sovereign control of life and death, creating and sustaining each person (Jas 4:13-15; Rom 14:8; Ps 31:15).

The Will of God: Questions to Ask Oneself

2006-01-27T15:47:00.000-05:00

In light of the previous post, here are five questions one could ask himself that might help him determine what God would have him do. This is what I mean by a grid that might "filter out" options to guide us to God's will.

Clear Commands of the Bible (The Revealed Will of God)
Does the Bible permit or prohibit this behavior?
If yes, obey God’s Word. If no, go to the next question.

Biblical Principles
Are principles from God’s Word applicable to this situation?
If yes, apply the principles. If no, go to the next question.

The Local Assembly (Church)
Does the leadership or will of the local assembly instruct or guide me here?
If yes, follow the God-given authority. If no, go to the next question.

Spiritual Giftedness
How has God gifted me to serve his Body? Has he put me here to serve?
If yes, then serve (Rom 12:6-8). If no, go to the next question.

Individual Burden and Desire
Has God given me an unshakeable desire to serve him in this way?

The Will of God: So How Can I Know?

2006-01-27T10:17:00.000-05:00

I have tried to deal with several issues, including wrong methods of determining God's will, what the will of God actually is, and how that relates to salvation. However, the question still remains, "How can I know what God wants me to do? How can I make sure I am following God’s will for my life?" We will try to answer this question with several concentric circles or even as a grid, with filters that are increasingly fine.

1. We must obey God’s clearly revealed will in his Word. When God says that his will for us is our sanctification (1 Thess 4:3) and for us to give thanks (1 Thess 5:16–18), we do not need to wonder what we should do. This is the first step in any serious effort to find God’s will for one’s life. It would be foolish to try to determine what vocation God would desire a person to pursue, whom to marry, where to locate, etc. when that person would refuse to do God's will as he has revealed it in the Bible.

There is more than enough for each one of us to work on in this area. Allegedly, Mark Twain once said, "It's not the things in the Bible I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the things I do understand." We need to be committed to obeying God’s will as it is clearly revealed in Scripture.

2. We must live our lives in conformity with Scriptural principles. A biblical principle is the crux of biblical truth. A principle is a statement of God’s authoritative truth that transcends time and culture.

Everything we do should have a biblical principle behind it. We should be able, if asked, to give a biblical reason why we do anything. If we cannot give a good biblical reason why we are doing something, that should immediately throw up a red flag as to whether that is a legitimate activity for a Christian. Everything that we as Christians do must be done to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). We should be thoroughly biblical in our living and decision making. We should have a "Bible-soaked" mind (Col 3:16).

This biblical basis for life should saturate every area of our life and should not be jettisoned when we begin to discuss contemporary issues in the world around us or personal situations in our lives. We should not decide for or against a practice or ideal based simply on logic or, worse yet, sentiment. Rather, we should seek to have the “mind of Christ” on every issue (cf. 1 Cor 2:16; 7:40).

3. Our church, the local assembly of believers, plays an important role in helping us know what God's will is for our life. In our individualistic American society, we tend to downplay the part the community of believers plays in helping us know what we ought to do. The local assembly provides a forum for service and loving leadership to confirm one’s calling.
Both of these things can be seen in God’s calling of the first two missionaries from the church at Antioch in Acts 13:1–4.

"Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus."

Notice that the location of this "call" to ministry was a local church. Second, notice that these men were serving the Lord in their church when the "call" came. Third, notice that the church, upon accepting and confirming these men as called by God, released them from their assembly to do the work God had given them. Notice however, that the One who sent them out was the Holy Spirit.

A second representative passage shows how God’s will can be made known through the local body of believers. 2 Corinthians 8:18–19 describes how the churches chose one of their own to deliver a financial gift to other churches. This determined the "will of God" for this man.

"With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel. And not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace that is being ministered by us, for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our good will."

Along the same lines, a man can claim that God has called him to be an overseer or a deacon, but that is not what gives him that office. The will of the assembly as they select and install that man points out the will of God.

In summary, two things should be noted: a believer ought to be involved in the service of his or her local church. Second, a believer ought to be submissive to the leadership of his church, because God has placed those men over him (1 Thess 5:12–13; Heb 13:7, 17). They can recognize and confirm a person's gifts and calling.

4. God gives unique gifts to each believer that equip him or her to serve. 1 Corinthians 12 makes it quite clear that God has given unique gifts (vv. 4–6, 8–10, 28–30) to each believer (vv. 7, 11) to benefit the entire body of believers (vv. 7, 25–26). Each person has a unique set of gifts and abilities that will enable him to fit perfectly into the role God has prepared for him. How does one know what gifts and abilities they possess? The church leadership can be of invaluable help in pointing out these things.

5. God places desires and aspirations in the heart of each believer. This is the most subjective part of all, but God gives a desire or "burden" to believers concerning how they will serve him. These desires ought not be taken lightly. We know that God places the aspiration to serve as an elder into the hearts of certain men (1 Tim 3:1).

2 Corinthians 8:16 speaks of God laying a burden for ministry to the Corinthians on Titus' heart. "But thanks be to God, who put into the heart of Titus the same earnest care I have for you." While these things can be difficult to discern, it seems that God will give an unshakeable desire for service to those whom he wants to serve him.

The Will of God and Salvation

2006-01-26T16:29:00.000-05:00

How does God’s will affect the salvation of men? 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." However, we know that not all will be saved (Rev 20:11–15).

God desires all men to be saved--- his moral, not decreed, will. Some might argue that "saved" in 1 Timothy 2:4 means physical preservation, but the vast majority see that it refers to salvation from wrath and judgment. Several commentaries say that it is important that Paul uses the passive voice of σωθηναι, and because he does, this places the action in God's moral will, and not his decreed will.

In the New Testament, the verb θέλω was rapidly replacing βούλομαι, and the two words shared a long history as synonyms. Both Kittle and Brown argue this point. However, these sources note that there was an original distinction between θέλω, denoting a desire that springs from inclination, and βούλομαι, as a desire that springs from deliberation (Mueller, NIDNTT, 3:1015-1018). Based on this distinction, it is commonly argued that θέλω here represents God's moral will in harmony with his nature, but distinct from his decreed or secret will.
In other words, God commands all men to repent of their sin (Acts 17:30) and believe in his Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:18). This is his preceptive will. However, only those whom God has chosen from the foundation of the world will be saved (Eph 1:4-6), which is his secret, or decreed, will.

The Will of God in the New Testament

2006-01-26T13:34:00.000-05:00

When we discuss the will of God, confusion abounds. Perhaps much of the confusion comes from the different meanings we give the phrase "the will of God." There are three distinguishable aspects of the will of God.

First, there is what we could call the secret will of God. This includes whatsoever comes to pass. Everything that happens does so because God has decreed it. To know the secret will of God would be to know the future. This is the aspect of the will of God which we reference when we say "if the Lord wills" (Jas 4:15). When New Testament writers say they did or were something "by the will of God," they meant to say that God had in his decree their being or doing that thing. When we pray, we have confidence that he will answer any request that is in keeping with his will (1 John 5:14). Other references to the secret will of God would include Deuteronomy 29:29a, Daniel 3:17–18, Matthew 18:7, and Luke 22:22.

This aspect of the will of God does not need to be "discovered"; rather, the secret will of God basically requires acceptance. As Jesus himself prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (Matt 26:39).

Second, we could characterize God's desires as the unspecified will of God. This includes personal and/or corporate concerns. This is usually what we mean when we refer to "finding God's will." We want to know what God wants us to do in a given circumstance. Ephesians 5:10 says that we should be "trying to discern what is pleasing to the Lord." There is little or no reference to New Testament believers trying to "find God’s will" for their life. Again, we are not talking about something spooky and definitely not extra-biblical revelation, but living in a wise and godly way. The unspecified will of God specifically requires biblical wisdom and guidance.

Third, most of the revealed will of God could be categorized as the preceptive will of God. This has to do with the commands and exhortations of Scripture. Another way to say this is "What God wants [us to do]." The vast majority of what Christians ought to do is readily found in Scripture. For instance, God's will for believers is that they be holy, avoiding immorality (1 Thess 4:3). The first part of Deuteronomy 29:29 talks of God's secret will, while the second part deals with his preceptive will. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." The preceptive will of God specifically requires our obedience.

The secret will of God, which is everything that he has decreed will happen, is unrevealed. However, what has already happened (the past) is "revealed" in that sense, and what God promises will happen in the future is revealed. We do not know everything that God has predetermined will happen.

The unspecified will of God, that is, what God wants me to do with my life, who he wants me to marry, etc., is also unrevealed. Nowhere in the Bible do I find answers to the questions I have about specific situations in my life. Since someone could do something that is "outside of God’s will," this aspect is not a part of God’s decreed will.

The preceptive will of God is revealed in Scripture. It is what God wants us to do. However, we may violate that and disobey. In this case, we have made it plain that God’s decreed will and his moral will overlap at some points but are disjunct at others.

It is interesting to note that none of the 23 occurrences of the phrase "will of God" in the New Testament fall under the idea of trying to find or discern God’s unspecified will for an individual’s life or a ministry’s future. Most deal with what God has already done (his decreed will) or what God wants us to do (his commands).

