Stephen's Reflections from Scripture

My Godsend, Ashley Nicole Willcox.

2009-10-26T01:47:00.002-05:00

I have yet to post about my amazing wife. This is largely because I do not enjoy writing about my life. Talking about my life experiences often makes me uncomfortable. It is much easier t express myself by what the LORD is teaching me. However, I feel it is only appropriate to write about the treasure my wife is to me.

Before I begin I need to make one disclaimer, I am by no means a good writer and my affections for my wife are for more deeper than the words that will be used to express the tremendous blessing my wife is to me.

Ashley-Nicole is the most considerate person I know. She is always aware of the needs of those around her. For example, today in church all the seats were taken. My wife had realized that there was a couple that came in later and had no where to sit in the church. She humbly asked me if we could give up our chairs and then went and offered our chairs to this couple and their child. Her love and concern for the body of Christ brings much glory to God.

Ashley-Nicole strives to honor God in her role as a help-meat. One time, when we were eating a particularly amazing meal that she had spent over the years of mariage perfecting, I asked her, “Honey, why do you think you care so much about cooking such amazing meals?” She responded, “I do my best so to honor you.” As I type these words I am moved to tears. Such humility and desire to glorify God in excelling as a help-meat humbles me greatly!

Ashley-Nicole is passionate to open our home to serve. My wife goes to extraordinary measures to create opportunities to bless people by having them over to our home. And when we do, she saves the best for them. Just recently, we had my parents in town and she recommended having my parents stay in our room. So that they could be more comfortable and feel more welcome. This required much more work in setting out clothes, changing sheets, sleeping in our guest room, and much more! She did all this with genuine joy in knowing that others were receiving our best.

Ashley-Nicole is quick to see evidences of grace in my life and honor me. She is regularly telling me how proud she is of me and how she sees God at work in my life. It is not an uncommon thing for me to enter into a room where my wife is bragging about me. This is both encouraging and humbling. Ashley-Nicole also leaves me a love note every night I come home from work.

Ashley-Nicole sees herself as a servant. One way I see this on a regular basis is the measure to which Ashley-Nicole goes to in helping get ready for work. Besides washing my clothes and packing me lunches she will often: brew me coffer if I am opening, get my clothes out, untie my shows and lay them next the couch where I put them on, and run out to our deck so that she can get one last goodbye out before I leave.

There are many more but I wanted to end with this one.

Ashley-Nicole is a woman who trust in the LORD. Over two years ago when the LORD laid on our hearts from His word that birth control was not an option we trusted in the LORD to provide despite the fact that we still had over a year of school left and at the time had no insurance. We ended up waiting almost two years before the LORD heard our prayers and granted us a child. During this time of infertility my wife wrestled with the LORD in why He would withhold something from us that was a godly desire and pursuit. However, in all the wrestling and fear of never having a child, Ashley-Nicole placed her confidence in the goodness of God. She regularly confided in me and asked for prayer. Her confidence in God and desire to honor Him in a time when she hurt so bad was a testimony of her character that had been formed in her through the Holy Spirit.

I am married to a very godly woman who is passionate about God and the Gospel. She seeks to honor Him in all she does and never ceases to amaze me in what a wonderful friend I have in my wife, Ashley-Nicole! She is my best friend. She is such a joy and treasure! How can I thank God enough for her?

May God enable me to love you more and more with each passing moment, so that, I may reflect Christ, as you so lovely display the beauty of the Church! I love you Ashley Nicole Willcox!

your devoted husband,

Stephen M. Willcox

A Brief Commentary on II Corinthians 3-4

2009-02-19T21:31:00.001-06:00

Introduction

This paper’s function is to give a brief thesis of Paul’s point concerning sanctification in chapters 3 and 4 of II Corinthians. I believe Paul’s thesis in chapter 3 and 4 is that “true ministers of the New Covenant edify and build the church by manifesting Jesus Christ glory through joy embraced suffering.” This point will be argued from the passage being studied.

Background

II Corinthians is an epistle to the church in Corinth from the Apostle Paul. Paul begins the letter with three major themes and those themes are carried throughout the entire epistle. Those three themes are: suffering/comfort, the centrality of Christ and the gospel, and false teachers (who Paul refers to as “super apostles). All three of these themes are masterfully weaved together in chapters 3 and 4. Therefore, we will see Paul addressing these themes and also be aware that these themes are influencing what Paul is saying.

Lastly, it would seem that the grand scheme of this letter is to see the church in Corinth conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. Paul is writing this letter and ministering to Corinth for this purpose, “Not that we lord it over your faith, but that we work with you for you joy, for you to stand firm in your faith.” II Corinthians 1:24 (italics added for emphasis). Notice the parallel Paul makes with faith in this verse. He states that Paul’s ministry is not intended to “lord over” their “faith” but rather he works with them for their “joy.” Paul is seemingly putting at the beginning of this letter a formula for growing in faith in the gospel and Paul seems to be arguing that it is joy!

Because the Bible sees sanctification as a piece of the larger package of salvation, this will play a big role because salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. In other words, sanctification is a fight to grow in faith in the gospel. Or, sanctification is the process of a believer placing more and more faith in the gospel’s saving power. The result/fruit of sanctification is holiness in the believer or the believer becoming more like Jesus Christ.

Chapter 3

The chapter begins with Paul’s comparison of his credentials and those of the false teachers. Paul compares the visible temporal credentials the false teachers had offered to convince the Corinthian church that they were authentic teacher to his invisible eternal credentials written on their hearts.

Paul’s argument that he is a real apostle is two-fold here. First, his ability to be an apostle of Jesus is clear by the work that has already been done because of his faithfulness to Christ in serving the Corinthian church. The Corinthian church had much to be grateful of because of Paul’s ministry and this is Paul’s first appeal.

The second argument is even weightier. Paul states that the work that has been accomplished is not based upon Paul’s ability or skills but rather the Corinth church was benefiting from the power of God through the Apostle Paul. The false teachers Paul was dealing with had no such evidence of God working through them; they attested their authority from themselves.

This leads Paul into a comparison of Paul’s ministry of the “New Covenant” and the Mosaic Covenant. Why Paul chose to compare his ministry to Moses is unsure exactly. Perhaps the false teachers he was dealing with were some form of legalism or perhaps Paul was thinking of the greatest covenant he could compare his to to show the greatness of this New Covenant. Regardless, Paul places emphasis on importance and genuiness of a teacher by his message and ministry. And so, Paul appeals to the New Covenant.

Paul then argues the magnitude of the New Covenant (vs.5-18). He does this by comparing the two covenants by terms such as: letter, Spirit, kills, gives life, condemnation, righteousness, temporal glory, eternal glory, fear, confidence, hardened, transforming, veiled, and unveiled.

In this passage the writer refers his readers back to Exodus 34. Exodus 34 takes place just after the golden calf incident. Moses went up Mount Sinai and has received the law and covenant between the LORD and His people. When he came down he saw the people already breaking the Lord’s commands and out of anger broke the tablets on which the covenant rules were written. Moses rebukes the people and has them drink the golden calf after being melted and poured in a river and then has many of the people killed.

Moses then returns up the mountain in hopes of restoring the covenant that had been broken by the people. It is here where Moses pleads with God to see His glory. God reveals Himself to Moses by revelation and manifestation. Moses remains on the mountain for forty days and does not eat or drink. He spends his time in fellowship with God.

When Moses heads back down the mountain to return to his people, unbeknown to him, his face is shining with the glory of God. At first the people are afraid but then he sends out messenger’s to tell them it is safe. Moses shining face becomes a comfort and aid to the people to remind them that Israel had received God’s favor and that He was with them.

There was however a problem to this manifestation, and Moses knew it. The glory on his face was fading. Paul says in II Corinthians 3:13 that Moses put a veil over his face to cover this up. For he did not want his people to see the weakness of the covenant and how it was being “brought to an end.”

What we learn is that Moses then would go and speak to the people with his face shining; when he was done he would veil his face and return to the tent of meeting where he would remove his veil and fellowship with God. This was to recharge the fading glory on his face. Paul then argues (vs.7-13) that the covenant was fading because there was another covenant coming of such greater glory that the former would seem to have no glory. The apostle believes that the New Covenant is that covenant of greater glory.

Paul’s point is that the Old Covenant was powerful and glorious in that it revealed God and his standards by which he called us to live; however, it ended up only condemning because it did not enable fallen man to live out what they were called out to live but rather exposed man’s inability and depravity. The New Covenant comes with the power of the Holy Spirit which enables the formerly unable, fallen, depraved man to fulfill what was required of him.

There seems to be some parallel to idolatry and worship in verse 18 and its effect. In the Old Testament the prophets would often state that worshippers would become like their idol. We see this theme most clearly in the Psalms and Isaiah. Paul seems to be making a connection here in verse 18 stating the same is true concerning the worship of the one true God. When one beholds the glory of God, the worshiper/believer is transformed from “one degree of glory to another” into the image of Jesus Christ. Technically we do not find out that the specific person of the Godhead that Paul has in mind is Jesus till chapter four.

So Paul is arguing that seeing God’s glory is the means by which people are changed into the image of Christ. This is the Lord’s (Holy Spirit vs.18) work. The Old Covenant could never accomplish what God desired in His people then because that glory was fading under that covenant. However, this is not true concerning the New Covenant because its glory was permanent (vs.11).

Paul states the result three times in 3:12-13; 4:1, 16. The minister of the Old Covenant was afraid and lacked confidence but the ministers of the New Covenant were bold and did not lack confidence. The minister of the Old Covenant veiled the glory out of fear and the ministers of the new are very bold about the New Covenant.

Chapter 4

One could argue that the heart of the whole book of II Corinthians is chapter 4. And in this chapter the Apostle Paul repeats the phrase “we do not lose heart” twice, once in the beginning of stating his argument and once and the end of defending his argument. It would seem then that Paul wants his audience to know this point for it has crucial importance to accomplishing his desire and goal.

As stated earlier, Paul’s goal is to comfort the Corinthians by pointing them to the gospel and protecting them from false teachers. Paul states that his means of doing so is working with them for their joy making them steadfast in their faith. In chapter three we see their faith or confidence should be placed in the New Covenant. It would seem that Paul sees the New Covenant and the gospel as synonyms.

Paul states the power and source of the gospel is Jesus Christ in His glory (vs.4). Then he writes that the confidence of this gospel is giving by God the Father in the hearts of those whom He wills to give (vs.6).

So Paul thus far has argued that people come to faith and people are strengthened in their faith by beholding the glory of God ( 3:18). The power of the gospel is most clearly explained in Jesus Christ and His life, death, resurrection (vs.4). At this point Paul has not yet explained how this glory is manifested in the present as Moses face did in the analogy previously given.

Paul does this in verses 7-12. The glory of Christ is manifested in jars of clay by confidence in the midst of affliction:

“We are afflicted in everyway, but not crushed, perplexed but not driven to despair, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed, always carrying in the body the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always be given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.”

Paul’s point could not be any clearer.

Jesus’ sacrifice and power of resurrection is manifested to the lost and the church alike in the confident embracing suffering of the saint. The result is also clear (v.12). “So death is at work in us, but life in you.” Paul was so confident in the New Covenant that he knew that his confidence in the midst of suffering manifested Christ Jesus’ glory to the end that it produced life in the church.

So in verses 7-15 we see that this suffering produces life corporately, whereas in 16-18 we see it having effect on the individual sufferer as well. For Paul states, “For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison.” Paul believes that the suffering is actually producing something for the believer in the gospel. Something that is eternal and weighty in glory, something that cannot be compared to anything else. Paul is clearly speaking of the transforming process into the image of Christ back in 3:18.

Paul then concludes his point that this is done once again by fixing our eyes (faith/confidence) on things unseen (New Covenant). And it is not done by fixing our eyes (faith/confidence) on the things that are seen (temporal things).

Conclusion

Paul believes that suffering is a key ingredient to the sanctification of the corporate church and individually. This does not mean that suffering is good or that suffering will always have this effect. Rather, Paul’s point is that the Christian can have confidence in the gospel in the midst of suffering and that by doing so he is being sanctified.

It could be argued that Paul may be informing the church that by their lack of sacrifice and confidence in the gospel but in temporary things (as these false teachers were advocating) that they were veiling the glory of the New Covenant as Moses did with the Old Covenant. Perhaps Paul meant this as a corrective rebuke about discerning among good and bad teachers, as well as, a pointer to the centrality of the gospel in the believers life. That is my conviction and thesis for this paper.

How Do We KNOW What We Know? (A Biblical Examination of Faith)

2009-01-15T10:24:00.003-06:00

Introduction

Perhaps the most important Christian characteristic on this side of heaven is faith. The Apostle Paul taught that any action with the negation of faith is displeasing to God. “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Romans 14:23. Paul also teaches that we are “justified” by faith in Romans 5:1. We learn in the Holy Scriptures that it is by grace alone through faith alone that one is saved (Eph. 2:8-9). And the writer of Hebrews instructs the church that “without faith it is impossible to please Him [God]” Hebrew 11:6a. Needless to say, faith is not important for life, it is crucial.
However, some would argue that the Biblical view of faith has been hijacked by philosophers and is now being presented incorrectly all across the Western World. This paper is intended to serve in presenting a Biblical lifeview of faith in light of Kierkegaard’s presentation of what faith is. The thesis of this paper is, “Kierkegaard’s view of faith is deficient for the health of the church.”

A Biblical Lifeview of faith

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. Here is the most accurate definition of faith one can find for it is directly from the lips of God. This is God’s dictionary definition of the word faith. John Calvin working off of this definition takes it apart well and defines faith as,
“A firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely-given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”

The writer of Hebrews uses the word “assurance” first when defining faith. The word assurance has the same connotation or idea of certainty or knowledge accompanied by a deep affection that molds and shapes the man’s view of life and therefore his actions. What is this certainty in? It is in “things hoped for.” It is obvious that the hope here being talked about is significantly more than the wishful hope often spoken of today in contemporary speech. The hoping in this promise is certain! The one believing in this promise is assured at the deepest core of himself of what he is hoping for.
But an important question needs to be asked here, “what is the person’s hope based upon?” In Hebrews it is clear that the person’s hope is not based upon simply what that person desires or longs for, but rather the person’s longing and desires are shaped and magnified by the revelation of God speaking. In other words, God tells Abraham His plan for him and Abraham forms a deep conviction, longing, and hope in what is promised by God’s word. So faith is based upon propositional truths promised, “things hoped for,” from God. Faith is based upon evidences from God which are communicated to His audience two-fold. Externally in the objective truth (God’s word) man is convicted.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness. To bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but he came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:6-9)

Internally by the convicting of the Holy Spirit which is based upon the external, we are convinced. For it (God’s word) is what He (the Holy Spirit) is communicating internally. “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness,” John 15:26-27 (italics added for emphasis). “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Romans 8:16 (italics added for emphasis).
So, although faith causes one to drastically change one’s lifestyle to crucify the now in assurance of the hope of tomorrow, it does not mean faith is irrational or merely subjective. For it is more proper to think of faith as the (spiritual) eyes of man that see life as God sees it. Man with faith, actually is seeing (faithing?) logically. We see this in numerous texts. Ephesians 1:17-19a states:
[T]hat the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of His power toward us who believe… (italics added for emphasis).
In the Old Testament it states the LORD appeared to Samuel “by the Word of the LORD” (I Samuel 3:21). There seems to be a “seeing” done that is not done with our eyes! This is what faith is, Biblically speaking. This can also be proven when looking at the antithesis of faith. Paul equates unbelief as being “blinded”, not seeing, or in the dark, while the believer is equated as not blinded and in the light. Paul states in II Corinthians 4:3-4, 6:
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing (or believing) in the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (Italics added for emphasis and parenthesis added for argument).

Scripture is also clear that God thinks orderly, structurally, and logically. This can be most simply displayed in the law. Take for example the law to “not bear false witness” Exodus 20:16. This essentially is similar to rational laws. A is not non-A. Or stealing (Exodus 20:15), because God states that it is wrong for someone to take something that is not theirs. Essentially the person is saying this thing is not my thing and it is my thing. In fact, all of ethics and logic exist because those things flow from God’s nature and therefore, He demands that we act and think as He does.
One objection must be dealt with before moving forward. If faith comes from revelation (Romans 10:17) and all are given revelation from God (Romans 1:18-20) why do not all have faith (John 6:36)? One reason is that not all have been given enough revelation to save them but only to damn them (Romans 1:18-32).
Secondly, earlier it was stated that faith is based upon evidence from God that is revealed both externally and internally. In other words faith in the evidence/revelation from God must be granted to man from God. Faith is a gift of God. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is a gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV, italics added for emphasis). “…And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18b, italics added for emphasis). “And when the Gentiles heard this (the Gospel), they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48, italics and parentheses added for emphasis). I Thessalonians 2:13 says, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” As God (Jesus) had to open the eyes of the man born blind (John 9) due to the fall of man, so also it requires a miracle of God for one to believe.
Typically man thinks that there is evidence that is neutral and from that common ground man can build up enough arguments that will cause the evidence to way in his favor. However, this is contrary to what the Bible teaches. There is no such thing as neutral ground. The whole earth is the LORD’s and everything in it. All things exist and come from God (Romans 11:35-36; Colossians 1:16-17 ), so there is no such thing as neutral evidence. All evidence is arguing that God is and that He has spoken. The problem is not the evidence; the problem is the rebellious heart of man who is not willing to receive counsel from God. Romans 1:18b-20 states,
… who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Italics added for emphasis)

This is why the Bible calls this man a fool. “The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).
So faith though it is affectionate, it is not merely nor based upon emotions or deep convictions. But is based upon, and possesses, objective truth which stimulates the experience of deep conviction in what is promised by God in His word.

Kierkegaard’s view of faith

Soren Aaby Kierkegaard lived from 1813-1855. He was born in Copenhagen, and was the seventh child of his mother. Kierkegaard is difficult to understand when reading him. Many today disagree on what exactly he believed. For years many have thought him of being an existentialist. Some have gone so far as to refer to him as the Father of modern existentialism. Although this maybe controversial, this paper will take the traditional stance that Kierkegaard was indeed an existentialist. This being said, it is possible to have misunderstood Kierkegaard for Brown notes,
In its own way Kierkegaard’s writing is no less difficult to follow than Hegel’s, but for a different reason. Hegel just did not bother to express himself plainly. Kierkegaard deliberately sets out to be tortuous. For to him truth is not something objective that can be handed out on a plate. It is only discovered personally and subjectively in the course of long and sometimes painful self-analysis. And in order to bring his reader to the desired goal, Kierkegaard often found it necessary to be devious.

The idea that Kierkegaard made his writing difficult does make good sense with the idea of Him being an existentialist. Kierkegaard definitely had the ability to be clear, but he wasn’t. This is largely one of the reasons this paper is taking the stance that Kierkegaard was an existentialist. Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics also takes the viewpoint of Kierkegaard being an existentialist as well. This is not stated as an appeal to authority but rather to make the point that this seems to be the most common or normative understanding of Kierkegaard. Also, upon reading His journals it seems that this is indeed the stance he had of reality and truth. Kierkegaard writes, “It is perfectly true, isolated subjectivity is, in the opinion of the age, evil; but ‘objectivity’ as cure is not one whit better. The only salvation is subjectivity, i.e. God, as infinite compelling subjectivity.”
Again I could be misunderstanding him but I do not think I am. There are a number of quotes similar to this one which makes it too difficult to understand him any other way.
This is not to say Kierkegaard was all bad, but simply that he was an existentialist. Sproul when speaking of existentialism states, “In existentialism, becoming tends to swallow up being; the finite, the infinite; the temporal, the eternal; and secular, sacred.” In other words, stronger emphasis is placed upon becoming rather than essence or being.
Kierkegaard saw and taught that there were three stages to life. They were: Aesthetic Stage, pursuing sensuousness or in common vernacular “living life”; Ethical Stage, when that person experiences guilt and shame for moral principles broken; Religious Stage, where one gets there by leap of faith and so becomes passionate about obeying and loving him.
Here is where the question comes in, “what does Kierkegaard mean by leap of faith?” Perhaps the best book to understand what he meant is found in His book, Fear and Trembling.
In this book he deals with the account of Abraham being told by God to, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:2) Schaeffer commenting on this book and Kierkegaard stating, “Kierkegaard said this was an act of faith with nothing rational to base it on or to which to relate it. Out of this came the modern concept of a “leap of faith” and the total separation of the rational and faith.” Schaeffer attempts to explain this idea of faith and reason as dichotic. He explains,
Modern man is a dichotomy. By dichotomy we mean a total separation into two reciprocally exclusive orders, with no unity or relationship between them. The dichotomy here is the total separation between the area of meaning and values, and the area of reason. Reason leading to despair must be kept totally separate from the blind optimism of non-reason. This makes a lower and an upper story, with the lower story of reason leading to pessimism and men trying to find optimism in an upper story devoid of reason.

And here lies within the problem of Kierkegaard’s view of faith for the health of the church. It is not to say that Kierkegaard did not believe in reason or logic but rather there is no connection between the intellect and the faith of a man. This is what Schaeffer means by the “upper story” and “lower story.” Faith, in other words, is not reasonable. Faith is in its own category. Faith, although it may have ideas being trusted in, is foolish. And yet, faith is the more admirable attribute.

Problems with Kierkegaard’s view of faith

One may ask, “Well what is the problem with this view of faith, because one is still trusting in the promises of God?” There are three problems with this view which will hinder the health of the church.
First, this view of faith asks man to deny the very way God made him. God is a thinking being. And we see in Scripture that God has also made man a thinking being. This is shown in something as simple as Adam exorcising dominion over the earth by naming all the animals in the garden (Genesis 2:20). God also speaks to Adam and expects from him to be able to comprehend and obey what God commands him(Genesis 2:16-17). Man is a thinking, rational creature. This is the way God has made him. In fact this is largely how man relates to God.
The point being made is that Kierkegaardian faith is not allowing a harmony and functionality of man fully and completely relating to God. Rather the rational relation to God is only a stage of life (the second stage in Kierkegaard’s three) for the man and merely a stepping stone to leave the rational and to leap to the faith stage.
In other words, man is to relate to God on a rational basis but is truly called to leave the rational (pessimistic) and live truly in relating to God non-rationally (optimistic). Perhaps Kierkegaard is simply “fleshing out” the common idea that the “heart” and “mind” of man are distinct. That the two are not only ever meant to work together but are entirely separate (the upper = heart and lower story = mind).
However, this is not what Scripture teaches. Rather the heart and mind of man are seen as interchangeable. Scripture teaches that man: loves, speaks, understands, wishes, meditates, trusts, plans, imagines, grows in wisdom, devises, directs, and deceives all from the heart (Duet. 6:5; 7:17; Job 17:4, 11; Ps. 44; 28:7; 33:11; 73:7; Pr. 2:10; 6:18). All of these actions speak of a perfect harmony of the heart and mind of man. In fact, many of the Hebrew and Greek words are the same for “heart” and “mind.” The point is that Scripture seems to teach the affections and the rational of man work together and not independently. So Biblically man is never called to leave the rational to believe. This is not to say that rational and faith are mutually the same. One may have faith and not all his questions answered. But rather that rational and faith work cooperatively.
The second problem with Kierkegaard’s view of faith is that this idea calls faith to function in a way it was never called to function. Jerram Barrs states:
We do not need to say to the unbeliever, “Don’t ask questions – just believe!” We do not need to say when a Christian has struggles and doubts, “Just pray harder!” Francis Schaeffer would say, “If you try to load every doubt, objection, and question on the donkey of devotion – eventually the donkey will lay down and die, for it is being asked to bear a load God never intended it to bear.”

This analogy wonderfully communicates the real problem here with a dichotic view of faith and reason. It calls for faith to labor without its partner, reason. Eventually the faith of the person may grow weary and die.
This is exactly the opposite of Kierkegaard’s intention when he fought for this view of faith. In fact, he was fighting against the dead faith of many. However, in an age of modern philosophy and many question unanswered he turned to this response: “faith is optimistic while reason is pessimistic.” But by thinking this way Kierkegaard seems to be presupposing that all truth is not God’s truth. Or that truth cannot be known. The latter is what Kierkegaard seems to believe from his writings.
Perhaps Kierkegaard positioned too much weight in philosophy and less weight in the Scriptures. Colossians 2:8 warns Christians of this danger, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”(Italics added for emphasis).
If Kierkegaard did not place so much weight in philosophy maybe he would have realized that truth all though transcendent, has a voice. Truth speaks! The eternal Son of God is the truth in flesh. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1; 14. Italics added for emphasis). And this Son of God has spoken, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and now is here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” (John 5:25 Italics added for emphasis). And this Son of God is truth with a capital “t.” “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” (John 14:6 italics added for emphasis). And finally, Jesus in His High Priestly prayer asks of the Father, “Sanctify them in the truth. Your Word is truth.” (John 17:17 italics added for emphasis). In other words this truth is to be known and understood and therefore changes us.
Again, the problem is not that there is not rational evidence for faith in God and His promises, but rather the rebellious heart that refuses to acknowledge the “clearly perceived” evidence given. Unbelief is not rooted in ignorance as much as it is in stubbornness. In other words, the problem is not as though it does not make sense to believe in God, but rather man is sinful and is unwilling to believe. Even the Christian has indwelling sin and so, has to fight and wage war with his flesh; that strives to make him unbelieving.
This leads into the third reason why Kierkegaardian faith is deficient for the health of the church. Practiced out, this view of faith will eventually call for the man to make one of two choices: live in a way that is completely irrational and mindless, or become a coward and reluctant to obey God.
The first is because of the separation made between faith and reason. The second because without reason one cannot possess faith with true deep conviction. Of these two options, the latter is more plausible. The first, although exist hypothetically, does not seem to be able to truly be real as a practical option. This does not mean that none will attempt this route. When considering faith Bahnsen states, “Some people have been so misled as to feel that Christians actually elevate the value of one’s personal faith in direct proportion to the degree that it must be dubious, blind, or mystical.” This kind of faith demands for man to step out of the reality God has placed him in.
The fruit of this vision of faith is apathy. This is fundamentally because passion is based upon understanding. Abraham was “fully convinced” of the promises of YAHWEH (Romans 4:21); this is what leads Abraham to do extraordinary sacrifices like the offering of his dearly loved son. Hodge comments on Romans 4:21 stating:
Giving glory to God; that is, the strength was manifested in his giving glory to God. To give glory to God, is to take him to be what he really is, almighty and faithful. It is to show by our conduct that we give him credit, (so to speak,) that he will and can do what he says. Therefore the apostle adds, and being fully persuaded; that is he gave glory to God by being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform.