In conclusion, we can say that the first aspect (the secret will of God) is what will happen. God renders it certain because he has willed it. The second and third aspects are what should happen but may or may not be part of God’s secret will of what actually will happen.

The Will of God: What Does God Want Me to Do?

2006-01-25T20:10:00.000-05:00

How does one go about "finding God’s will"? How do we know if we are "in God’s will"? Although we have many buzzwords, I think we are getting at one main question: what does God want me to do?

Many ways of finding out what God wants us to do have been put forth. Some methods fall into a category of mysticism, which claims to have a direct link with God whereby he reveals his will to you. Since we do not believe in ongoing revelation, this is a problem for our theology. Unfortunately, most of the people espousing this type of view neither claim to be theologians nor want to be, so the theological objection holds little weight with them. Variations of this kind of thinking include the following:

Some speak of a feeling of peace (presumably placed there by God). This is captured by the phrases "I have a peace about something" or the converse "I don’t have a peace." This is a completely subjective argument; no one else knows whether you "have a peace" or not! However, in 2 Corinthians 7:5–7, Paul says that when he and his coworkers came to Macedonia, their "bodies had no rest, but we were afflicted at every turn--fighting without and fear within." This certainly does not seem like Paul "had a peace" about doing what God wanted him to do—in fact, the "peace" came after he had done what God wanted, indicating that perhaps a feeling of peace is not the best way to know if we are doing the right thing.
Others "put out a fleece." This supposedly finds biblical precedent in Gideon’s actions (Judg 6:36–40). By presenting some sort of "test case" to God and interpreting the answer, some claim to be able to verify what God wants them to do. Unfortunately, this idea also falls upon theological difficulty since Gideon was acting in faithlessness (Judg 6:36). Ultimately, this is also a very subjective method, since a so-called "fleece" could be influenced by any number of outside entities.
Others claim that "the Holy Spirit is leading" them to do something. This is biblical terminology used in an unbiblical way. Romans 8 speaks very directly about being "led by the Spirit." Those who are "led by the Spirit" are "the sons of God" (Rom 8:14). It is very clear from Romans chapter eight that every Christian is "led by the Spirit" in that sense.

The upshot of all of these arguments is that a person can claim that a course of action is God's will, even if it is completely unverifiable or even illogical.

On the opposite swing of the pendulum is a thinking that denies that God has a specific will for any believer. This viewpoint claims that it is immaterial to God what car you drive, what career you pursue, even what person you marry, as long as you do not violate any biblical command or principle. However, the "details" of life are not irrelevant to God. He has planned and decreed every one of them, and he tells us that in everything we do, even down to the routine tasks of eating and drinking, we are to bring glory to him (1 Cor 10:31). In other words, the details are important to God.

Human Autonomy and Airports

2006-01-24T15:34:00.000-05:00

The heart and soul of depravity is autonomy. Unregenerate man does not subject himself to God’s authority and indeed, he cannot (Rom 8:7). Human autonomy does not wish to be told what to do. Autonomy wants to do what it wants when it wants. The autonomous heart chafes at the idea of any restrictions and refuses to follow any direction.

Nowhere is this autonomy more on display than the airport. In the airport, myriads of instructions are given to the travelers. When to step up to the counter, where to put the bags, when to take off one's shoes, when to board, what kind of carry-on luggage is permissible, when to use the cellular phone: all day long, rules and restrictions are placed on every individual.

Consequently, depravity rears its autonomous head over and over again. Lines are for everybody else; I can just go to the head of the line. After all, I’m in a hurry; everyone else will understand. I will talk on my wireless phone whenever I care to; surely an exception will be made when everyone realizes just how important my incoming call is.

I remarked to my wife that we could speed up the TSA checkpoint ordeal by probably 75% if we just had two lines: those who can follow instructions and those who can't. For those of us who can follow instructions, we will take off our shoes, take our laptops out of the cases, and remember to keep our boarding passes out. We will zip right through the line. In the other line, those who struggle following directions will keep trying to get through the metal detectors with pockets full of change and metal watches. I stood in a TSA line for forty-five minutes a few weeks ago in Houston, and the man in front of me still held up the line when he got to the front because he didn't take his laptop out of the case! Did he ever wonder why the several hundred people we had watched go through the checkpoint had taken their laptops out?

Then there is the unpleasant bit of business they call boarding. For all who have done any flying, we know the drill: babies, senior citizens, and handicapped persons first, then the "Elite members" stride on with monstrous leather rolling suitcases the size of caskets (as we mere peons genuflect in reverence and awe), then the agent calls for row numbers, starting from the rear of the plane. I am always overcome with cynicism, as I wait my turn and finally board the plane, to find that the plane is almost full--- and I find it hard to believe that all these people already on the plane are handicapped or "Elite members."

Boarding a plane in Mexico City two weeks ago, I was seated in row 20. After waiting until my row was called (remember there are still fifteen rows between me and first class), I boarded the plane to find that I was the last person to be seated on an entirely full plane! Obviously, I didn't get the memo that the row numbers thing is only for other people.

Just when you think it can't get any worse, it's time to stow luggage in the overhead bins. Now the airlines give specific instructions about how much is allowed, what size those things should be, how many per person, etc., but do you think that human autonomy accepts this impingement on its freedom? Not a chance. People come in lugging full-size suitcases and expect a 110-pound flight attendant to help them cram a piece of luggage that weighs more than she does into a compartment seven feet in the air. They are ticked off when their fellow passengers are so inconsiderate as not to leave them a space in the overhead bin big enough to park a small Japanese car. And if the flight attendant should even dare to suggest that they check these monstrous pieces of luggage, well!

If you're like me, you leave the airport wondering why you should even bother trying to follow the rules--- because you'll be the only one who does. It makes me look forward to air travel during the Millennium, when King Jesus will rule with a rod of iron.

Sovereign Staying Power

2006-01-22T22:58:00.000-05:00

A very significant, although easily overlooked, verse was pointed out to me in a message Sunday. Daniel 1:21 says, "And Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus." As the writer of the book moves on from Daniel's spiritual character and physical prowess in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, he mentions in passing something of Daniel's longevity.

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, captured Jerusalem (and carried off the Hebrew captives) in 586 BC. Daniel was a young man, perhaps in his early teens at this time, and Daniel 1 speaks of his prominence in the court of Babylon. The verse states that Daniel maintained his presence in the court of the king all the way until the time of Cyrus, king of Persia. Cyrus gained superiority over the Medes around 546 BC. During that time, Babylon fell to Media, which was subsequently defeated by Cyrus.

The amazing thing is that Daniel survived the "spoils system" and maintained his position of influence and power for at least forty years through two major regime changes. The point was made to me that Daniel could have been tempted to sin against his convictions in the early going (1:8-16), making the excuse that he needed to "adapt" and "assimilate the Babylonian culture" if he was going to be able to retain his ability to influence the king. However, he chose to please and obey God, and God sovereignly maintained Daniel's presence far beyond what human scheming could have ever done.

An End or a Means?

2006-01-18T19:59:00.000-05:00

I had the opportunity to listen to a sermon online by Paris Reidhead, Ten Shekels and a Shirt from Judges 17. In the sermon, Reidhead asked the question, Is God an end or a means?

He makes the claim that when we present the Gospel as merely a way to escape Hell, we make God a means rather than an end. God becomes a way to make us happy instead of receiving all the glory for salvation. I would recommend this sermon to you. (If you prefer, you can read a transcript of the sermon as well.)

Literal Translation: Not Always the Best Idea, Part 2

2006-01-17T11:55:00.000-05:00

Several months ago, I wrote several posts about ideas of translation. I tried to make the point that literal translation does not necessarily mean the best translation. Here, for your enjoyment, is another example I captured in a bathroom in the Mexico City airport. It should be noted that the English translation at the right is very literal--- however, it makes little to no sense. It still amazes me that a multi-million dollar, newly-remodeled international airport can't find a native English speaker to help them produce signage. What a relief to know that "this bath have to remain without bad smell."

Extrapolation of Depravity

2006-01-17T10:47:00.000-05:00

I had the privilege of spending the last week and a half in Mexico City, helping missionary Mike Goldfuss work on his house.

It doesn't take long in Mexico to find out that things do not usually move at the pace we might like to go. People make promises they never intend to keep, workers don’t do what they are paid to do, and suppliers overcharge for their products. Are Mexicans just bad people?

I would respond that Mexico does not have a monopoly on depravity. In no way do I underestimate the ability of the unregenerate heart of man to deceive itself and continually find new ways to manifest its autonomy and self-centered rebellion against God. We do ourselves a great disservice if we think that we are somehow beyond the blatant corruption and dishonesty we might see in Mexico, for example. Oftentimes, we are just more refined and sneaky about our corruption and dishonesty.

On the other hand, some might excuse this kind of sinfulness as "culture." Culture is often the untouchable sacred cow in a man-centered gospel. For example, Mexicans are stereotypically tardy. Therefore, one might say it would be wrong to encourage Mexicans to come to a church service on time, because that would go "against their culture." I remember vividly one time a family from the church in Mexico City invited us to play soccer on a Tuesday evening. They said they would come by around seven o’clock. At 6:20, they were knocking on the door ready to go--- and this was the same family that arrived at church fifty minutes late the previous Sunday!