Kierkegaard looks at this account and perceives the tossing and turning and fight to obey God as the coming to the truth. Rather the truth being the driving force that causes him to submit. He literally turns the episode on its head. Abraham already believed the promises (15:6). Waltke defined faith in this context as: “‘Believed’, the Hebrew is better translated ‘trusted.’ Abraham considers God true, reliable, and trustworthy.”
However, Abraham was fighting to grow in his faith for the commitment it demanded. This does not mean Abraham was irrationally obeying the call of God. Abraham was commanded by the God to sacrifice his son that God provided through a nearly dead wife (Genesis 18:11; Hebrews 11:12). Knowing what Scripture teaches Abraham had plenty of rational reasons to obey God and trust Him with the outcome. Indeed, in Hebrews we find that Abraham believed that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead. “He (Abraham) considered that God was able to even raise him from the dead,” Hebrews 11:19a (Italics added for emphasis). Again, this was not a foolish thing to think, Abraham had good reason to believe this. This is not to undermine the sacrifice Abraham made, but rather to demonstrate that faith works with reason.
This is the point of the book of Hebrews. The writer is given propositional statement after another concerning Jesus and His work. The point is to stimulate the listeners to live radical, risk-taking lives! Their recompense is not here on earth but after death, which they cannot make out with their physical eyes. So the author paints them a depiction with terminology that would communicate to the “eyes of their heart” that these things are true! “Therefore let us go to Him outside the camp and bear the reproach He endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” Hebrews 13:13-14.

Where did Kierkegaard go wrong?

Kierkegaard lived in the time of the rise of modern man. This cannot be forgotten when reading and seeking to understand Kierkegaard. Since Kant, philosophers have strived to know how to interact with the “noumenal world.” The noumenal world for lack of better words is reality, as it truly is. The “phenomenal world” is the world one experiences. How does one interact truly with the noumenal, and if one does, how does he know he did? This is the foundation for Kierkegaard’s lower and upper floors. Kierkegaard agreed that there was no way of truly knowing how to get from the phenomenal to the noumenal. This is why one must take a “leap of faith.”
Faith in Kierkegaard’s mind was the way from traveling between the two worlds. This is where Kierkegaard makes another oversight. Kierkegaard seemingly confuses faith with its fruit. In other words, faith is faithfulness. This makes sense however, because, Kierkegaard was an existentialist. As quoted earlier by Sproul, the existentialist places a bigger or unhealthy emphasis on becoming over being. In this case, what faith is is swallowed up by what it does.
J. Gresham Machen comments on this topic in his book “What is Faith?” “We believe that Christianity flourishes not in the darkness, but in the light.” He also stated concerning revival that, “one of the means which the Spirit will use…is an awakening of the intellect.” Perhaps it is this confusion of what faith actually is that has lead to so many false doctrines such as: Liberal Theology, Emergent Theology, New Perspective on Paul, and others. As stated earlier in this paper, faith is crucial. So when faith is misunderstood, one can be sure that it will not be long before many other fundamentals of the faith begin to get tempered with.

What to take from Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard was a brilliant man who struggled deeply with the contemporary thoughts of his day. He was an apologist seeking to defend the Christian faith. Men like Kant and Hegel had left devastating blows to the church and this perhaps left Kierkegaard a little dumbfounded. His response to these two skeptics was an intelligent system to abandon reason. Kierkegaard saw in his day perhaps only evil come from skepticism and reasoning. Kant had left man in the dark, with no door handle or light switch. The churches in Europe had become largely lethargic and unmoved and he desired to see the church rise up with passion and life.
His response to this was the upper floor. There was a better floor up and one had to take a leap to get there. This leap could not be done with reasoning or logical formulas.
Kierkegaard exhibited trust in God in a time when perhaps it was most difficult and for this he should be commended. He rose up and spoke like a prophet in many ways against the sins of his time. Sadly, he failed to see where his ideas would take the Western world. Today, many Christians are following in the same footsteps as Kierkegaard and sadly, not learning from his mistakes.

Conclusion

This paper has sought to present a research and presentation of the life and views of faith according to Soren Kierkegaard. This paper has also presented the Biblical lifeview of faith in response to the inadequacies of Kierkegaardian faith.
The truths learned and gathered from the examination of nature and life of faith cannot be overstressed. Martin Luther gave his life recover the meaning of one word that word was “repentance.” For after a long age of darkness, God was gracious to shine the light once more in the common language of the people. Perhaps God will allow for His light to shine brightly on the proper definition of the other side of the coin for that word, that is, “faith.”
May the LORD rise up men and women who hunger and thirst for righteousness and preach faithfully the Gospel of Jesus Christ! That salvation is: in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone, revealed authoritatively through scripture alone, for the glory of God (the Father of faith, truth, and speech) alone! It is then, and only then, that light will, once more, break forth into yet another revival. This is my hearts desire, even so, “Come Lord Jesus, Come!” (Revelation 22:20b-21).

A Devotional on Exodus 32 (part 2)

2008-12-13T20:30:00.002-06:00

(This post would serve you best if you first read Exodus 32 and part 1 of this devotional series.)

Are we to think of Moses as more loving and forgiving because he interceded for Israel to a ANGRY God?

NO!

First, Moses was not the one being sinned against, God was. Second, Moses did not yet know what God was angry about when He told him His plans.

However, I would argue that would God had not have been gracious to keep Moses from seeing what Israel had been doing, when relaying His plan, Moses would NOT have interceded!

Now that’s a thought!

I believe this can be argued by the response we see of Moses when he does see what Israel had been doing (Exodus 32:19b-20,26-27). Which is significantly different than what we see in Exodus 32:11-13.

One more thing should be commented about in this age in which we live in. What caused Moses to act so violently and angry for what Israel was doing? I believe it was born out of a zeal for the LORD!

Moses had removed himself from the sin of the world and had spent along time in the presence of God’s holiness. So when Moses returns to behold sin, we see the manifestation of how one should respond to sin. That is, out of a love for righteousness and hatred against unrighteousness.

This is the proper reaction against sin out of a zeal for the LORD and His HOLINESS!

Questions to ask yourself:

1. Whats does this inform me about the music I listen to?
2. What does this teach me about: God, my heart, and movies?
3. What does this call for with what we allow before our eyes?
4. Does my heart respond the same way as Moses does when I sin or am exposed to it?

A Devotional on Exodus 32 (part 1)

2008-12-13T20:28:00.001-06:00

(For this devotional to be most effective read Exodus 32 first and perhaps even thumb through Exodus to get a general idea of the context.)

When God states to Moses that He would destroy Israel because He saw what they were doing Moses steps in and intercedes for the people.

Before diving in though, a few things must be pointed out.

It should be noted that Scripture is setting the stage with a shadow of the Christ. Moses is the shadow of Jesus. We see in the text a legitimate cause for the LORD to destroy His people. Moses steps in as a representative of Israel and pleads for MERCY.

His basis to see God relent is that God has made a promise that He must fulfill and God will be mocked if He lead a people out of Egypt only to destroy them in the wilderness because He couldn’t make them obey.

Because of this intercession of Moses, God “relented from the disaster that He had spoken of bringing on His people.”

However, this all being said it should be understood that what God stated He was going to do He could not have without lying and disgracing His name. Both of which are not possible for God. (II Tim. 2:13; Titus 1:2) Secondly, we already know from this point that YAHWEH is all knowing and doesn’t forget. So, the arguments that Moses brings to His attention, He already knew.

This makes the whole event seem pointless until you remember the point of the text is to point to Christ in which the real dilemma is solved.

How can a righteous God save a wicked people, for His name, when the very act of saving seems unjust?

Imagine a judge today pardoning a serial killer and letting him go free on the basis that he felt loving and forgiving that day, this would cause every man and woman to stand up and cry out against the injustice!

But in the Moses account no answer is given for how God can do this; because, he was the shadow, but in the Christ account it is.

Just as Moses presented himself as atonement for the people, so did Jesus Christ. However, Moses atonement offer was rejected, Jesus Christ’s atonement was not! He offered himself to appease the wrath of God and therefore became a public display of God’s justice (Romans 3:24-26) even in His justifying the ungodly (Romans 4:5).

This is Eternal Life!

2008-11-18T14:55:00.003-06:00

“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” -Jesus (recorded by the Apostle John in John 17:1-3)

Jesus defined “eternal life” as knowing God. This is the eternal life always offered in the Scriptures. If we are attempting to save anyone from or to anything else they are not getting saved.

So many today want to simply be saved from difficulties or simply saved to living forever with family and friends. Or a host of other reasons that are man-centered and have not to do with the Gospel or the Eternal Life Jesus Christ came to give.

Our churches are full of people who could care less about knowing God and yet are convinced they are saved because some pastor “Popeishly” told them they were saved. They want their worship style of music. They want their ears tickled from the pastor with whatever or they’ll take their business else where.

No wonder our churches are fighting. No wonder our churches are turning to other means for growth and success. Our churches are full of goats and wolves who think they are sheep. No wonder we have such trouble trying to get these people to behave like sheep. Because they’re NOT!

A goat is a goat. A wolf is a wolf! And a sheep is a sheep!!!

Oh LORD! Forgive us for teaching another gospel! Forgive us for idolatry! Forgive us for teaching people to worship the gift rather than the giver! We repent!!! Give us yourself! Help us to know you! Holy Spirit give us understanding of the Word. For you have spoken so clearly and revealed to us the Glory of the Son. Sanctify us in Thy Word! Thy Word is Truth!

The World HATES Christians.

2008-11-15T17:18:00.002-06:00

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you…if I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.” Jesus (recorded by the Apostle John the one who our LORD loved, in John 15:19,22).

Jesus taught the reason the world would hate us is because when we fulfill the Great Commission we would command all men to repent from their sin or they will be guilty and judged for their sin.

In other words, the Gospel condemns all men in order to save men.

Now we are told by many influential Christians that we need to change the way we do church and teach the gospel because people are offended and feel condemned. “We sound judgmental.” “We sound too preachy.” etc.

Are you seeing what I am seeing. Leading Christians are telling Christians to stop condemning the unbelieving world, because the world doesn’t feel loved by it and is offended and turned off by us. And if we continue to do this the world will start hating Christians and the church.

Yeah, we already knew that. Jesus told us we would be 2,000 years ago! Now we are surprised by it?

P.S.
Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHL9NZ1lQQ

A Humbling Thought from God's Word (John 8).

2008-11-08T10:18:00.000-06:00

I was reading today in John 8. I recommend it to you :-) No but seriously, this is one powerful discourse that Jesus has with the Pharisees. It never ceases to amaze me how Jesus can say such harsh things so bluntly and honestly. And yet, I never doubt that He is love! For example, in John 8 Jesus tells the Pharisees:

They are ignorant (v. 14)
They judge wrongly (v.15)
They do not know God (v.19) and thus,
They are liars (v.55)
They will die in sin (v. 21)
They are slaves to sin (v. 34)
They do not believe nor love the Word of God (v.37)
They are not Jews (v.39)
They are murderers in their hearts (v. 40)
They do not love God nor His Messiah (v.42)
They deceive themselves and reject God’s Word (v.43)
They are children of the Devil (v.44)
They’re will (free-will?) is bound to do the Devil’s desire (.44)
They are not God’s children (v. 47)

When we think of Jesus does this list come to mind of things he said to people (mind you this is taken from just one chapter of one of the four Gospels). We often have a unbalanced view of Jesus going around only saying kind things and healing everybody and never judging anyone and telling everyone to not judge but just love, love, love. John speaks of Jesus as the Word in flesh who was full of “grace and truth.”

But here’s the interesting thing that stuck out to me this morning when reading John 7+8. Jesus throughout His ministry commands people to “hear” and “perceive” and understand. And yet here in John 8, Jesus makes it crystal clear that no one can: hear,see,understand, or believe unless the Father gives special grace. In fact, Jesus even tells the Pharisees that their will is bound by their father (the Devil) to do his desires (v.44). In other words Jesus gives commands to mankind that they cannot do! No wonder Jesus told them they were in slavery (v.34).

So, if you are a child of Satan, which everyone is born into this world as, then you are: blinded, deaf, deceived, and therefore unbelieving. Everyone needs to believe to see, hear, and understand. But only God’s children can do this.

So, salvation depends not on the man who runs nor the man who wills, but on God who chooses to show mercy. Salvation belongs to the LORD! In essence Jesus was telling the Pharisees, “you do not believe because you are not my children, and you are not my children because I have not made you my children!” (read John 3)

John 1:13 says, “who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of flesh nor the will of man, but of God.”

So finally my point of humbling is this. I am saved simply because God showed me unique and peculiar mercy and grace, that He has not given to all. There is nothing I did to earn this favor from God! and yet I receive the blessings! And because of the magnitude of this salvation and the weightiness of judgment others will experience (that I deserve), I have an eternal reason to be infinitely humbled! Who would have thought that the gospel would be the source of our salvation from pride?!

A Brief Defense for Penal Substitutionary Atonement: A Commentary on Romans 3:24-26

2008-10-07T09:06:00.002-05:00

In Romans 3, the Apostle Paul is demonstrating that all men, no matter their background, ethnicity, or knowledge, fall short of the standard by which God judges a man of being just. Therefore, in verse 23, Paul concludes that all “fall short of the glory of God.” Paul is also attempting to explain to the church in Rome why possessing the law does not make one righteous before God. But rather, the law acts more like a sign or pointer revealing to man how he does not measure up to God’s standards, and exposes the many transgressions of all men. Paul is building up the tension for his readers because up until this point he has clearly shown how all men, Jew and gentile alike, are under the wrath of God. The question then arises, “if no one is good, how can anyone get to heaven and God remain just?” For if all men are unworthy of heaven, and worthy only of hell, how can anyone receive this reward? Furthermore, how can God seemingly just drop the charges for the sins committed and remain a just judge? These are the questions Paul answers in Romans 3:24-26.

3:24. Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. This verse is picking up in mid-thought and is clearly connected to verse 23. The ESV translation of vs. 24 starts with the word and. So there is an obvious connection in Paul’s mind of the category of those who “sin and fall short” and those who are “justified.” In this verse, the author states that those who are in Christ Jesus are “justified” as a gift of grace through redemption. The word justified, used here, is used thirty-eight other times in the New Testament. Twenty-four of those times the word is translated exactly the same, the other fifteen times it is translated nearly the same only differentiated by tense of the word.

Throughout the New Testament justified is used to mean, “to show to be righteous or to declare righteous.” For example, if someone were to make the claim that they knew the president of the United States, that person and his claim would be justified if President Bush were to come over to his house and verify this person’s claim. However, this term is most often used with a courtroom motif. Schreiner states:
Justification is a legal or forensic term, belonging to the law courts. Its opposite is condemnation. Both are the pronouncements of a judge. In a Christian context they are the alternative eschatological verdicts which God the judge may pass on judgment day. So when God justifies sinners today, he anticipates his own final judgment by bringing into present what belongs properly to the last day (Schreiner 190).
So Paul argues that even though everyone sins against God and is therefore under His condemnation, those who are in Christ Jesus are no longer under that condemnation, but rather, seen as just before God and His law. Paul then goes on to explain through what means this is done.

Those who are justified are so on the basis that they have been redeemed. In the previous verse Paul stated that everyone has sinned against God. The idea could be understood that all men are therefore indebted to God. Therefore, for them to be free they must be redeemed. The word redemption is used only ten times in the New Testament. However, the word was very common to Paul’s contemporary audience. They would have most likely associated this word with the connotation of a slave being indebted and being set free due to a ransom being paid. In other words, the word redemption means, “to release on payment of ransom.” However, there has been debate on the intended meaning by Paul when he used this word. Some have argued that this word could be seen not as a ransom being paid, but rather, or simply the idea of “deliverance” or “emancipation” from slavery (Cranfield 206). That being said, the best understanding of the word is likely the idea of a ransom being paid. This can be seen for three reasons.

First, as stated before, the common understanding of this word is most commonly understood to have the imagery of a ransom being paid. There is no reason given for the reader to think otherwise.

Secondly, the immediate context is already carrying the imagery of an indebted group of people who have been ransomed. In verse 23 Paul states that all men have sinned against God. And in verse 24 Paul states that those who are in Christ Jesus have been redeemed “freely.” Why would Paul use terms such as this one if he did not intend for it to have a ransom understanding?

Lastly, looking at the Scriptures in a broader context by the same writer, Paul uses the imagery throughout his epistles with the idea of those in Jesus being there through means of a price or purchase (I Cor. 6:20). That being said, it does not mean that Paul does not have in mind the ideas of “deliverance” or “emancipation.” Rather, that is exactly what the ransomed experience on the basis of the purchase being made.

So in verse 24 Paul gives hope to the reader. This hope is found outside of the individual. It is found in Christ Jesus. However, at this point, though Paul has spoken of hope for those in Christ Jesus, he has not answered the dilemma at how a holy righteous judge can do so. Stott states it well:
Then how on earth can Paul affirm that God does what he forbids others to do; that he does what he says he will himself never do; that he does it habitually, and that he even designates himself ‘the God who justifies the wicked’ or (we might say) ‘who “righteousses” the unrighteous’? It is preposterous! How can the righteous God act unrighteously, and so overthrow the moral order, turning it upside down? It is unbelievable! (112)

Here is the point Stott is making: If God has clearly revealed that it is an abomination for a judge to condemn the righteous and justify the ungodly (Pro. 17:15), how can He then justify the ungodly? Paul goes on in verse 25 to explain.

3:25. Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over sins previously committed. The “whom” in verse 25 refers back to Christ Jesus from the end of verse 24. Paul argues that God the Father appeals to Jesus, His Son, as a testimony to His righteousness. But how is Jesus a demonstration of God’s righteousness? In verse 23 Paul stated that all men have sinned against God and are therefore under God’s just wrath. In verse 24 Paul states that those who were under God’s just wrath have now been justified and redeemed. In other words, somehow God’s just wrath against sin has been placated, appeased, or dealt. This is what the word propitiation means.

However, all scholars do not accept this word here in Romans 3:25. Many scholars such as Dunn, Gundry, and Chalke would translate this word as expiation or as mercy seat (Dunn 180-181). There is good reason for this. For this word is used, by the translators of the Old Testament, for the LXX for the Hebrew word for mercy seat. This is the same reason why Calvin and Luther translated this word this way. Now Paul is dealing largely with the Law of Moses in the context and it is clear that the Old Testament is in mind here. However, to translate this word as expiation or mercy seat would not communicate the full meaning of the word here being used by Paul. One scholar states it best:

The main reason these options are not satisfactory, and a reference to propitiation seems necessary, is the context. In these verses Paul is describing God’s solution to the human predicament, which is not only sin but God’s wrath upon sin (1:18; 2:5; 3:5). And where there is divine wrath, there is need to avert it…In sum, it would be hard to exaggerate the differences between the pagan and the Christian views of propitiation. In the pagan perspective, human beings try to placate their bad-tempered deities with their own paltry offerings. According to the Christian revelation, God’s own great love propitiated his own holy wrath through the gift of his own dear Son, who took our place, bore our sin and died our death. Thus God himself gave himself to us to save us from himself (Stott 114-115).

As Stott and many others have stated the immediate context demands for a more full meaning that simply expiation. Seifrid states it wonderfully, saying:

According to Paul, our sins themselves are an expression of the wrath of God on idolatry, a wrath that therefore cannot legitimately be reduced to an impersonal effect or natural result of a deed (1:18-32). Humanity has been subjected by God to the power of sin (3:9). The righteousness of God effects deliverance from sin to which God’s wrath delivered us (3:24; cf. 6:1-23, esp. 6:7). Expiation is thus contingent on propitiation. Propitiation effects expiation. (620)

Finally it should be noted that to translate the word as expiation and not as propitiation would only speak of what has been done with sin and would do so at the neglect of what is done with God’s wrath (Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach 82).

This can be seen in the same verse where Paul uses the word forbearance. Forbearance means, “to bear with or endure.” In other words, because of the past sins prior to Jesus Christ not being dealt with, God was enduring something. What was God enduring? God was enduring the injustice of sins undealt with. In other words, it is God’s nature to be just! For Him to never deal with sin would be impossible. However, God did forbear the injustice for a time until Jesus Christ came. Then He sent forth His Son as the propitiation for sin “previously committed.” By doing so, God “publicly” demonstrates to the world that He is indeed just! As Clement of Rome has said, “His flesh for our flesh, and His soul, for our souls.” (Clement of Rome 1.18.) Or stated in a letter to Diognetus, “The father Himself placed upon Christ the burden of our iniquities. He gave His own Son as a ransom for us…” (Letter to Diognetus 1.28.) Jesus Christ took upon Himself the wrath against sins committed by others.
3:26. For the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. The word for at the beginning of verse 26 is connected to the last phrase in verse 25. It answers the question, “why did God pass over sins previously committed?” God passed over sins previously committed, so that, He could display His magnificent righteousness “at the present time.” Murray comments on this phrase saying,

The definite specification of time in the expression “at this present time” (vs. 26) is another example of the significance attached to the historical epoch in which God gave this demonstration of his justice. It is contrasted with the generations of the past when God’s forbearance was in exercise, and it shows that location in history belongs to those accomplishments which have a Godward reference at their centre. We are not to relegate to the realm of the superhistorical that which meets divine interest and exigencies. (121)
Paul uses the word demonstration, which means, “to prove.” This word is used three times and translated as: demonstration, proof, sign. In other words, Jesus Christ being a propitious sacrifice to God is a sign or a proof that God is indeed righteous.

What exactly is God seeking to prove by punishing sin? What is God demonstrating by giving sin its proper due? God is proving that He is indeed just. This word is used 79 times in the New Testament. It comes from a word, which means, “right.” In fact, this word is translated 48 times as righteous. So when Paul states that this is all done to display God being just, he means it shows and proves that God does indeed uphold what is right! He does not sweep the sins previously committed underneath some cosmic rug. Nor does He ignore it. He does not just “up and forgive it” either, but rather, he deals justly or rightly with sin. In this way God is not only just, but He is just in justifying the ungodly! What an awesome God. For here God clearly manifests not only that He is a just God, but that He is a loving God that would do so at the expense of His dearly loved and only Son. Only God can clearly manifest both perfect love and perfect justice in one event. One scholar writes:

Now the bearing of the cross on God’s dealings with men “at the present time” is unfolded. It amounts to a declaration that God is at once just in himself and justifying in his activity on behalf of mankind. (Harrison 45)

Or as another has said, “Christ was set forth as a sacrifice for the manifestation of the righteousness or justice of God, that is, that he might be just, although the justifier of the ungodly” (Hodge 98). The last phrase in verse 26 states the who God justifies, those who have “faith in Jesus.” In the opening of the epistle, Paul had quoted a prophet from the Old Testament stating, “The just shall live by faith.” It is here in these verses that Paul explains how that can be! One is not able to stand before God by keeping the Law of Moses or even the laws written on their own hearts. One must and can only stand before God by faith in Jesus Christ and His accomplished work on the cross.

Because of the clear argument being made here by the Apostle Paul, he closes the chapter with this being the reason God is not a respecter of persons or ethnicities. Nor will God justify anyone by works of the law. But rather, the law of faith alone will justify them. However, the question arises, “if men are justified before God apart from the law, is the law then overthrown?” Paul then begins to grapple with this question in the following chapter.

So, now that we have taken a brief examination of what Paul is talking about in Romans 3:24-26, how then should we live? It seems the best application of these truths is found in the following verse, where Paul asks a rhetorical question. “Where then is the boasting?” The answer, “It is excluded.” This is why getting Romans 3:24-26 is so crucial! Because God’s glory is at stake! And our sin is on the line! If we get these verses wrong, there will be room to boast. Perhaps this may be the biggest problem with all the other interpretations of this text. The application doesn’t fit their exegesis. But if we realize that we are all deserving of Hell. And the only reason we are not condemned, is because of the free gift of redemption “by His grace.” I cannot boast for being in Christ, or remaining there! I am there because it was given to me to be in Him. So here is how we can apply this verse specifically. The next time you encounter someone that you grow impatient with, or think less of than yourself, remember that all of us are just as lost and our only hope is Jesus. So patiently and lovingly, as a servant, point them to the only hope for mankind. That is Jesus! Boast in nothing, save the cross of Calvary! For it was there that the sinless, innocent, and just Son of God was punished with the full penalty of sin on the behalf of wicked, guilty, sinners like you and me. “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29b)

How BIG of a deal is Abortion in America anyways?

2008-09-17T21:56:00.001-05:00

This spring semester I had a class called “Contemporary Issues in Science.” It was a really cool class! We had a lot of time designated to discussion in the class concerning major issues concerning ethics and contemporary science. Things like, genetic engineering, abortions, contraceptives, and tons of other issues. I had to write a paper on contraceptives and abortions. I had to develop a Biblical worldview and ethic and compare it with the science developments and explain how those issues should be seen by a Christian.

Upon doing my research I became sick with some of the information I was getting from the sources I used in my paper. Here’s the facts I came too. In 1973 America legalized abortions in every state. Since then there has been a continual increase in the amount of abortions each year when compared to the previous year. The book I was using was published in 2002. It stated that abortions were increasing by 1.6% each year. It also stated that in 2002 there was 1.4 MILLION abortions in the United States alone. I don’t know if that number registers for you but I did some more research to compare those numbers with other major events in history.

For example, since the war in Iraq has started (March 20, 2003) there has been 3,376 casualties in combat(That’s just over 5 years). Now that is a lot of people. And tied with each one of those people are loved ones and family members. However, there are 4,000 murders (abortions) of innocent children EVERYDAY in the U.S. alone! SHOCKING! I hope you are repulsed and disturbed, because you should be. This is a sad, sad, sad thing. But it get’s worse!