Many times, it seems to me that culture is simply the extrapolation of depravity. It is the collective sinful patterns and behaviors of a group. Drunkenness and adultery are not part of "culture," they are manifestations of evil hearts bent of the lusts of the flesh. Dishonesty in business is not simply a social convention, it stems from a heart that refuses to conform to the character of the God of truth. As we examine other cultures (or even our own), we ought to be on the lookout for extrapolations of depravity.

The Meaning of "Irrevocable"

2006-01-12T00:03:00.000-05:00

One of the reasons I embrace a dispensational hermeneutic is because God's promises never fail. In Romans 11:29, Paul makes this statement: "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

The covenant theologian would apply this verse (and rightly so) to our personal salvation. If God has promised salvation to those whom he has chosen (the "hope" that forms the backbone of Romans 5-11), we can be sure that he will fulfill his promise. However, the context of Romans 11 is the future of national Israel. While the Jews were the enemies of the church in the time of Paul (and Judaism is still diametrically opposed to Christianity today), Israel remains God’s chosen nation (Rom 11:28).

But Israel has rejected her God. She crucified his Messiah. She persecuted his Church. Surely God has moved on and rejected Israel as well. No, Paul responds, the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. God does not go back on his promises. God made specific promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. His promises and sovereign election will not fail or ever come to nothing.

To claim that Israel was God’s temporary physical people and the Church is God's permanent spiritual people seems to do violence to Romans 11:29. Furthermore, if God made physical promises to national Israel (for instance, regarding land and a coming kingdom), but then is somehow spiritually fulfilling those promises to the church, what guarantee do we have that the promises God has given us will not be changed or given to some other group?

Maranatha!

2006-01-01T14:24:00.001-05:00

Looking back on 2005 and ahead to 2006, there are many things on which one could comment. Clearly, God has helped us and brought us through the past year. As to the year ahead, we do not know what the future holds (and I would say that we probably do not really want to know either). But we know that God is sovereign and we trust his goodness.

Every year, I wonder to myself: will this be the year that Christ returns to snatch away his Bride? Will the individuals who make up his Body not see 2007? I have many goals for 2006 and many things I would like to accomplish. However, I would gladly give up any of those to be rid at last of the presence of sin. To enjoy unhindered fellowship with God free from that sin nature that has harrassed me for my whole life--- what joy!

I groan along with all of the created order for that final redemption from sin, that hope of ultimate salvation (Rom 8:17-25; 2 Cor 5:1-9). I look forward to being in the very presence of Jesus Christ. To see the "day of redemption" which the indwelling Holy Spirit guarantees me (Eph 4:30)--- I can hardly wait!

So, as we bid farewell to 2005 and welcome a new year, I say, Maranatha! "Our Lord, come!" (1 Cor 16:22). "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev 22:20).

The Peace of Christmas

2005-12-25T14:25:00.000-05:00

While the world looks for a warm feeling or thinks that Christmas is all about peace on earth, the true peace that each one of us can know this season is peace with God. Perhaps some might be surprised by this statement because they didn't even realize they were not at peace with God. However, the truth of the matter is that every one of us has been hopelessly estranged from God because of our sinfulness and acts of disobedient rebellion against God.

However, God has revealed a way to be right with him: justification by faith alone without works (Rom 4). It is only on this basis that we can have peace with God. Through the Person and work of Christ, we are at peace with God (Rom 5:1–11).

The first four verses of this passage delineate the blessings of being reconciled to God: first, we are now at peace with God (v. 1). No longer do we stand condemned as guilty sinners before God. Instead, we have access into this grace in which we stand (v. 2), our justification, when God declared us "not guilty" because of the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ. Not only do we stand uncondemned because of our position, we rejoice in the hope of glorification (v. 2), our future ultimate salvation. We, along with all of the created order (Rom 8:19-24), long for that future redemption from the very presence of sin and all of its effects. Not only do we rejoice in the past and future, we can also in our present sufferings, because God is using them to make us more like himself (vv. 3–5). Difficulties build endurance which produces tested and proven character. That building of character gives us hope, because we see that God is working all things for our sanctification (Rom 8:28-29). He is making us more like Jesus Christ.

The benefits of reconciliation ultimately demonstrate that we are the recipients of God’s love (vv. 5–11). God's love for us is demonstrated by the indwelling Holy Spirit (v. 5), by sending Christ to die for us when we were ungodly (vv. 6–8), by redeeming us from eternal wrath (v. 9), and by reconciling us to himself through the Person and Work of Christ (vv. 10–11).

God has created us. We have rebelled against him and sinned, disobeying his commands and falling short of his righteousness. We are sinners by choice and by nature, completely deserving of his righteous wrath. However, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, took on flesh, became a man, and lived a sinless life, completely fulfilling all of God's righteous requirements and taking the punishment that we deserved. God has revealed a way to be right with him: faith in his Son, Jesus Christ. Through faith, the righteousness of Christ is credited to our accounts and his death is applied as payment for our sin. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we can know true peace. When we have been justified by faith in Jesus Christ, we have peace with God.

The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament

2005-12-20T14:22:00.000-05:00

I had a thought Sunday as we were studying the annunciation of the birth of the Messiah to Mary (Luke 1:26-38). If I were to ask for a proof text of the virgin birth from the Old Testament, we would undoubtedly turn to Isaiah 7:14. "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

However, notice the response of Mary when the angel tells her that she will bear the promised Messiah. She does not say, "That's great--- and since I'm a virgin, that will fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah." Instead, she responds, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luke 1:34).

Now we could say that Mary was largely ignorant of the Old Testament, but you wouldn't know it from the depth of scriptural allusion in her Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). Rather, it seems that she understood Isaiah 7 strictly in relationship to Ahaz and that specific historic situation.

Without going into an extended discussion of the interpretation of Isaiah 7 (not to mention its relationship to Matthew 1:22-23), I think this demonstrates quite vividly God's progressive revelation. What seems so clear to us looking back, was not nearly so for those who had not been entrusted with the revelation which we now enjoy.

The Relationship of Separation and Fellowship

2005-12-15T09:58:00.000-05:00

A friend and former classmate of mine, Mike Riley, wrote what I thought was a very poignant and helpful post on the relationship of ecclesiastical separation and fellowship.

Peace on Earth

2005-12-12T15:58:00.000-05:00

One of the things that bothers me about the Christmas season is the frequent appearance of the phrase "Peace on Earth" in various places: signs on buildings, written in lights on people's lawns, or on Christmas cards. Many traditional Christmas carols seem to echo the same sentiment.

While I certainly do not advocate war or unrest over peace, I wonder what is behind this phrase. There seems to be a thinking that this is a time of peace, love, and other mushy sentiments when people's hearts should be warm. I imagine that the phrase itself is taken from the angel's words to the shepherds in Luke 2:14, which say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

At first blush, it may appear that this verse means to say that the coming of Jesus Christ to the world at his incarnation was for the purpose of establishing world-wide peace. And yet, as we look around, there is no peace on earth. Around the world, instead of finding universal peace, we find universal animosity and hostility. After all, he does speak of peace on earth.

As we look back through the Old Testament, the prophets spoke of the coming Messiah as a ruler who would bring peace. Isaiah 9:6 says, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Zechariah's prophecy looked forward to a Messiah who would bring a worldwide reign of peace. "I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth" (Zech 9:10). The Jews were commanded to pray for that coming reign of peace, when Jerusalem would be the capital city of the world (Ps 122:6).

This was the Messiah for whom the nation of Israel was eagerly waiting. He would come, deliver them from the nations that oppressed them, and set up his universal kingdom. Imagine their disappointment when Jesus told them that he had not come to set up that kingdom of earthly peace: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34; cf. Luke 12:49-51). Because his own people rejected the claim that Jesus was "the king of the Jews" (John 19:15), they had him executed.

Even Jesus' disciples were hopeful. After all, had not Jesus commanded them to pray for God’s kingdom to be set up (Matt 6:10)? After the resurrection of Jesus, his disciples were asking him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). His response indicated that this universal kingdom was still future: "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority" (Acts 1:7).

Paul's letter to the Corinthians indicates that the coming of this kingdom is still future. As he discusses the resurrected bodies that every Christian will receive, he gives a series of events marked chronologically by "then" (1 Cor 15:22-28). First is the resurrection of Christ. Next comes the resurrection and glorification of all those who are part of his body at the Rapture. Following the Rapture will come the universal reign of Jesus Christ, when he will fulfill God's promises to Israel regarding their Messiah that are yet unfulfilled.

I look forward to that day when Jesus Christ will reign from his throne in Jerusalem. I will rejoice at the culmination of God's administration of his sovereign rule throughout the ages in his Son, the Prince of Peace. May His kingdom come. May His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

A Living Faith and Trials (Jas 1:1-18)

2005-12-12T15:41:00.000-05:00

James opens his epistle to the scattered Jews who are "brethren" in Christ. As Christians, these Jews are subjected to double persecution: they are both looked down upon as Jews and persecuted as followers of Christ. In the face of these difficulties and persecutions however, James exhorts his readers to consider these hardships a joyful experience. Lest one think James is advocating a Pollyanna-type unrealistic approach to suffering, he gives a reason for this attitude: trials and tests build endurance. Just as an athlete endures the pain of a workout in order to build endurance and stamina, so God sends hardships into the lives of believers to build their endurance and strengthen their faith. Although the process is not immediately pleasurable, the believer can rejoice because he knows God is working through the trials to build his faith. As a believer is strengthened in faith and endurance, he grows toward maturity and completeness, filling in the areas that lack. Therefore, James says that a believer can rejoice in the face of trouble, knowing that ultimately, it will make him more like Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 8:29).