If I were to take ALL of the casualties of Americans in combat from the entire history of America. That is, if I were to add up all of the deaths from all of the wars in U.S history (including WWI & WWII) and then in addition to that add in all the deaths from the Holocaust it would add up to 13,760,572 deaths! That is a whole lot of people. What would you think if I told you that the amount of legalized murder of innocent children (abortions)that were done in the U.S. since 1973 more than doubles that amount? From 1973-2002 there have been over 40,000,000 ABORTIONS! However, today the death toll of innocent children in the U.S. is now over 50,000,000!!! This is genocide! Legalized genocide!

However, there is something you can do about this! This year you have the opportunity to vote. There are two candidates running. Barack H. Obama and John Mccain are the two candidates. Obama is arguably the biggest advocate for pro-choice to ever run for President. Mccain has a history and has promised to continue to be pro-life. Not only does Mccain have the ability to cut back the amount of abortions done in the United States, but also, he will have an opportunity to bring in another conservative (pro-life) supreme court judge (SCJ)! This is huge, because, we only need to have one more SCJ to have a majority of conservative SCJ. What this means is, if Mccain gets in office we could overturn the legalized abortions in the United States.

One major response I will likely get and so I thought it best to give it now is this, “Stephen, there are other important issues concerning this election other than this one topic.” I agree. However, can you think of a more pressing issue? 150 years ago there was a thing called legalized slavery. This slavery treated human beings who were less powerful as property. A man named William Wilberfore dedicated his life to stop this horrific affair. He died before seeing his dream come true. That is, to see all mankind treated equal. There were many in his time who agreed with him on his view of slavery. However, they thought it would be foolish to vote the overturn of slavery because it effected so many issues, thing like: the economy, power of the nation, the current war and other things! We look back at those people and think, “how foolish, selfish, and lost they must have been!” And yet, we are making the same mistake today! America has legalized slavery all over again. The human being in a mothers womb is not treated free! The child is not treated equal! The innocent dependent child is seen as property of the mother to “choose” whatever she wants to do with it! Please I beg you all! Do not make the same mistake our forefathers made!

A Brief Biography of the life and theology of John Calvin.

2008-09-17T20:15:00.000-05:00

Introduction

John Calvin is arguably one of the most influential scholars in Christendom history. Calvin is largely responsible for the development of many doctrines including the system of Covenant Theology. Perhaps the greatest thinker from the Reformation is John Calvin. In the short 54 years lived (Piper 121) Calvin wrote tracts and books, preached thousands of sermons, established school known internationally, and trained many future pastors to send out into the world to spread the gospel to the four corners of the earth.

This paper will do a brief introduction to the life and doctrine of John Calvin. Due to many misconceptions and lack of research done by the common man, John Calvin has been largely misunderstood and sadly misrepresented by many. He is more often than not known for his forming of the doctrines of grace and the so-called killing of people in Geneva. Hopefully this paper will clarify some of those issues and act as a proper memorial to a man who dedicated his life to proclaiming the glory of God.

A brief background on the life of John Calvin

On July 10, 1509, Gerard Calvin and Jeanne Le Franc had a baby boy, their second. They were a middle class family in Noyon, a small city in the northern French province of Picardy…The baby boy, Jean, turned out to be smart, and when the time came, his father used his connections to get him a good education. (Elwood 1)

Calvin had just turned 8 years old when Martin Luther had nailed his famous 95 theses on the door of a church, which began the Reformation. Although John Calvin is recognized as one of the major reformers, he was one of untimely birth. Luther and Zwingli were already well-established reformers and known all across Europe, when Calvin was just beginning his education in (Roman Catholic) theology in Paris, France. His father had pulled some strings to get him into school there. Gerard had known the right people from his work place. Although, later John’s father fell out of good standing with the Catholic church, and so, Gerard sent him to study law (Piper 122).

Half a decade later Calvin went to study his passion at the time, the classics. His father had died and he felt free to chase after this love of his. He also took up Greek and wrote a book called Commentary on Seneca (Piper 122). Sometime in the early 1530’s Calvin had caught a glimpse of the glory of God and he was radically changed.

Many scholars have charged Calvin with being heartless and cruel to those who differed with him in doctrinal beliefs, claiming he would have people killed if they would dare to contradict anything he taught. This is simply not true. Calvin is not responsible for any mans’ death. However, what is often referred to for proof is the account of the individual Servetus who was beheaded in the town that John Calvin had much influence over as pastor. The man had attempted to have Calvin killed on a couple of occasions using deceit and hit men. Both times Calvin was preserved by what could best be called providence. Later this man had attempted to not only deny the doctrine of the Trinity but also espouse his view to many of the citizens of Geneva. He had warrants on him for death from the Roman Catholic Church as well. Calvin had met with him on a number of occasions to correct him of his doctrinal error but he refused to recant this heresy. The punishment in Geneva for holding to such a doctrine was death. Calvin likely could have talked the city council out of this, but after no change in Servetus, he approved of the decision made by the council on one condition, that they give him a quick and easy death. They agreed and had Servetus beheaded.

At the age of thirty-one Calvin was finally married. John Piper states that many women had made attempts at winning the heart of young and zealous Calvin (Piper 131). In fact some believe Calvin actually had some matchmakers working for him. However, it was a widower of an Anabaptist that caught the eye of John Calvin. When asked what Calvin was looking for in a wife he stated, “The only beauty which allures me is this—that she be chaste, not too nice or fastidious, economical, patient, likely to take care of my health” (Parker 70). Calvin’s new wife’s name was “Idelette” and she brought a son and a daughter with her.

Many have thought of Calvin as one who formed his doctrine and theology up in an “ivory tower”, and although this may have been Calvin’s desire, he never had that luxury. Instead, Calvin was familiar with much suffering and death. He lost all three of his children from his beloved wife at birth or soon after. And after only 9 years of marriage his wife also joined their children in the grave. After the death of his love he wrote:

You know well how tender, or rather soft, my mind is. Had not a powerful self-control been given to me, I could not have borne up so long. And truly, mine is no common source of grief. I have been bereaved of the best companion of my life, of one who, had it been so ordained, would have willingly shared not only my poverty but even my death. During her life she was the faithful helper of my ministry. From her I never experienced the slightest hindrance. She was never troublesome to me throughout the whole course of her illness, but was more anxious about her children than about herself. As I feared these private worries might upset her to no purpose, I took occasion three days before she died, to mention that I would not fail in discharging my duty towards her children (Parker 71).

Calvin also had a deep love and devotion to his sheep. He gave much time to study to protect them from many false teachers. The idea of Calvin living a life in an “ivory tower” is simply a lie. Contrary to popular belief Calvin’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty was formed in the midst of suffering and pain. In fact, it was the doctrine of God’s sovereignty that comforted him in these times of trials and testing.

After the death of his wife and children Calvin gave himself wholeheartedly to the local church. He often preached everyday and twice on Sundays, all the while giving three lectures in theology a week. He also gave countless hours in visiting the sick and counseling those in need.

However, this workload was done at the expense of his health. Calvin was given over to tremendous migraines and stomach pains. His poor health led eventually to colic and the spitting of blood, as well as, “the ‘excruciating sufferings’ from his hemorrhoids” (Piper 134). All of this took place while angry mobs fired large guns outside at his home. This sickness brought the death of John Calvin at a relatively young age of 54.

But Calvin’s legacy still goes on nearly 500 years after his death. Much of his writings are still influencing many men and woman in their understanding of the Scriptures. His books have also served many pastors in their endeavor to serve their sheep faithfully as Calvin did.

A brief look at John Calvin’s theology

Much of Calvin’s theology can be found his most famous work Institutes of Christian Religion. This work had a number of revisions but the purpose was the same from start to finish. Calvin sought to give an apology to the King for why the Protestants were true to the historic faith of Christianity. His hope was to stop the persecution of many Christians and establish the reputation of the Protestant’s young faith.

Perhaps there could have not been a better man for the job, for Calvin was well acquainted with the doctrines of not only the Roman Catholics but also was very well versed in the church fathers. In fact, Calvin often appealed to the church fathers to authenticate the doctrines that emerged from the Reformation.

This all being said, Calvin would have hardly thought of his Institutes of Christian Religion as exhaustive. He also had his sermons transcripted which later became a complete set commentary on the Bible.

It has often been said that Calvin’s theology ran on railroad tracks. Those tracks were the word of God and the Holy Spirit. To Calvin the two were inseparable and they ran parallel to each other. The Word of God was the objective truth revealed by God. The Holy Spirit would animate the Word of God and it worked on a subjective level at communicating to the reader through the objective word. He states:

The work of the Spirit, then, is joined to the word of God. But a distinction is made, that we may know that external word is of no avail by itself, unless animated by the power of the Spirit…All power of action, then, resides in the Spirit Himself (Azurdia III 97).

By doing this Calvin could have confidence and certainty in what the Word of God states. This thought process was way ahead of his time. Many scholars are still trying to pull apart and develop this idea that Calvin pioneered. Many today have fallen into a black hole of uncertainty and despair. Perhaps it would do contemporary Christian leaders some good to read more of John Calvin and a little less of these Emergent works.

The Institutes of Christian Religion was a 4-piece (book) set. The first book deals with knowing God as creator. He states, “For how can the thought of God penetrate your mind without your realizing immediately that, since you are his handiwork… you owe your life to him?” (Nichols 69). The second book deals with knowing God as redeemer. The third book dealt with how to apply the knowledge of God as creator and redeemer. The last book dealt with the church and things such as church government.

Calvin had a well-developed view of faith. This may be largely due to the new doctrine of sola fide or perhaps because of his development of the harmony between the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. Whatever the motivation was, Calvin developed a well-rounded doctrine of faith. He describes faith as:

A firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Elwood 83).

He goes on to explain that faith has three aspects to it. It is personal, not mustered by man, and functions with knowledge.

Calvin had also been one who was fascinated by and consumed with a passion for God’s glory. He longed to behold it, understand it, and herald it to all. Calvin saw the glory of God most clearly displayed in the gospel. This drove Calvin to really develop a well-thought out study and examination of scripture concerning the gospel. With Calvin’s well-developed view of faith came a proper understanding of what that faith did. For Calvin, faith was the only means by which one could receive grace unto salvation. But how did this all work? What exactly took place when one believed in the work of Jesus Christ? Calvin writes:

We explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness… You see that our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, that we possess it only because we partakers in Christ; indeed, with him we possess all its riches… To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own? (Calvin 727, 753).

Calvin fought for this doctrine. And he suffered much for this doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It is sad that so many are quick to drop this doctrine after 500 years because of some new wind of doctrine.

Perhaps the most misunderstood teaching of John Calvin is what is often called “Calvinism.” The most common understanding by both Calvinist and Arminians is the idea that the 5 points of Calvinism were written and structured by John Calvin. However, the 5 points were a response to a doctrinal statement written to a counsel in Holland.

In 1610, just one year after the death of James Arminius (a Dutch seminary professor), his followers drew up five articles of faith based upon his teachings. The Arminians, as his followers came to be called, presented these five doctrines to the State of Holland in the form of a “Remonstrance” (i.e., a protest). The Arminian party insisted that the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism (the official expression of the doctrinal position of the Church of Holland) be changed to conform to the doctrinal views contained in the Scripture (Steele, Thomas, and Quinn 3-4).

A counsel met for the next 9 months and had 154 sessions. There were well over a hundred pastors from several different countries who met to examine this protest to see whether there be any truth in the 5 articles made. The response to the 5 points was another five points by the Great Synod. These five points became commonly known as the “five points of Calvinism.”

That being said, most would agree that those five points were not only and primarily in agreement with Scripture that they are also in agreement with John Calvin’s understanding of salvation (though some attempt to argue against this point).

The five points were: Total Depravity, Unconditional Elect, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the saints. It formed an acronym of a very common flower in Holland, that is, the TULIP.

The doctrine of total depravity was nothing new by Calvin. This doctrine had been formulated long before Calvin was even born. It was first developed as a response to a heretic known as Pelagius. Pelagius taught that man could work his way to heaven. Augustine was known for his well thought out response to Pelagius, the church soon after deemed Pelagius a heretic. Later, another false teaching arose that was called “Semi-Pelagian.” It was quite similar to what James Arminius’ followers wrote up as a protest (although hundreds of years before Arminius). Due to both of these false doctrines the doctrine of total depravity was well developed before Calvin. In addition, Luther had also developed the doctrine a bit more by stating, due to the fall of man, his will is bound to his nature, which is corrupted and therefore can choose nothing else but sin.

The doctrine of unconditional elect was well developed by Calvin. To Calvin this doctrine was closely linked to the very nature of God, that is, the Great I AM. God could not look outside Himself for decisions or plans for that would be contrary to the very essence of who God is and has revealed Himself to be. This doctrine was taught and preached to comfort his sheep. Because one who knew God was all good and all sovereign one could trust in Him no matter the suffering and pain. This idea had its overflow into how and whom God chose for salvation.

Limited atonement is likely the most misunderstood of the five points. Some have attempted to argue that Calvin never held to this particular doctrine. However, the majority of avid readers of Calvin believe he held to this doctrine. The idea is that there is a particular and unique atonement for those whom God had chosen to save, as opposed to those who would not believe.

Irresistible grace outflows from points 1-3, because, man is totally unable to choose God, so God predestines to save particular persons, by applying the unique atonement to those chosen with an effectual calling that enables the person to a saving faith that is sure. Some have argued that this doctrine is the crucial clinching point between the Roman Church and the Protestants.

Perseverance of the saints is the doctrine that has been “practically” dropped by many self-proclaiming Calvinists. Many have abandoned this doctrine for a doctrine called “once saved always saved.” That doctrine is perhaps one of the most dangerous doctrines within Orthodoxy. It is not only doctrinally deficient but has given many Christians over to licentiousness. It is perhaps more harmful than Arminianism in this respect. The warning passages in scripture no longer act as anything. For a person who makes a profession is encouraged to never doubt his salvation no matter how unrepentant he or she may be. This would be abominable in Calvin’s mindset of God’s work in man. Calvin invested much time in developing a doctrine we often take for granted, that is, sanctification.

Another doctrine that was fine-tuned by Calvin was the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. This idea of Jesus’ death on the cross actually having an effect on God was crucial. God must punish sin! He must be appeased! However, it pleased the Father to crush the Son in the place of sinners. Calvin wrote, “Not only was salvation given to us through the Christ, but, by his grace the Father is now favorable to us” (Quiggle 142).

In other words, something took place on the cross that caused the Father to now show favor to those who were once His enemies. This was the atoning work of Jesus Christ. In the last two decades this doctrine has also gotten a lot of disagreement from within even the evangelical camp.

Conclusion

John Calvin lived a short life but by the sovereign grace of God he accomplished much for His glory. He was well acquainted with sorrow and suffering. He lived much of his life fleeing from persecution. He lived longer than all of his children and had to bear the death of his beloved wife.

To this day, Calvin is misunderstood and sometimes even hated for his doctrines. But much of it was formed in a life of suffering and seeking the glory of God in all of it. He was not perfect. However, he is another example to us what God can do through the life of a man who surrenders his life to “seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33).

May God use this life to stir in the hearts of men and women all across the world to be convinced and propelled by a certainty in the promises of God. That God may raise up a generation of people of faith who believe that God is faithful and the rewarder of those who seek Him.

To a generation that has almost completely lost any sense of conviction, passion, and sense of purpose in life. To a generation that is highly skeptical of everything including God’s word, and doubts God’s ability to clearly communicate to us. To a generation that is man-centered and has lost the vision of the Glory of God! This would be John Calvin’s message to our generation!

No Heavenly Good!

2008-08-05T17:53:00.001-05:00

This is a journal entry of mine from reading Philippians 3:19. The commentary is on Phil. 3:19d. Philippians 3:19-20 says, “Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. . .”

“we are so earthly minded we are no heavenly good! Notice: Scripture never warns of being ‘too’ heavenly minded, for it is not the tendency of man to do so, but rather it is the tendency of man to set his mind (heart) on earthly things.

But, it is those who are most heavenly minded who are the most good for the world. Think of Abraham who lived in the land of promise, as though he were in a foreign land, because he was looking for a heavenly city, and was it not John, the apostle of love, who was given visions of things to come from heavens point of view, or the Apostle Paul, who set his mind on the heavenly mysteries and sought to reveal those things to the saints, was it not also Paul who was caught up to the third heaven, and finally look at our LORD Jesus Christ whose mind was only heavenly, and did only the will of His Father.

Did not the LORD Jesus accomplish all good things for all in His life, which was set only on the heavenly. I would submit to you that the saying, ‘he is so heavenly minded, that he is no heavenly good’ is what the Devil has whispered in our ears when we are walking in the flesh, and so, we accept it.

However, in a sense this statement is true. The earthly minded have never accepted the heavenly things. Look at: Cain, or Esau, or stiff-necked Israel to the heavenly oracles of God from the prophets, or finally the Pharisees. For it would seem that the most heavenly minded man (Jesus) was no earthly good to them. Perhaps the problem is not the heavenly minded, but rather, the earthly good.

And humbly I must accept, this is only a problem the Holy Spirit can solve and no man! This is what the Apostle Paul meant in I Corinthians 2:6-16″

which says,
“Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him’ these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 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. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.” (italics added for emphasis)

"Legalism or Liberalism that is the question. . ." (Part 3)

2008-08-04T16:56:00.003-05:00

Due to the “Introduction” blog for this third part we will just dive right in. So first let us examine the question asked from part 1,

“(H)ow would you counsel the person who says, ‘I am not burdened by the law…but by the battle that my sin nature fights against the law. I love the love, but I hate the sin which is in me…essentially, breaking the law.’ I think about this sometimes and [my spouse] and I have discussed it at length as well. Being that we are new creatures with a new heart…why does it seem so difficult at times to keep the law. And I don’t mean burdensome, but truly difficult b/c as you’ve pointed out even when we ‘keep the law’ outwardly, sometimes our heart’s motives are wicked (as Jesus showed in the Pharisees). This is the burden for me at least…my own wicked heart. It’s the constant examination of motives, having sorrow over sin, and of course (first and foremost) REFLECTING on what Christ has done for us which brings peace.”

I believe the question here is, “Why do we still have this struggle? How are Christians to properly deal with the internal and external struggle to do what is right? How may I find victory and counsel others in this venue?”

Part 1 of the question

Let’s first examine “Why do we still have this struggle?” The question is a good one. “If I am in the New Covenant and therefore have a “new heart” that loves and knows God, why do I still struggle with sin and often fail?” Biblically speaking, if the heart is the center of man and from his heart flow all things, how can sin still come from a man whose heart is good? Shouldn’t only good flow from a man that possesses a good heart?

Yes and No. I will deal with the “yes” first and then with the “no”.

Jesus spoke that good trees only produce good fruit. And that bad trees can only produce bad fruit. When scripture speaks concerning categories of man, more often than not it speaks of only two types. For example: Those who hear and those who don’t hear, those who see and those who don’t see, those who believe and those who don’t believe, those who love and those who hate, those who produce good fruit and those who produce bad fruit, those who are in the light and those who are in the darkness, those who are alive and those who are dead, etc. (you get the point). What I mean to say is that the Bible does not leave a third category very often. So you are either saved or you are not. In this sense, yes, only good flows from a good heart!

Throughout Paul’s epistles he is having to rebuke genuine believers for sinning though they are regenerate and have new hearts! Why is this? Paul states that the reason a Christian does sin is not because he wants to, but rather, because while Christians remain here on the earth they are still in bodies that are corrupt and are being more and more corrupt as time goes on (II Cor. 5:2; Eph. 4:22). This is commonly called “indwelling sin.”

In other words, the reason for the struggle is due to your flesh waging war against you (or your new heart). However, scripture speaks of the flesh that fights against the believer so distinctly that it is almost seen as no longer part of the believer’s personhood.( I Peter 2:11; Romans 7:20). Think of this indwelling sin as an active evil that labors to keep the eyes of your heart off of the solution to your problem, and therefore brings forth death.

The closest example I can think of for this “indwelling sin” might be cancer. The person’s desire is to live a full life, but there is an active evil disease that is seeking and laboring without rest to produce death continually in the cancer patient, to the point of ultimate death!

Part 2 of the question

“How are Christians to properly deal with the internal and external struggle to do what is right?”

Christians are to deal with this time of struggle with unexplainable hope and joy. This is what is commanded of us! Because death has been destroyed and our victory is sure, we are to live in such a way with such hope and joy that the world will be attracted to us (I Peter 1:13, 3:15) . Do not confuse this with the world being attracted to our source of hope and joy. Rather they will be attracted to the simple and clear display of the Christians’ hope and joy in the midst of this suffering life. For when told that our source of joy and hope is in “a hated, despised, crucified Messiah, who has risen and is now King over all things including them” the world’s only response can be HATRED apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1-2; John 3; I Cor. 2:6-16).

But nevertheless this is what we are to do in the midst of this waiting period. Take note as well that this is the only period in the Christian’s life where he/she can hope. For we are told in Romans 8:24-25 that when our Hope is met it is no longer hope for it will have come!

An Example

In the time of Jesus it was a common event for a king, conquering new lands, to send out town-criers to proclaim the news to all the citizens and people. These town-criers were not predicting what was going to happen but rather proclaiming the facts, declarative statements to inform the people of what had happened. They would go about the land and herald the good news that there was a new king of the land. Now, though the King had won the war, it would take time to remove all the rebels and establish the fullness of the extension of that king’s kingdom. But the establishing and reality of this new kingdom was as good as a done deal. Imagine yourself a steward of that king (that had won), but who was currently imprisoned in the opposing armies camp. What hope and joy you will have even in the prison camp when you get word of the good news through the heralding of the town-crier. Those who are on the outside of the prison will be hopeless and joyless while appearing free while you will be full of joy and hope though you appear to be in prison! This is like the sure hope and joy we should have to the world.

Part 3 of the question

But you may be asking, “how can I find victory in this struggle, and how should I counsel others?” Do you remember how I stated that our “indwelling sin” is an “active evil that labors to keep the eyes of your heart off of the solution to your problem”? The victory we are to find is linked to the very thing our flesh strives to keep our eyes off of!

Examine II Corinthians 3:18. It states that we are sanctified as we are “beholding the glory of the LORD” In the context Paul is attempting to argue that he is a minster of a greater covenant than that even of Moses (I encourage you to read II Cor. 3-7:1 sometime after you finish this post)! So throughout the chapters Paul compares the two covenants and how the power and glory of the new surpasses that of the old so much that there is no longer any glory in the old.

The New Covenant brings in not just a new standard for people and God to relate, but rather, with the establishing of a New Covenant comes a whole new creation (i.e. new heavens and heaven, New Earth, new heart, new bodies, new temple, new law, new priesthood, new people, NEW EVERYTHING!). This was God’s intention from the very beginning and He sought the fulfillment of it, the moment Adam (the head of all creation) sinned and so all of creation fell with him. Thus, the need for a covenant that would restore all things!

But how was this covenant fulfilled? In JESUS! But when was this covenant fulfilled? At the cross! So the GOSPEL is the most clear revelation of the glory of God! By reflecting, studying, and savoring the gospel (which is the glory of Jesus Christ, who is God), we are sanctified (II Corinthians 3:18; 4:3-4)! In other words, when we strive to see Jesus in all His splendor (which is revealed in the gospel), and believe the truths revealed therein, we are victorious over our sin and will see a gradual growth into the image of God’s beloved Son! John Piper puts it this way, “God is the gospel!”

What I am saying is, the Bible declares that we become most like that which we set our eyes most upon! For examples of this look to Isaiah and the Psalms where God tells Israel that they are blind and deaf because they have worshiped (set their eyes on) false gods who cannot see nor hear! But when we set our eyes upon the “finished” work of Christ and “rest” in Him, it is there that we find our hope and our joy. It will be there that we find our strength and our peace. It is there that we discover our victory and our life. And it is there that we find our salvation!

John, the apostle of love put it like this, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” (I John 3:2-3, bold italic was added for emphasis)

I remember my wife Ashley-Nicole relaying to me this account. “When I was a little girl I used to admire how my dad could walk so fast! So I would fix my eyes hard upon his steps and watch closely where his feet were stepping. As I intently looked at where my daddy had stepped I found that the natural inclination for me was to step where his feet had been stepping. And so, I learned to walk like my dad by fixing my eyes on him.”

This is what we are to do! Fix our eyes on Jesus! Treasure and admire the way Jesus walked! And as we behold the glory of Jesus, we will be transformed from one degree to the next. The end is sure for all those in Christ Jesus, for it depends solely on the accomplished work of Christ! And because He has fulfilled the law and lives, we know we have fulfilled the law and live in Him. He is the firstfruits and our victory is as sure as His resurrection. We may appear to be enslaved to the enemy but the true reality is we are free and the enemy is joyless and hopeless while we await sure victory!

“Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” -Paul in I Corinthians 15:58

An Introduction to "Legalism or Liberalism that is the question. . . " Part 3

2008-08-04T16:56:00.001-05:00

I am now writing the third part to a blog that at its beginning was only intended to be solo. But as stated earlier, two very important questions were asked concerning the first blog. One of those questions was answered in part 2. It is now my objective in answering that second question. Before going any further I would caution the reader that if he/she has not read the first two entries this third will not be as helpful as it would, should the reader read the part 1 and 2 first.

At the on sight of working this blog I really wanted to title this “Living in realization of the reality of who we are in Christ for the victory accomplished by Him” However, there were two problems with this: first, this title is too reminiscent of the puritans (which really isn’t a bad thing) and second, most who have been following in this series would not recognize this title as being part 3 of the series at hand. That being said, I did want to title this blog that because it will be the main theme of the upcoming blog.

One of the objectives I set out in answering this question was reading through the N.T. and take notes on passages dealing with this question in mind. (For those of you in Bible school, I don’t think I was committing the sin of Isogesis, but rather seeing if the scriptures addressed this topic [a.k.a. Systematic Theology]) So I will not be dealing with one passage , but rather a plethora. This being the case I will not be putting the scripture passages in here but rather reference them in hope that you will have your Bible with you when reading this. Which I really encourage you to have one while reading this blog entry. However, when I do quote a passage I will be quoting from the [inspired ;-) ] ESV.