In these difficult times, a believer might find himself wondering what to do or how to react. James assures the believers that they can rely on God to give them wisdom. God gives his wisdom generously and without reproach to those who ask in faith. God will not withhold or belittle those who humbly ask him for wisdom.

On the other hand, those who ask God for wisdom in a doubting and faithless manner should not expect anything from God. It would be preposterous to ask God what to do in a given situation when there is not an accompanying desire to obey his will. Examples of this phenomenon include believers praying whether they should marry an unbeliever or a believer praying that God would remove lustful thoughts while continuing a steady diet of lustful material. James calls this person the "double-minded man" or the "two-souled person" (διψυχος). He is a believer who is not living in a manner compatible with the new life he has in Christ. This kind of behavior is characterized by instability or incoherency. This kind of person should not expect to receive anything from God, because of his hypocritical and inconsistent lifestyle.

Difficulties in life are the great equalizer: they happen to people at all stations of life. Rich and poor alike share in life’s hardships and trials. Those of mean circumstances can rejoice in this fact, while the rich can be thankful for the reminder of life’s temporary nature. Fame and fortune are extremely fragile, and can disappear just as quickly as grass and flowers wither in the sun’s heat. In this respect, every believer, rich or poor, is on an equal plane: when hardship comes, they can receive God’s blessing by faithfully persevering. God has promised every one of those he has chosen will fully and finally persevere in their faith, and for this, he will reward them with eternal life.

An inadequate response to testing or trouble is to blame God as the cause of sin. Each believer has the responsibility to respond in a Christlike, obedient way to difficulties, and God has not permitted these trials to enter life to cause believers to sin. Trials are not an excuse for sin, because God never solicits believers to do evil; instead, they are enticed by their own sinful desires. Sin comes when a person follows their own fleshly desire to do evil and sin. Sin’s final and ultimate end is death.

Death is completely antithetical to God’s purposes. God gives good gifts, gifts that end in life. Indeed, God, through means of his holy Word, has given believers new life out of their sinfulness. He is not seeking to draw them back into sin and death through his testing. Instead, he seeks for them to glorify him by responding correctly to testing.

Our Incarnate High Priest

2005-12-12T14:37:00.000-05:00

As I think about the incarnation of the Son of God, I am filled with wonder and awe at the gracious love of God to send his Son (1 John 4:9-10) along with the humility of the Son to obey (Phil 2:5-11). Because of the incarnation, we have a Savior who is 100% God and 100% man. It is absolutely essential that he is God and man (as some fail to realize). He must be God in order to satisfy completely God's righteous requirements and provide that right standing that we must have credited to our account. He must also be man, or else he could not die in our place.

In Hebrews 4:15, we find both of these blessings in one verse. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." As the writer of Hebrews continues to extol the superiority of Christ, he shows that there is no contest--- Jesus Christ is infinitely better than the Levitical priests. While a human priest can "deal gently with the ignorant and wayward" (Heb 5:2) because he is made of the same flesh, our Great High Priest can also sympathize with our weaknesses--- because he became a man and "shared in our flesh and blood" (Heb 2:14).

However, there is a difference: Jesus Christ was tested like we are, but he had no sin. Of course, he never sinned, but he didn't have anything on which sin could lay hold, that sin nature with which we all struggle. He was free from sin in the act and the principle.

Because of the fact that he is a human, he knows our struggles and our difficulties. I remember reading a story (if I knew to whom I ought to give credit, I would) about a blind boy. This boy was walking alone, outside, when a low-hanging branch knocked him off his feet. As he sat on the ground, his head pounding, he cursed God for allowing him to be blind. God had no idea what it was like to be hit in the face without knowing it was coming. In a flash, his mind ran to Luke 22:63-64. "Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him as they beat him. They also blindfolded him and kept asking him, 'Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?'" Jesus did know what it was like.

Because we have a sympathetic high priest, we can come to him with complete confidence. "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb 4:16).

A New Testament Burnt Offering

2005-12-11T13:55:00.000-05:00

Under the Mosaic Law, the Israelites were commanded to bring sacrifices to God. One of the sacrifices God outlines is the burnt offering (Lev 1:1-17). The Old Testament believer could bring a male bull, sheep, or goat (or pigeons or turtledoves) as a burnt offering. He freely brought this offering, and upon presenting it before the Lord, identifying with it by laying his hand on its head, slit its throat and allowed it to bleed out. The priest captured the blood and splashed it on the sides of the altar, making atonement for the offerer. Then the entire animal was placed on the altar and set on fire until it was completely burned up.

This offering demonstrated his complete consecration and devotion to God. There was nothing left of the animal after the offering. Unlike other sacrifices, he did not get to eat any of the meat. This sacrifice was a "write off." It was a complete "loss." He brought this sacrifice, his animal which he had raised and was his source of food or work, and gave it completely to God. It was totally burned up in his sacrifice.

In the New Testament, the believer is the burnt offering. Romans 12:1 says, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." We no longer demonstrate our devotion to God by sacrificing an animal (or even by giving up some pleasure for Lent). No, God asks for much more than that.

Instead, the believer shows his love and devotion to God by giving his whole physical life completely to God in obedience. Before we were saved, we willing presented our bodies as instruments for unrighteousness (Rom 6:13). Now, as God's children, we eagerly present our bodies to God in complete devotion and willingness to obey Him.

A Savior, the Messiah, the LORD

2005-12-08T16:11:00.000-05:00

The God-Man is Born

2005-12-08T15:06:00.000-05:00

Some Things to Remember When Studying the Old Testament

2005-12-05T14:32:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I began a several-week study in Sunday School on the Old Testament sacrificial system. I wanted to impress on the class a few things that, if they got nothing else, guide us as we study the Old Testament.

Old Testament Scripture should be interpreted literally. Sometimes this is called a "normative" interpretation. This does not preclude figures of speech, but the text should be interpreted in light of authorial intent.

Old Testament Scripture should be interpreted contextually, with regard to the original audience and occasion and with regard to God’s progressive revelation. We should seek to understand the text as its original recipients understood it. We must remember that they did not know everything we know now. God has revealed things to us as his Church which were hidden from Old Testament believers.

Old Testament Scripture reveals the unchanging nature of God; however, the way God administers his sovereign rule changes from age to age. God's nature and attributes do not change; however, he does change the way in which he administers his sovereignty. In the Old Testament, God is dealing primarily through the nation of Israel. In the New Testament church, God is gathering together a people for his own from every nation and tongue.

Old Testament Scripture is God-breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16). We should never discount the Old Testament as something less than God's Word. Even if Old Testament truth is not as readily applicable to our lives, it is still God's inspired Word.

Old Testament Scripture gives us examples to help us learn how we should or should not act (1 Cor 10:11; Rom 15:4).

New Testament believers (members of the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ) are no longer under the Mosaic Law’s jurisdiction. We have been freed from the Mosaic Law to obey God (Gal 2:19–21; Jas 2:10; Rom 10:4). The Mosaic Law is a unity and cannot be arbitrarily dissected, as I have argued before. Jesus Christ's perfect obedience to God, fulfilling the Law, has freed us from that bondage.

Old Testament believers were saved by faith in God, just as we are saved (Rom 4:1–3; 3:20). The Law never offered eternal life. The only way to be saved is by believing God.

Old Testament believers demonstrated their faith by obeying God, just as we do today (Jas 2:20–26). In the Old Testament, obedience was the proper response of genuine faith, not a condition for it. Faith without works is dead, then as now.

We must be careful not to import Church truth or later revelation back into the Old Testament. It is easy, from our vantage point in history and in God's progressive revelation, to assume Old Testament believers knew what we know today. However, many things revealed to the Church were hidden from Old Testament believers.

Dead With Christ

2005-12-01T21:50:00.000-05:00

Ever get the feeling you're missing something very important? Today I was teaching from Colossians 3 and it struck me that the basis of Paul's argument in chapters three and four is the fact that we have died and risen again with Christ.

Then later today, I was contemplating the three times in the book of Galatians that Paul mentions identification with Christ in his crucifixion. In Galatians 2:20, Paul says that he is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law because in Christ he has died to the Law. In Galatians 5:24, he mentions that believers are dead to the "old man" (the life before Christ)and its attendent lifestyle because of their identification with Christ's death. In Galatians 6:14, Paul says that he has died to the world and its fame and glory because of his position in Christ.

Perhaps everybody else already knew this and I'm just catching on, but maybe if we really had a grip on who we are in Christ, it wouldn't be such a stretch to "set our minds on things above, not on things that are on earth" (Col 3:2).

Thanking God in Prayer

2005-11-30T21:41:00.000-05:00

As we celebrated Thanksgiving this past week, I was thinking about giving thanks. There are many things that we are thankful for: family, friends, church, country, etc. But as I thought about the examples of thanksgiving in the New Testament, I found that my thanks seemed very temporal and very me-centered.

In Colossians 1:3-8, Paul opens the epistle with a prayer of thanksgiving for the believers (as he does in almost all of his epistles). His prayer of thanksgiving for those believers encompasses at least four major areas:

He thanks God for the believers' faith.
He thanks God for the believers' love for each other.
He thanks God for the spread of the Gospel, both quantitatively (to more people), and qualitatively (in more consistent obedience).
He thanks God for faithful ministers of the Gospel (like Epaphras).

I just get the feeling that even my thanks to God is often very shallow.

Thanking God for the Freedom of Our Country

2005-11-25T20:21:00.000-05:00

"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover–up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor" (1 Pet 2:13-17).

Thanking God for His Steadfast Character

2005-11-25T17:12:00.000-05:00

"For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence,
for my hope is from him.
He only is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall not be shaken.
On God rests my salvation and my glory;
my mighty rock, my refuge is God"

(Psalm 62:5-7).

Thanking God for His Faithfulness to His Word

2005-11-24T21:50:00.000-05:00

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it"

(Isa 55:10–11).

Thanking God for His Material Provision

2005-11-24T18:54:00.000-05:00

"Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matt 6:26).

Thanking God for His Care

2005-11-24T18:45:00.000-05:00

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows" (Matt 10:29–31).

My Times Are In Your Hand

2005-11-22T18:58:00.000-05:00

My Times Are In Thy Hand
William F. Floyd

My times are in Thy hand;
My God, I wish them there;
My life, my friends, my soul I leave
Entirely to Thy care.

My times are in Thy hand,
Whatever they may be;
Pleasing or painful, dark or bright,
As best may seem to Thee.

My times are in Thy hand,
Jesus, the Crucified!
Those hands my cruel sins had pierced
Are now my guard and guide.

My times are in Thy hand,
I’ll always trust in Thee;
And, after death, at Thy right hand
I shall forever be.

"But I trust in you, O LORD; I say, ‘You are my God.’ My times are in your hand; rescue me from the hand of my enemies and from my persecutors!" (Ps 31:14–15).

A Good "Gospel Song"

2005-11-22T18:51:00.000-05:00

My wife and I are visiting her family in New Hampshire this week. This evening I spent some time playing and reading through an old hymnal (my mother-in-law has a whole bookshelf full of old hymnals). Several hymns caught my eye and made me wonder why we don’t sing them more regularly. The depth of theology and biblical allusions of these texts far surpass many of the "lighter," testimonial-type, "Gospel songs" we often sing.

I don’t have a problem with those types of songs, but I do think a good balance is necessary. Just as the Christian life should not be all theology with no experience, so it should neither be all experience with no theology.

If I must have a "testimonial" song, then I would choose the texts of John Newton in a heartbeat. Listen to John Newton’s testimony of God’s salvation.

In Evil Long I Took Delight
John Newton

In evil long I took delight, unawed by shame or fear,
Till a new object struck my sight, and stopped my wild career.

I saw One hanging on a tree, in agonies and blood,
Who fixed His languid eyes on me, as near His cross I stood.

Sure never till my latest breath can I forget that look:
It seemed to charge me with His death, though not a word He spoke.

My conscience felt and owned the guilt; it plunged me in despair;
I saw my sins His blood had spilt, and helped to nail Him there.

A second look He gave, which said, "I freely all forgive;
This blood is for thy ransom paid: I die that thou mayest live."

I do believe, I now believe, that Jesus died for me;
And through His blood, His precious blood, I shall from sin be free.

"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Tim 1:15).

Fundamentalism and Its Critics: A Response from Dr. McCune

2005-11-16T15:19:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I mentioned an inconsistency I had noticed regarding the response of some to Dr. McCune's remarks during a panel discussion at the recent ACCC convention. Dr. McCune has written this piece.

Dr. Rolland D. McCune is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, Michigan. He has written many scholarly articles in the seminary journal, along with a recently published book entitled Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism.

FUNDAMENTALISM AND ITS CRITICS
Rolland D. McCune
November 2005

Judging from some of the response to the comments I made recently about the so-called Young Fundamentalist movement (some confess the name and some disclaim it, but it is likely to stick for quite a while longer), I obviously exposed several raw nerves and evoked some further ongoing expressions of deep-seated contempt, dislike, if not unrighteous anger, toward fundamentalism. Allow me to enlarge my general thinking a bit, at least on some of the public outcries, rebuttals, and obvious antipathy to fundamentalists and fundamentalism. These expressions are not only from the younger men and women within the general pale of fundamentalism but are made also by the uninformed, ill-informed, learned and unlearned, of whatever ecclesiastical stripe or movement. Fundamentalism has been a favorite whipping boy of religionists for a long time. But generally I have in mind those on the left fringes of fundamentalism but also non-fundamentalists within the broader evangelical enclave.

To begin, too much of the ever-recurring criticism of fundamentalism comes across to me as extremely wistful illusions that one has a right to be free from 60 years of fundamentalist history and exegesis in order to build a "Make Your Own Fundamentalism" kit. But that will not and can not hold up, for self-evident reasons. Exegetical and historical documents have a persistent way of intruding themselves into the discussion, and they virtually scream out their right to be recognized. To ignore this mountain of evidence is sloppy scholarship and thinking at its worst. I have concluded that for many there is no amount of exegesis that will ever convince them of the fundamentalist position on the subject of ecclesiastical separation. The exegetically based preaching, writing, and reasoning by fundamentalists of the last several decades on 2 Thess 3, et al., especially about separation from compromising brethren, is almost routinely met with a DOA response by those determined on a contrary course. Proposals are sometimes made that what is needed is a truly comprehensive formulation that must supplant the supposedly bob-tailed doctrine of the last five or six decades, or some fresh, new insights to inject into the dying old doctrine and practice. That gets wearisome after a while. While there is no separation-made-easy NT doctrine and practice, these new ideas neither improve the doctrine nor truly enhance the fortunes of those would-be fundamentalists who adopt them. And make no mistake about it, the doctrine of organizational separation is still "the dividing line" that separates fundamentalism from what Kipling termed the "lesser breeds without the law." A denial of that patent fact nullifies one's right to participate in the public arena on the subject, fundamentalists (young, old, would-be, won't-be) and non-fundamentalists alike.

Similarly, no amount of historical evidence will ever be enough to bring certain ones up to speed on the fundamentalist separatist position. They ignore, seemingly wilfully, the controversy with the new evangelicalism in the 1940s and 50s, insisting instead on going back to the great controversy with modernism in the 1920s as the paradigm for fundamentalism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. That will not stand either. Such historical leapfrogging and revisionism is inexcusable; there is an abundance of contrary evidence readily available. Now it may be that for some it is just plain ignorance of history. If so, I would recommend they do their homework on the subject. For the rest, I can only marvel at their disingenuousness toward the evidence, if not their gullibility for the misinterpretation and/or misinformation out there, or downright dishonesty with the facts of history. This also gets to be very tiresome to some of us with more experience, longer memories, and far more extensive research in the subject. How much time can we give, or slack can we cut, for those who manifestly don't, and won't, ever "get it?"

The frequently-heard "sinking ship, beyond repair, lost battle, hi-jacked movement, I think I might walk away some day" mentality about the fundamentalist movement also begins to sound a little adolescent and desperate. Such can often be interpreted fairly as old-fashioned whining, cries of wolf, or not-too-veiled threats of some kind. Hopefully, this is not the case. These notes are especially compounded when they are founded on the aforementioned assertions and argumentation based on out-of-touch exegetical and historical presuppositions. This is not to question anyone's right to say and think as he/she may wish (is America a great country or what?), but it does call into question their right to be heard. This is because their vitae/credentials often are short and their qualifications suspect to be so vocal and opinionated in public discussion. My comment on those who are contemplating a shift to whatever new movement, person, or association is that their abandonment of the "sinking ship" would be to board a "sunken ship" of whatever shape or design. I further urge again that their new ecclesial quarters not be termed fundamentalism or a form of hyphenated fundamentalism. That would be misleading and unfair to everyone, including themselves. I have never seen anyone leave the ranks of biblical, historical fundamentalism for a stronger testimony to the truth. The opposite is the case; the downward trajectory of the switch is usually quite discernible in a year or two.

Occasionally one hears the idea that the number of complaints against fundamentalism, or the alleged exodus of our brightest and best, is cause for a reassessment of the whole movement. This presupposes some kind of census theology, that the number of criticisms and/or dissidens determine a movement's lack of worth. But there are multiplied millions who object to Jesus Christ and the biblical path to heaven. These we rightfully dismiss as the thinking of determined unbelievers. The number-of-complaints objection bears no weight and is a worthless criterion of truth.

On those bases I have made the suggestion that for the critics within our ranks it is probably time for them simply to make the break with fundamentalism and get it over with. What is the point of staying in a fellowship that is so foreign to their aspirations and understanding of Scripture and history? This is not to indict, judge, and sentence particularly, or to single out especially, the younger thinkers in the general fundamentalist fold. But it does appear to be patently advisable for those who seem continually to be dissatisfied with the fundamentalist movement and who are still wallowing in some kind of anguish over the likes of J. Frank Norris, Jack Hyles, or others to whom they may point, most of whom are now dead. Isn't it about time for them finally to "get over it?" For some to say that they are fundamentalists and will always be fundamentalists, but then come perilously close to enunciating near hatred for the movement, is to engage in double talk and sheer nonsense. They appear to want to craft a new and different fundamentalism of their liking in distinction from the historic movement. May I remind us all that these were the precise thoughts of Harold John Ockenga, the father and high priest of the new evangelicalism: "Doctrinally, the fundamentalists are right, and I wish to be always classified as one" (Evangelical Roots, ed. Kenneth Kantzer [Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1978], p. 40). As well, the founding of Fuller Theological Seminary and the whole new evangelical experiment was an effort at "reforming fundamentalism." Merely clinging to some doctrinal "fundamentals" did not, and does not, constitute one a fundamentalist or give him a moral platform to cleanse the fundamentalist movement of its perceived structural sins.