Before I begin I want the reader to know that my goal is to Glorify God by displaying the glory of the Son Jesus Christ. In doing this I hope to serve you (the reader). This being said, their are better articles and books written on this topic. So I would like to refer the readers to a book that I have found most helpful! You can find the book here. Now let us begin to answer this important question concerning the topic being discussed here.

"Legalism or Liberalism that is the question..." (PART 2)

2008-07-15T10:15:00.002-05:00

In my last blog I wrote on the false notion of having to choose between Legalism or Liberalism( or better known as “Antinomianism”). This article will not serve you best unless you have read the first article. So I recommend to you to read that one first.

Since this last blog, I received much thanks and agreement upon my conclusion on how to properly view our lives and freedom in Christ. However, I have received two very important and good questions from two different people. So, I thought it be best to respond to those questions in two more blog entries (thus, this will end up being a three part series). I will answer the questions in an order that will best make sense to the readers. In other words part two should set the stage for part three as part one did for the other two. My goal is two-fold to glorify God by revealing Him to the reader through the teaching of His word, and therefore, administer grace to the reader of this blog.

The first question I received was, “how does the law relate to the believer under the New Covenant?” This is a crucial question to the discussion. So this question must be dealt with carefully and explained clearly. I pray that I may do that here.

In the first article I explained how the purpose of the Law was to act as a pointer. The law “revealed” or “pointed” to the righteousness of God (Romans 3). In doing this it pointed to two things; the problem (us), and the solution (Jesus). When we see our wickedness and how we fall short of the glory of God and then repent of our filthiness and turn to Jesus, He offers free and full forgiveness of sins and His righteousness to those who believe. When one does this, they are in a New Covenant with God. And in this covenant God gives His people a “new heart” and “His Spirit” to cause them to obey Him (Jeremiah 31:31; Ezekiel 36:22-27).

But herein lies the question, “Since Jesus has ‘fulfilled’ the Law and abolished the Old Covenant and brought in a New Covenant, how should we then view the Law and what is our relation to the Law?”

First, it should be stated that our view of the Law should not change! You see, because the Law was never the problem! WE WERE! We were the ones that needed to be changed. The Law accomplished what it was supposed to do, that is, reveal the “righteousness of God.” We should view the Law as a means for seeing the righteousness of God

However, even though we view the Law of God the same our “relation” to the Law is no longer the same! Our relation to the Law of God changes with the changing of the Covenant (Hebrew 7:12 will explain this later!) . In other words, the Old Covenant was to act as a shadow of greater things, yes, Heavenly things! The sacrifice systems and cleansing process and etc. were all to point God’s people to the coming Messiah, who would fulfill all those things (The whole book of Hebrews shows this best, extensively). So then, those who are in the New Covenant are dead to that Law (Romans7:1-6).

That being said God’s purpose for His people has never changed. Although God has used different means in different dispensations throughout history, His purpose for His people has been the same. So, what is that purpose that God has had for His people from the beginning? This is the $1,000,000 .00 question to the topic at hand.

God’s purpose has always been to: “set apart for Himself a people, who are holy and pure by seeing Jesus as their ALL-SATISFYING TREASURE!” Now this encompasses much more that what is possibly seen at first glance. For example, for one to truly treasure Jesus, one must know who Jesus is. What makes Jesus, Jesus? What does Jesus Love? These are the questions that one must know to LOVE Jesus or to see Jesus as their “ALL-SATISFYING TREASURE!”

Let us just take one aspect of Jesus, so as to know what I mean by all of this. Jesus was fully man, but He was also fully God. That is to say, He possessed all the attributes of God, and He was like us in every way only without sin (referring to His humanity). Jesus is as righteous as God yet manifested in a man. It is on this attribute that we want to spend some time on.

As stated earlier, the Law “reveals” the righteousness of God(Romans 3). However, when Jesus teaches on righteousness He raises the standard from what the Law says. So where the Law states, “Thou shall not murder” Jesus says, “you have heard that it was said to those of old (referring to the Law) but I say to you everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…” ( Italics and bold added for emphasis) Jesus never lowers the standard but rather raises it! Jesus never lessened the importance of the law! He did otherwise, while increasing the standard by which to be held (Matthew 5:17).

In Romans 3:19-22a Paul states:

“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by the works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the prophets bear witness to it- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe…”

Paul states that the righteousness of God (the standard by which He will judge) has been shown in two forms: revealed in the “Law and Prophets”, and “manifested apart from the law.” This two-fold revealing of the righteousness of God coincides with the Old and New Covenant of God.

But if the Law given by Moses is linked with the Old Covenant and revealing of the righteousness of God what is the new or greater revealing of the righteousness of God linked to? Paul goes on to say,

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified (declared righteous in the court of God) by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” ( Romans 3:23-26, Parenthetical not scripture but brief commentary on the word justified, Italics and bold was added for emphasis)

This hardly needs any explanation! Did you see it?! Jesus is the greater revelation of the Righteousness of God! His incarnation, perfect lived life, death on the cross bearing the wrath of God for the sins of those who would have “faith” in Him, resurrection, and ascension is the greatest manifestation of the righteousness of God because it is the righteousness of God being acted out in real-time (now history but was “present time”).

Thus, when Jesus is in the upper room having “The Last Supper” with His disciples He tells them, “This cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20b, Italic and bold added for emphasis) So just as the Old Covenant is linked to the Law given by Moses to reveal God’s righteousness so too The New Covenant brings in a new giver of the Law Jesus to reveal the righteousness of God more clearly.

The best way I can think of how to explain the difference between the Law in the Old Testament and Jesus as they relate to the righteousness of God is like this, imagine yourself looking up on a beautiful clear sunny day. And as you look up you see these glowing bright glorious rays coming out from the sun which are too bright for you to even look at. Those rays of light are similar to the Law. They reflect and come from the source which is the sun. But here lies within the difference. Where as light rays from the sun are the Law, the sun itself is Jesus. Jesus is the righteousness of God! Whereas the law is a reflection of God’s righteousness.

Jesus brings in a New Covenant which is His body, those who are in His body died to the Law with Him and were raised with Him to new life (Romans 6-7:6). Jesus is the Great High Priest with this coming in of a New Covenant. With this coming of a new age comes all new things! I cannot begin to touch on all those things, but what I will deal with is what is the new law or standard that comes with the New Covenant.

As stated earlier Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it! He came not to lower the standard so that we could get in to heaven but raised it so that all are judged. By doing this Jesus becomes the only way to salvation. Salvation can only come by the accomplished work of Christ and be received by faith in His work. In other words, our new law is to place our faith in Christ Jesus!

By finding our salvation in Jesus Christ by faith we fulfill the Law of God. This is what Paul means when he says, “the just shall live by faith.” Think with me for a moment, what was the first commandment? To have no other gods before the One true God. Here God states that He just delivered them from Egypt and that He will provide for them! So that, they would go to no other gods because He alone is their God and will provide for them. In other words, the first commandment God gives to Israel is that they are to trust (believe) and find their everything in YAHWEH!

Now if you are finding your everything (i.e. your life) in YAHWEH are you going to even covet someone else’s things? If find yourself absolutely full in all the joy, peace, and satisfaction of Christ Jesus there is no desire left to be found wanting!

Let me attempt to use an illustration though it has it weaknesses. Say you walk into a restaurant absolutely starving and you look at the counter and it is absolutely full of delicious dishes. Your mouth is going to be watering like crazy and the temptation to be found ungrateful and covet what is there will be undefeatable! Now if I walk up to you and tell you, “God says, ‘you shall not covet!’” That does not solve the problem that only reveals the sin that was already there to be sin or wrong. But if the owner comes to you while starving and says, “come follow me” and brings you into a banquet hall filled with the most exquisite and delicious dishes of the greatest variety and tells you to, “eat whatever and as much as your heart can be full of delight for as long as you wish!” Once you have eaten your full and you leave the banquet hall you stumble across the same counter that had your mouth watering and you realize that the dishes filled with delicious foods was actually the dishes that came off the used tables and the food was the defiled leftovers. Your temptation to lust for the leftovers will have been removed by finding your needs and desires met in the banquet given to you freely!

This is essentially what God was telling Israel! I command you to find me giver of every good gift and to go to no other to seek or find your wants and needs! The Old Covenant Law did reveal a great amount about who God is and how He is able to be our source of delight our “ALL-SATISFYING TREASURE.” But it did so dimly and it did not change the real problem but rather exposed it (which was it’s purpose)! So this brings about the need for a greater covenant! With the New Covenant God reveals himself fully so as to show the “ALL-SATISFYING TREASURE” clearly and removes the problem (our hearts) by changes those in the New Covenant so that the delight of their heart is to see and obey God!

In other words, our law that we are to conform to is the righteousness of God! We know what the righteousness of God is by reading the scriptures. We understand that though the Old Testament revealed the righteousness of God, that it did so dimly, and that we can see the righteousness of God most clearly in Jesus including: his life and accomplished work.

The means of how we do this is most important to the discussion! This is the second question that was asked and will be dealt with in Part 3 of this topic. I am praying and preparing for this and hope to have it done soon, hopefully no longer than a week! I apologize for the wait and want all to know that I am praying for you! God bless!

"Legalism or Liberalism that is the question".....

2008-07-07T21:56:00.008-05:00

Monday morning I was meditating upon Psalm 119 Verses 1-8. However, as the morning progressed I was praying and pondering what pearls could be seen in these verses and I found my mind enlightened to particularly the first couple of verse in Psalm 119. Which says,

"Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD,
Blessed are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with their whole heart.
"Psalm 119:2(Italics added)

Did you catch it? You see, I titled my blog "Legalism or Liberalism that is the question." Because, although most astute Christians recognize that is not our only choices, we LIVE as though those were our only choices. At least that is what I seem to see in my own life, as well as, pick up on from others in their conversation.

So how do we look at this topic in light of Scripture? Does the Bible tell us we may live our lives free from these two extremes? I believe God has spoken on this topic! And it is our responsibility to know and live according to this revealed will of God. So allow me to take some of your time and I hope at the end of this blog, you will leave blessed because of what the Word of God says.

Lets start with the passage in Psalm 119:1-8 which says,

"Blessed are those whose way is blameless,
who walk in the law of the LORD!

Blessed are those who keep His testimonies,
who seek Him with their whole heart, who also do no wrong, but walk in His ways!

You have commanded Your precepts to be kept diligently.

Oh that my ways may be steadfast in keeping Your statutes!

Then I shall not be put to shame,
Having my eyes fixed on all Your commandments.

I will praise You with an upright heart,
when I learn Your righteous rules.

I will keep Your statutes;
do not utterly forsake me!" Psalm 119:1-8

Perhaps one of the most important eye openers to the text is when the reader recognizes the Hebrew poetic style being used by the psalmist. For instance if you look at the first three verses the Psalmist is using what is called Hebrew parallelism. So in the first verse the writer states that a particular person is blessed. The first stanza then states it is those who are "blameless", while the second stanza still dealing with the same person and even same attribute states it in another form, in this case "who walk in the Law of the LORD."

This is significant because of what the writer says in verse two using the same parallelism. In verse two we see that those who keep God's testimonies are those who are blessed. But notice with me how the writer defines those who "keep His testimonies". Who is the one who keeps God's testimonies? It is the one who is seeking God with his whole heart! Do you see the irony? Rules and laws are the very same thing that act as a stumbling block to some leading to legalism. And yet, it is the rules and laws that act as a means by which some are able to pursue and love the LORD with their whole heart!

It is with this foundation set that I would like to point out some obvious truths from what we have now established.

FIRST, rules and laws are not bad! What I mean is, we typically look at rules and laws as the problem to the dilemma at hand. But if rules and laws can act as a form of worship for one then the source of the problem cannot be the law! Indeed this is even what Paul states in Romans 7. The LAW (as all laws do) is to act as a pointer to the problem and to the solution. In other words rules and laws function in twofold. This leads us to the next point.

SECOND, the problem is OUR heart or indwelling sin. The "or" is dependent upon whether the individual is regenerate or not. But in either case the real problem to the legalism and liberalism is us! If the keeping of the law is a reflection of our heart, which is what verse two of this Psalm says, then this confirms my argument that the problem is us. This is further proved when we look upon verses 5-6.

The writer is broken and zealous to keep the laws of God, so that, he not be put to shame! What does the writer mean? I think the reason is clear in light of the second point. If keeping the law is a reflection of my heart towards God, then the reverse of it is true. In other words, when the writer does not keep the laws of God it reflects His lack of love in His heart towards God. The writer recognizes two things! First, the laws represent the giver of them. So how we treat the laws is how we are treating the LORD in our hearts. Second, because the true problem is us not the law it is he or "I" who is the one being put to shame and not the law!

THIRD, the law should NOT be removed! Because the function of the law is to point to the problem and to the solution. In other words, the law forever serves us in while we seek to keep the law we find we fail (the first pointer) and that we need One who has kept the law (the second pointer).

But you may say to me, "Stephen, you are making a major hermeneutical mistake because this book is written in the Old Testament, when the people of God were under a different Covenant AND under the Law. And Paul says, we are no longer under the Law but dead to it!"

This is a reasonable response. In fact, it is a situation that needs to be dealt with, so I am glad you asked ;-)! I will deal with this dilemma now.