To be sure, fundamentalism has had those who did not live up to its biblical and historic ideals, but so does any group--- evangelicalism, hyphenated evangelicalism, independency, et al. Even NT Christianity itself has more than its share of such. Is it thereby a "sinking ship?" It has been criticized by myriads of dissatisfied people, some even within its own ranks, has suffered numerical shrinkage, and is destined to continue doing so until the eschaton. But so what? What is that supposed to mean in terms of the legitimacy of the movement and its future? Obviously nothing. Is the servant greater than his Master in this regard? We have long inveighed against those who will not become genuine Christians because "there are hypocrites in the church" that they knew or heard about second- and third-handed. Why do we object to, and reject, that tired old unbelieving bromide? It is because hypocrites do not define Christianity. Neither do anecdotal incidents of inconsistency define fundamentalism, or any movement. Through the years I have witnessed plenty of disturbance among Bible-believing people that emanated from Hammond, IN and the "big-bus" innovations, as well as the rather unique church elder polity that came out of sunny California. Preachers have come back from various conferences all buzzed up by new proposals of some kind. Many faithful people have had to pick up the pieces of their churches after the tornado of new ideas or fads hit town, and I have been called in on occasion to help some of them regroup and forge ahead. It happens all the time. No movement or following of a skillful leader can escape its sometimes overzealous and/or unsavory devotees. This works both ways, for fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists alike.

Those who are stuck in a 1920s definition of fundamentalism and/or whose focus is on the bad examples within its ranks cannot prescribe the beliefs, boundaries, and fortunes of the 21st century struggle of truth with falsehood. Mature minded and teachable fundamentalists, young and old, can see through all this. I would counsel the chronic complainants in our midst to begin to do likewise because they will find the exact same problems in their new ecclesial surroundings, whomever, wherever, or whatever their new-found fellowship may be. History and human experience, if nothing else, point unmistakably in that direction.

I have taught and worked in the seminary arena and have interacted with hundreds of young fundamentalist students for nearly 40 years. I am fully cognizant of the improvements we all can make and must say that I and my fundamentalist colleagues have been working with diligent self-awareness to upgrade fundamentalist scholarship in order to bring doctrinal, exegetical, and historical accuracy, text-based expositional preaching, and the formation of a biblical philosophy of ministry and doing church. Other fundamentalists could say the same. It is disheartening, therefore, to see and hear those who would discount our movement on the basis of a personal peeve, insult, or some other reason that is not really justifiable. And, quite frankly, none has been more contentious and uncharitable than some from within our own professing fundamentalist movement.

My response here may seem a bit forward and blunt, but after our movement has suffered more than 60 years of hearing essentially the same questions asked and the same objections made repeatedly, maybe straight talk by someone is appropriate. If so, I make my own appeal to the principle that the apostle Paul spelled out in his patient associations with the problem-laden and divided church at Corinth: 1 Corinthians 4:21.

Due Process?

2005-11-14T16:12:00.000-05:00

I should have seen that one coming.

Several months ago, the internet was abuzz with a self-proclaimed non-fundamentalist's suggestions for Fundamentalism. As an outsider, he suggested several points in which he felt we would do well to improve. While I was a little puzzled why a non-fundamentalist would even care, I did spend some time thinking about his points.

One of his critiques of Fundamentalism was that there was a lack of "due process." By this, I understood him to mean that it's basically "one strike and you're out." His impression was that Fundamentalists are quick to cut off anyone who disagrees with them or who perhaps demonstrates a lack of judgment or discernment.

In theory, I agreed with him: separation is not punitive; rather, it should be exercised with the hope of restoration (Gal 6:1). Any cutting off of fellowship is always a painful affair, and not something to rush into. Our ideal goal is unity of doctrine and purpose. Perhaps the only hope for the next generation of fundamentalists would be for them to be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (cf. Jas 1:19).

I thought this "due process" would extend to everyone. I thought that we would give other Fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt before we wrote them off. I thought that we would research carefully what was said before reacting to hearsay. I thought we would dissect the statements with which we disagreed and compare them to Scripture. I thought we would withhold judgment on those who critiqued us and our position. I thought that if we had a problem with an individual, we would go to that person and seek to understand what they said and why they said it. I thought we would refrain from name calling and ad hominem attacks.

But I was wrong— horribly wrong. This "due process" apparently only extends to people who agree with me.

Christian Liberty and the Mosaic Law

2005-11-14T14:17:00.000-05:00

At the risk of biting off more than I can chew, I want to address a few things. First, I often hear Christians appealing to "Christian liberty" to defend various practices, often citing the book of Galatians. Second, I heard a teacher recently who basically put all Christians under the Mosaic Law. Now let me say that I am certain he would deny any form of works salvation and he would say we are not under all the Law, but he indicated that we are under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law.

What do these two things have in common? The book of Galatians. The book of Galatians teaches us that Christians are free from the Mosaic Law to obey God. The book actually teaches nothing about doubtful areas in which Christians disagree. The meaning of the book, if it means anything at all, makes it crystal-clear that believers are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law.

The Law does not offer salvation because the Law was never able to give life (Gal 3:21). Galatians 2:16 says, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." The Law offers no benefit to Christians in their sanctification. In Galatians 3:3, Paul laments, "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" We cannot keep it, and there is no benefit to us if we try to keep it.

The Mosaic Law is no longer binding on believers in Jesus Christ. The coming of Jesus Christ marks the end of the Law's jurisdiction and the beginning of the age of Grace, as well as the inclusion of Gentiles into the family of God. Children of God are now free from the Law of Moses to live under the Holy Spirit's control.

The Law is a unity; that is, it is not a bunch of commands that we can pick and choose from a la carte. James 2:10 makes it clear that if we are trying to keep the Law, we must keep it all. Paul, quoting the Law itself (Deut 27:26), emphasizes this same point in Galatians 3:10. "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'" The emphasis is on "all things"; one did not get any points for almost keeping the Law! It was all or nothing; and if you didn't keep it all, you were under its curse.

What then was the purpose of the Mosaic Law? 1 Timothy 1:9 tells us that the Law is "holy, just, and good." Man’s inability to keep the Law is not due to some fault in the Law code; rather, it is because of man’s sinfulness and inability to obey and please a holy God. The Mosaic Law serves two functions:

During the time from Moses until Christ, the Law had a regulatory function; that is, it was binding. However, the Bible says specifically that the Christian is free from the Law, both from its condemnation and its jurisdiction (Rom 6:14; 7:4–6; Gal 3:15–25).
Starting with the giving of the Law and continuing on, the Mosaic Law has a revelatory function. On the one hand, it reveals something about the glory and nature of the God who gave it. On the other hand, it reveals the sinfulness of men who are entirely unable to keep it. Our inability points out our need for a perfect Savior--- Jesus Christ, who kept the Law perfectly in every way.

The Mosaic Law, then, reveals the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man. It leaves us with the stark realization that we all fall short of God's glory. It leaves us wondering how anyone could ever meet God's standard. It leaves us longing for some way to be free of the Law's curse. It leaves us crying out to God for mercy, grace, and forgiveness.

That's what the Law does: it brings us to Jesus Christ (Gal 3:23-4:7).

And It Is Gone

2005-11-14T13:48:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite psalms is the 103rd. I especially love the contrast between the feebleness and temporary nature of man and God's steadfast love that is eternal.

When I read this psalm, in my mind's eye I see a small family burial plot near Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. At the top of a small, grassy knoll stand four small evergreen shrubs, swaying in the wind. In the middle of the shrubs, encircled by a low wrought-iron fence, are two headstones. The long, dry grass has grown over the rough stones. The hot wind covers these markers with grass and leaves. This is all that is left to remember two lives.

As for man, his days are like grass;

he flourishes like a flower of the field;

for the wind passes over it, and it is gone,

and its place knows it no more.

But the steadfast love of the LORD

is from everlasting to everlasting

on those who fear him,

and his righteousness to children's children,

to those who keep his covenant

and remember to do his commandments.

Psalm 103:15-18

What Would Jesus Drink?

2005-11-14T13:27:00.000-05:00

WWJD? It’s hard to say for sure, but I would have to guess that it would be Mountain Dew.

Mountain Dew was hands-down my favorite soft drink when I was a teenager (are there any teens who don’t like Mountain Dew?). I’m not sure if I liked it because of its taste or because adults looked down on it.

During college, I worked at a camp during the summer months. Sometimes I had to get up early and clean bathrooms and things. Nothing gets you going like a Mountain Dew at 6:00 in the morning! People used to frown on that. My standard response was, "Some of us like our caffeine and sugar hot, and others like it cold."

When I was in seminary, a can of Mountain Dew brought me back to life at the mid-morning break of classes. It was especially helpful when I had to work late the night before out at the airport. Come to think of it, Mountain Dew was by far the best-selling drink in the student lounge.

I like Code Red, enjoyed the Pitch Black, and tolerate Live Wire. I think I would rather not try MDX, the new Mountain Dew energy drink. I haven't tried Baja Blast yet, but that's because my wife refuses to go to Taco Bell. As I get older, perhaps I should be drinking the caffeine-free version, but then what would be the point?

I have always defended the responsible drinking of Mountain Dew on the basis of Psalm 133:

Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
It is like the precious oil on the head,
running down on the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the LORD has commanded the blessing,
life forevermore.

Why Should We Pray?

2005-11-14T13:20:00.000-05:00

I wrote two posts in my "So I Write" articles for our church's youth group about why Christians should pray. I invite you to check out Part 1 and Part 2.

Current Events

2005-11-14T12:40:00.000-05:00

I am not much one for the massive inflow of "news" that is available— the all-news cable stations, internet websites, magazines, newspapers. I have enough trouble finding time to read the newspaper— and we only get it on Saturday and Sunday!

However, there are few things more revealing of the hearts of men than the news. Additionally, the news is full of excellent examples of spiritual truths and daily events that can illustrate biblical teaching. I was instructed yesterday regarding the example of our Lord, who used a few "current events" from his day to point out spiritual truth.

In Luke 13:1–5, upon being notified about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, Jesus responded with a question. He asked the people around him if these people were suffering these punishments because of their sin was so much greater than the rest of the population. His response was that all who refused to repent would suffer a far worse fate.

Two things jumped out at me: first, Jesus was familiar with the events of the day (he even brought up an additional "current event" in verse four). Second, he viewed these events not as facts or trivia, but as teaching tools to illustrate spiritual lessons.

Piling It On

2005-11-13T20:25:00.000-05:00

Church duties and personal responsibilities have kept me from writing as much as I would have liked to the past few weeks, but I have still been thinking. In fact, I have been treasuring up posts for the day of wrath. Therefore, I will unleash the unmixed wine of my fury and be "piling it on" in the next couple of days.

Teach Us to Number Our Days

2005-11-08T13:40:00.000-05:00

Psalm 90:1-12 (ESV)
Lord, you have been our dwelling place
in all generations.

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
You return man to dust
and say, "Return, O children of man!"
For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.
You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.

For we are brought to an end by your anger;
by your wrath we are dismayed.
You have set our iniquities before you,
our secret sins in the light of your presence.
For all our days pass away under your wrath;
we bring our years to an end like a sigh.
The years of our life are seventy,
or even by reason of strength eighty;
yet their span is but toil and trouble;
they are soon gone, and we fly away.
Who considers the power of your anger,
and your wrath according to the fear of you?

So teach us to number our days
that we may get a heart of wisdom.

My pastor took this picture of a gravestone with his name on it. In this Psalm, Moses contrasts the eternality of God with the brevity of man's life. Man comes and goes, and God still is. Our lives are short compared to God's eternal existence. Moses' conclusion is that we must realize the shortness of our lives and live accordingly.

How a Christian Man Treats Women

2005-11-06T16:02:00.000-05:00

A tricky area for Christian men is their relationships with women. Men and women are different; they think differently, they react differently, they are built differently. The Word of God does speak to this topic, however.

I have broken this topic down into four areas: his wife, other Christian women, a prospective spouse or girlfriend (assuming he isn't married, of course), and unsaved women. Clearly, there may be some overlap between the categories.

How a Christian Man Treats His Wife
(Eph 5:25–33; Col 3:19; 1 Pet 3:7; 1 Cor 7:1–5)

He should love her like Christ loves the Church.
He should care for her like Christ cares for the Church.
He should give himself for her like Christ gave himself for the Church.

How a Christian Man Treats Other Christian Women

He understands that they are his sisters in Christ (1 Tim 5:2). As such, he is pure in his thoughts and actions toward them. He guards their purity like he would that of his own sister.
A Christian man provides godly leadership in his home and his church for women. God’s order is that men should lead and women should follow (1 Cor 11:8–9). Men should care for and protect the women. Many times women are forced to lead by men who fail to take leadership.
He takes seriously his responsibility to build them up (1 Pet 3:7). Christian women are "fellow heirs of the grace of God." Just as with any other Christian, he must edify them.

How a Christian Man Treats A Prospective Spouse or Girlfriend

In a dating relationship, a Christian young man must remember that girl does not belong to him. Someday, if the Lord permits, she will get married and become someone’s wife. Just as he would not want someone else to defile his future wife, he should not defile another man’s future wife.
A Christian young man’s first concern in a dating relationship should be maintaining a good testimony, not his own personal pleasure. He will act in a way that is above reproach (1 Tim 3:2), so that his "good deeds" cannot be spoken against (Rom 14:16).
A Christian young man who leads a sister in Christ into sin, cheating her out of her purity will answer to God for his actions (1 Thess 4:3–8). God has called believers to holiness, not uncleanness.

How a Christian Man Treats Unsaved Women

A Christian man should treat all women, saved or unsaved, with respect and honor (1 Pet 3:7). He respects and cares for them like a "weaker vessel." He shows courtesy and special honor to them by holding doors for them and allowing them to go first.
Many unsaved women desire to attract the eyes and attention of men by dressing immodestly or acting provocatively (Prov 7:6–23). The Christian man is not free to view these women as objects to satisfy his sinful lusts. Instead, he should see these women as souls for whom Jesus Christ died (1 John 2:2). If Jesus gave himself for these women, how can a Christian man use these women to gratify sinful desires and disobey God?
A Christian man should view unsaved women as people who need the gospel (2 Cor 5:17–21). His actions toward these women should be in keeping with his status as an ambassador of Christ. Jesus himself maintained appropriate relationships with women, showing concern and genuine love while keeping himself pure (Luke 7:37–50).

A Reminder of God's Faithfulness

2005-11-03T11:06:00.000-05:00

Autumn is one of the most beautiful times of the year. The leaves change into brilliant colors, the days turn crisp, and the sun seems more brilliant. But the fall with its change of color makes me think of God's promise in Genesis 8:21-22.

And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

The continual patterns of summer, fall, winter, and spring point to the faithfulness of God to his promises. Things are not just following their course because of nature; they are being upheld and maintained by a faithful God (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3).

Even the daily repetition of day and night speaks of God's faithfulness. We expect the sun to rise each morning. We rely on the day to give way to night each evening. We have observed the faithfulness of God over and over--- each day, as a matter of fact! God demonstrated this daily loyalty to his chosen nation, Israel:

"The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases;

his mercies never come to an end;

they are new every morning;

great is your faithfulness" (Lam 3:22-23).

God has promised his faithfulness, his loyal love, to those he has chosen and saved. He has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Heb 13:5). Another fall, another reminder of the loyalty of our faithful God.

A Way To Be Right With God

2005-11-02T16:34:00.000-05:00

As Paul begins his epistle to the Romans, he tells these Christians he has never met that he has always been eager to visit Rome and spread the Gospel there. The reason, he says, is that he is unashamed of the Gospel (Rom 1:16) because the Gospel is how God saves those who believe (have faith).

In the Gospel God has revealed a way to be right with him--- and that way is faith, from beginning to end (Rom 1:17). "The one who is justified by faith will live." Paul goes on to unpack these simple statements in the next several chapters: the wrath of God that has been revealed and how God can be just and the Justifier because of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.

The world seems to think that everybody's "way to God" will somehow converge in the end and work out. But the Bible clearly says that God has revealed the way to be right with him: faith in Jesus Christ. Those who do not put their trust in God will suffer the wrath that God has also revealed. They will stand, speechless, accountable to God for rejecting his Gospel.

Two Young Elders

2005-11-01T14:07:00.000-05:00

Saturday afternoon, two nicely-dressed young men visited my house. When I came out the door, I noticed their shiny pins which read "Elder" (these guys were younger than me!). Only one did any talking; the other just nodded and smiled.

They asked me if I went to church and which church that was. They informed me that they were out telling people about the Bible and their church. To this I responded that I believed that Jesus was God and that he died to save me from my sin. They smiled and said, "We have similar beliefs." I asked them directly, "Do you believe that Jesus is God?" to which they said, "Well, he is the Son of God." After pressing them for an answer, they admitted that they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. I said, "So then you are outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity." I don't think that was the way they hoped the conversation would go, but the young fellow gamely replied that Jesus' church had become apostate around the third century and they were the remnant.

I asked them what they thought of Jesus' claims to be God, such as he makes in John 8:58. They were ready: "Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh of the Old Testament--- not to be confused with Elohim." To this, I asked them what then of the great Shemach? "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim is one" (Deut 6:4). A little put out, he began to tell me that there was no article "in the original Greek" (I think he might have mixed up one of his standard answers there). Finally, he told me that verse meant that Jesus and God the Father were "one in purpose."

I attempted to argue theologically: if Jesus were not both God and man, he could not be our Savior. He must be man to die in my place. He must be God to die for another's sin, else he would have to die for his own. The young elder seemed unbothered by this.

Finally, I brought up John 1:1, "the Word was God." My interlocutor attempted to tell me that since the Greek article does not precede the word for God that it should be translated "the Word was a God." I cut him off and said that I had studied quite a bit of Greek and that argument held no grammatical weight at all. The Greek article does not function the way the English article does. The reason there is an article in front of logos and not in front of theos in John 1:1 is to mark which of these nominatives is the subject of the sentence, leaving the other as the predicate nominative. From his response, I gathered that he had never encountered anyone who actually knew Greek!

From there, he launched into a discussion about authority: he believed the Bible, further revelation from one of God's prophets, and what "God had showed him." I tried to establish the fact that God's revelation cannot contradict itself because of God's truth. The earnest young man affirmed this fact, and said, "The Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible." (I knew this to be false, but didn't say anything because I really didn't have any hard evidence to back up my claim.) I really wanted to probe his authority structure. Ultimately, it was the subjective argument that he was relying on: "God showed me this was true." Whether or not it was in line with God's Word was irrelevant.

As they left, I reminded them once again that if Jesus is not God, we no longer have a Savior. His response was, "You are free to worship as you choose." As I thought about that, I wondered why they had bothered to ring my doorbell!

A Proverbial Thought

2005-10-31T17:55:00.000-05:00

There's a proverb of sorts that says something to this effect: "Throw a rock into a pack of dogs--- the one that yelps is the one that got hit."

You will find some yelping going on here. What is the cause for these yelps? Whenever anything is mentioned about biblical separation, and especially its application to disobedient brothers, the yelps ring out.

I have argued before that the difference between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism historically as well as currently is the issue of separation from disobedient brothers. This is actually conceded by one commenter who officially "relinquishes" the term Fundamentalist during the discussion. Biblical separation is the dividing line, the watershed issue.

While I am disappointed to see someone turn their back on what I believe to be historic biblical Christianity, I am at least pleased to see that the issues are becoming more clear. Dr. McCune mentioned in his message last Wednesday at the ACCC Convention that there seems to be a segment of professed Fundamentalism that is always calling for more biblical proof, for more exegesis, for extended explanation--- not because they are curious or desiring to learn, because nothing will satisfy them. I have seen that same phenomenon: sometimes I doubt they would believe even if Lazarus came back from the dead!

With more clarity comes the departure of some. As they come to understand what Fundamentalism is, they realize they have no interest in it. But until then, they will continue yelping every time the topic of biblical separation from disobedient brothers is raised.

A Worthwhile Read

2005-10-29T11:56:00.000-04:00

Andy Rupert, assistant pastor of Bible Community Church, has written a good article on his blog entitled "Why Separatists Are Stepping Away." It delineates some of the concerns that he, as a Fundamentalist separatist, has with Sharper Iron. It is worth your time to read and think about the issues Andy raises.

Hear the Sermon

2005-10-24T17:26:00.000-04:00

It appears that Dr. Minnick preached the same sermon I heard, "A Defense of Separation from Erring Brothers," at his own church last night. You can download an MP3 of the sermon here. I would highly recommend it.

A Defense of Separation from Erring Brothers

2005-10-21T08:21:00.000-04:00

Pastor and I had the opportunity yesterday to attend the Mid-America Conference on Preaching hosted by Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, Michigan. This year's conference theme was "Guarding the Gospel." We attended some great workshops, but the highlight of the day yesterday was the evening general session. Dr. Mark Minnick, pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC, proposed to bring a defense of separation from erring brothers from 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. I want to attempt to reconstruct his argumentation.

Does 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 Refer Only to Idle Believers?
Minnick began discussing 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, a key text in regard to so-called "secondary separation"; that is, separation from erring brothers.

"If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother" (2 Thess 3:14-15).

The basic meaning of the text is clear, but the debate centers on whether this command is restricted to those who have become idle and refuse to work, or whether the command to separate also applies to any brother who is continuing in any disobedience.

He attempted to outline the argumentation of those who hold the more restrictive position: they would contend that the Greek word translated "idle" (ESV), "unruly" (KJV), or "disorderly" (NASB) in verses six, seven, and eleven refers only to those who refuse to work. He explained this argument along three lines:

The grammatical argument: this position holds that the phrases following the word (Greek: ataktos) in verses seven and eleven are appositional. Therefore, the word refers to those who "eat anyone's bread without paying" (vv. 7-8) and are "not busy at work, but busybodies" (v. 11).
The contextual argument: they also contend that the context of the passage (vv. 6-15) deals with a specific historical situation, namely, believers who refuse to work.
The translation: The New International Version (along with the ESV) translates the word simply "idle," while the New American Standard Bible and the King James use more ambiguous terms ("disorderly" and "unruly," respectively). Someone reading the NIV would infer that the command is only to separate from idle Christians. "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (v. 6, NIV).

In response to these arguments, Minnick offered five arguments for applying the passage to any erring brother.

The lexical argument: the meaning of ataktos is not necessarily restricted to idleness. The word is the negative of tasso, which means to put in order. If the negative means only "idle," we would expect the positive form to be "diligent" or hard-working." However, it is never translated that way. It seems therefore, that ataktos is better understood to mean "disorderly" or "unruly."
The grammatical argument: building on the argument that the phrases following the word ataktos help us understand what is in view, Minnick pointed to the usage in verse six. Here the word is defined by the phrase "not in accord with the tradition you received." What are the "traditions"? This leads to the next argument.
The contextual argument: these "traditions" that must be obeyed are defined a few verses earlier as what was taught orally or written by the apostles (cf. 2:15). Therefore, to "walk disorderly" refers to disobedience to any apostolic command and Paul is commanding the Thessalonians to withdraw fellowship from any erring brother.
The logical argument: Minnick proposed this a fortiori argument: if Paul commands the believers to withdraw fellowship from a believer who refuses to work, what would he command regarding a believer who has compromised the testimony of Christ by his association with unbelievers?
The argument from the broader scriptural context: turning to 2 John 9-11, Minnick stated that if we only had the passage from 2 John, we might conclude that someone who partners with unbelievers, sharing in their evil works, is simply not a believer. So what should one do when someone who clearly is a believer partners with unbelievers? Minnick replied, "The beauty of 2 Thessalonians 3 is that it gives us a passage that doesn't call into question the person's salvation."

What Does It Look Like to Admonish a Brother?
If we are to avoid fellowship with an erring brother and "admonish" him instead (2 Thess 3:15), how is this done? Galatians 2:11-14 gives us a biblical example of a Christian admonishing a disobedient brother.

First, Minnick pointed out that Paul considered this confrontation part of preserving the truth of the Gospel (v. 14; cf. v 5). However, the issue over which Paul confronted Peter was not about the content of the Gospel (vv. 11-14) or even the necessary response to the Gospel (vv. 2, 9). Peter was solid on those things. Rather, this was an issue of table fellowship!

Peter had been eating with the Gentiles, but when other Jewish Christians arrived, he withdrew and refused to eat with the Gentile Christians any longer. Minnick asked, if someone could "stand condemned" for not having fellowship with the right people, then could they not stand condemned for having fellowship with the wrong people?

He also pointed out that the effects of Peter's hypocrisy were detrimental to others who were watching. By his confrontation of a brother, Paul aided many others, including even Barnabas (v. 13), who was harmed by Peter's incorrect table fellowship. Minnick asked how someone who knows better can sin continually? Verse twelve says that Peter withdrew from the Gentile Christians for fear of others.

What Would It Take for Fundamentalists and Evangelicals to Get Back Together?
This understanding of separation from erring brothers, Minnick said, is what distinguishes Fundamentalists from evangelicals. Some conservative evangelicals have hinted that perhaps there should be an alliance between themselves and Fundamentalists. Minnick said that he would be happy for those evangelicals to join him. However, in order for that to happen, several things would need to take place.

First, there would need to be a willingness to acknowledge that the change of direction evangelicalism made fifty years ago when it departed from Fundamentalism was wrong.
Second, there would need to be a willingness to admit a broader application of 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 than simply idle believers.
Third, he would like to see these evangelicals "postured toward" separation from disobedient brothers.
Fourth, he would expect that these evangelicals would desire to fellowship with Fundamentalists and not with unbelievers.

I have done my best to summarize Dr. Minnick's words accurately. I highly recommend you listen to the sermon yourself. To get a copy of this sermon, request more information at macp@dbts.edu.

Is Studying Worth It?

2005-10-18T23:07:00.000-04:00

I spend a lot of time studying here in my office. In fact, I consider just about everything I do "study" in some sense. I had a teacher in college who made a statement that impressed me. He said that when somebody asked him how long it took to prepare for a message or lesson, his answer was "All my life." By that he meant that everything he did was part of his preparation to minister the Word of God to others. I like that.

Since I'm no longer in school, I'm not studying to pass a class or get a good grade on a test. I'm not pursuing any advanced degrees (although if I continue my current trend of one summer school class a year, I could complete a Th.M. degree in about fourteen more years). The reason I continue to study God's Word is to be able to obey it more completely and communicate it more precisely and accurately.

The words of 2 Timothy 2:15 are often an encouragement and challenge to me when I study. I realize the old English word "study" that the King James Version employs has nothing to do with studying as we know it, but the rest of the verse does. "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

I aim to study (and live, for that matter) in a way that will be approved by God. I want to receive his commendation as a diligent and obedient servant, one who knows he has done his best. The goal is to handle the Word of God carefully and accurately, viewing myself as "a steward of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:1).