I would like to state that though this is a legitimate question, it should be noted that if this response is right it would only disprove the third point made and half the second. In other words, if this statement is true it would not change the fact that the Law is not bad or that the real problem is us. It would only change our relation to the law. So it is only with this aspect I will deal with in my response.

Is this same relationship to the Law taught anew in the New Testament under the New Covenant of which we who are in Christ are under? "Yes" AND "No"! I will deal with the "no" first.

The New Testament never states that we are to keep the ceremonial laws of the Old. In fact, some of the books go so far as to exclude them, such as, Hebrews, Galatians, Acts, etc. So when we speak of the law we are not dealing with the sacrifices and cleanliness of the law, or the Ceremonial Law.

However, the principles of the laws in the Old should be continued over into the New. This is the pattern that we see continually throughout the whole New Testament, concerning this I do not have the time to refer to all of them.

But I will show in a brief sense what I mean by this. The Law of the Old dealt with, for the most part, outward conformity to God. So what happened is the people of God honored Him with their mouths (outward) but their hearts (inward) were far from Him. When Jesus comes upon the seen He exposes this. For a clear example of this go to Matthew 5-7. Jesus teaches that it is the principles of the Law that should be kept, because they deal with the heart. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Lets say you are counseling a person who has committed murder. In this case the Law of God has been broken. But now that it has been broken, how do we deal with this person. Do we say, "the Bible clearly says 'thou shalt not murder' and you have so now you must be punished." To do so would not be dealing with it in its fullness. I say so because you have only dealt with the outward problem and not the heart of it. The person is not just a murderer with his hands, but he is a murderer in His heart! So we should deal with the principle of the law and the heart of the problem, that is, the heart of the man. Point the man to the problem, namely, his heart. And point him to the solution, namely, Jesus who fulfilled the Law.

In the first case, the person was dealt with like a legalist. If the person simply let the murderer off the hook that would be liberalism. This is more often than not our sin, only we do this with so-called "smaller sins". But if we deal with the person from the heart then we deal with it as Jesus would have. (see Matthew 5:17-26)

Secondly, we see in the New Testament that the Apostle John deals with our relation to the law in a similar manner as we have been speaking of in I John 5:2-3 which says,

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. AND His commandments are not burdensome." (Capitalization added for emphasis)

Did you see the parallelism between Psalm 119, Matthew 5-7, and now I John 5? John states that this is HOW we can KNOW we love God! Not that we JUST keep His commandments but that they are not burdensome! In other words, doing the law of God is the delight of those who love Him, of those who are His children!

If keeping the Law of God is a burden to you, then you love not God! That is what John is saying! But Stephen how can I be free from this hatred against God and His Law! How can I be set free?! How can I be saved?! Hear what Jesus has to say to you!

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
-"Jesus the Messiah" who takes away the sins of the World in Matthew 11:28-30

This is how Jesus saves us. Because the problem is us, our hearts, He gives us new ones and seals us with His Spirit so that we are freed from our hatred against the Law and Him, and are given a real and genuine love for Him and His revealed will for our lives with this "new heart" (See Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:22-27). Because the problem is us, we can't solve the problem, because we have dug ourselves in a hole we cannot dig ourselves out of. And if we do not call upon the name of the LORD, who is Jesus, to save us; then we will continue to dig our own graves and make our bed in the Lake of Fire.

Look to Jesus who is the spotless and sinless lamb who fulfilled the Law of God, He is the blessed One. For He bore our sins on the cross for us! He suffered the wrath for the sins of His people! And He promises full forgiveness and eternal life to ALL those who turn away from their sins and to Him! For all find themselves recipients of all the blessings of God, in Him! Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!

Together 4 the Gospel Conference

2008-05-01T19:12:00.003-05:00

Midway through the month of April I was blessed with the Birthday gift of going to a conference in Louisville, KY. This conference's purpose was to further equip men for the ministry (specifically as it relates to the GOSPEL). There speakers consisted of Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, and Thabiti Anyabwile.

Besides hearing world class teaching and preaching, the attendees also got to watch these speakers in a panel discussion on numerous occasions throughout the conference. But I must say that one of the most awesome things that took place in this conference was the generosity displayed through the publishing companies there. Upon arriving at each session all the conference attendees found a stack of free book on their chair. At the end of the conference I had received a grand total of 22 FREE books, which was a value of nearly $400. This is amazing when the conference only cost me $99.

Anyways, I wanted these men to administer to you as they have me, as is their desire as well. That is why they have offered the sermons from the conference to anyone for FREE! You can listen to anyone of these sermons by clicking on this link.

A sermon that has changed me forever

2008-05-01T18:59:00.003-05:00

The following is an amazing sermon to guard those in the ministry from a man centered and encourage those to strive continuously for a God-centered ministry. click here to get the sermon. Blessings!!!!

-Stephen

Do you wish to be BLESSED? (part 2)

2008-03-27T15:23:00.004-05:00

In our last article we discovered that it is impossible to move God to mercy. However, God does choose to have mercy on some. We also noted that those whom He has chosen to show mercy will receive mercy through the means appointed (i.e. Salvation is through the means of faith).

But are all shown the same amount of mercy?

The answer is "no." It is true that God shows mercy to all! The rain falls on the just and the unjust. However, this should NOT be understood that everyone receives the same amount of mercy. A clear example of this can be seen in the narrative of Jacob and Esau. In this account it is spoken that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Now, at the very least, all should be able to agree God is showing a greater love for Jacob than Esau. It is also clear, that because of this love for him, He intends to bless Jacob more than Esau. Once more, the text is also clear that it is based on nothing either of the two had done.

So then, If I have been shown the mercy and grace of God to believe unto salvation, then what?
This is an important question, and this brings us to our next passage,

"Blessed is he whose way is blameless, who walk in the Law of the LORD." Psalm 119:1

This passage claims that there is a blessing on those who live in such a way that is blameless. It also uses the imagery of ones way of life (i.e. "way" and "walk"). And in what way is the person walking that he is found blameless. Well, that is answered in the next portion of the verse, "who walk in the Law of the LORD." That is to say living in a way that is blameless is the same as "walking in the Law of the LORD." And secondly, that person is to be considered "BLESSED".

Now this is something! Is this not what we are pursuing? To be blessed by God? And here it clearly states that to be blessed by the LORD all we have to do is walk blamelessly before Him.

But there lies the PROBLEM!

We can NOT walk before the LORD blamelessly. In fact, it is impossible. So now what?!?!

Three things need to be said in this! First, if you are burdened by the fact that you do NOT walk blamelessly before the LORD, know this, that is the mercy of the LORD. In other words, you are on the right track! This is why?

If you have truly been saved by God then you have been "born again" or "regenerated". In other words, if you have been saved you have been given a new heart that LOVES the LORD! You have also been given a Spirit within that causes you and burdens you to obey Him. The Bible states over and over again to love the LORD is to obey Him. You can NOT say you LOVE Him and care not to obey His laws. Such a scenario does not exist! This is why, the Law of the LORD that He has given reveals who He (God) is. It reveals the majesty and the GLORY of Himself. It displays His heart! To care NOT for the Law of the LORD is to NOT care about the LORD.

Second, IF you are have been saved then you are no longer blessed or cursed by what you have done or do! Rather, the Bible proclaims that all who are "in Christ" are rewarded on the account of His blamelessness / righteousness! In other words, everyone (who is saved) is now seen before the Law of the LORD blameless! Therefore, all who are "in Christ" are "blessed."

Thirdly, this does not mean the Law is useless to the Christian. In fact, it is quite the opposite! The Law is essential to the Christian for two purposes. One, it continues to act as a reminder of the need for a Savior and the inability of the person. Second, it acts as a pointer to the Christian to know God! Which as stated earlier is the absolute desire of every true believer. For every Christian has been given a heart that adores Him.

So then, although the Christian knows he will fall short of keeping the law, his desire to know and obey God's Law only grows. This is one of the blessings that comes with being saved and it can not be separated from salvation! For indeed, it is a part of salvation, that is, sanctification. This is the process that happens to every believer, in which, he/she becomes more and more conformed to the image of Jesus Christ!

My friends, if you are not being sanctified by God, then you are not being saved by God. If your LOVE is not growing for the LORD then be very afraid. For God is not at work in you both to will and do His good pleasure.

But hear this!
If God is bringing about a greater LOVE for Him, REJOICE! For the work He has begun in you, though seemingly small and so far from where you desire to be, will be completed! For it does not depend upon you and what you do, but rather, it is based upon the righteousness of Christ! AMEN!

Do you wish to be BLESSED? (part 1)

2008-03-26T16:11:00.006-05:00

Do you wish to be blessed?

The world seems to offer so many means of becoming blessed. Even churches seem to have the magic steps to being blessed. But more often than not, the seeker is turned away disappointed.

The Bible does speak of God blessing individuals throughout history. But how can one move God to bless him/her?

Here lies the dilemma, the God of all creation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel cannot be moved to do something for you, as though he owed anyone anything.

Is there no hope?

Perhaps.

The Bible speaks clearly that He is merciful to whomever He desires to be merciful(Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:18). What's even more scary is that God also hardens some(Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:18).

So the truth is you are hopeless. You really can NOT do anything, only God can. You are TRULY at the mercy of God.

So then, cry out to Him. Beg Him! Plead with Him to be merciful. For this is the first sign of His grace. That is, if you are burdened by this, it is the grace of God.

However, if you could care less as you read this, be very afraid. For God has turned you over to your own sinful desires. The LORD has hardened you. The mercy of the LORD is far from you!

But if God has been merciful to you by burdening your heart for more mercy, do not delay, while the Spirit is working. For tomorrow is to late. Repent from your sin! Believe in the only hope, the mercy of God.

You may say, "my sin is too great!"

The LORD knows of your sin. And He is indeed JUST! He can not nor will not neglect sin. But the Father has provided a sacrifice. His only begotten Son, Jesus the Messiah.

He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world.

God the Father poured out His wrath on His Son for those whom the Son came to save. Then Jesus, after paying the full penalty for sin, breathed His last and died.

This is not the end, though!

Three days later, He arose and ascended into heaven where His Father is seated. Jesus Christ is now active in pleading for His Father to render to Him all that He came to save. The Father withholds none from His Son, but gives to His Son all that He came to save.

Jesus Christ indeed will receive the full amount of what He has purchased on the cross. He will not be disappointed with His reward!

Jesus has sent His Holy Spirit to convict those who are His of their sins and bring them to a faith that ends in SALVATION.

Indeed, Ephesians 1:3 states that those whom Christ purchased on the cross will receive "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places"

You desire to be blessed?

Cry out to the LORD!

For He delights in those who wait on "His steadfast love." Psalms 147: 13b

The "Church" does not REPLACE "Israel"

2007-12-13T12:33:00.001-06:00

Introduction

The Church has been debating a particular topic for quite some time. And it is unlikely that my paper will be the one to solve all the questions at hand. However, it is my goal to clearly communicate the problems at hand and dissolve them to the best of my ability. The topic being dealt with in this paper is the relationship between Israel and the Church. Respected scholars come from both ends arguing their point of view from scripture. How does one work through all of this? How can someone know which view is right? This paper will hopefully distinguish the differences between both camps, as well as state the proper view, according to the writer’s perspective.

The two major camps on this topic are dispensational and covenant theologians. Now it must be understood that even within these camps there are differing views on certain aspects. One must always be careful not to generalize when speaking on broad topics or whole systems pertaining to differing views. The fundamental difference between these two groups is one crucial understanding. The dispensationalist believes that the Church and the True Israel are distinctly different groups of people. The covenant camp sees the two being the same. An outworking of where one stands here can effect one’s understanding of numerous other doctrines such as: Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Eschatology. This is another reason why this paper is being written. Because of a realization that no one doctrine stands by itself. Therefore, in the following paper, it is my goal to present both views on the topic, deal with certain passages pertaining to the subject matter, and state why I stand where I do.

Understanding the Abrahamic Covenant.

In Genesis 12,13,15,17, and 22 we find the Abrahamic Covenant. It is this covenant that is being argued over the most, when speaking about the relationship to Israel and the Church. In short, the covenant has three aspects which are as follows: land, seed, and blessings. In the Genesis 12 account of the Abrahamic Covenant, God speaks to Abram/Abraham and makes a covenant of what He will do to/for Abraham. In each following account (13,15,17,22) God does not make any changes to the covenant or to whom it pertains, He only expounds upon what was originally said to Abram. In Genesis 12 it says:

Now the LORD said to Abram, Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to a land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse you, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Just prior to this point, Abraham was a gentile. There was no such thing as a Jew before Abraham, for he is the father of all Jews. What is interesting to point out is that what made Abraham a Jew was that He was called out by God, whom he then followed, was selected to be a chosen instrument of God, and was later circumcised as a mark of the covenant that was made. This be crucial to understanding later.

So the next thing that should be noted is, to whom was the covenant made? Renald Showers, a dispensationalist, believes the covenant was made to Abraham and His physical descendants. He says:

The Abrahamic Covenant was established by God with Abraham and his physical descendants, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel. Genesis 15:18 states, “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river Euphrates.’ [1]

This is the understanding for all dispensationalists. All would agree that the covenant given to Abram/Abraham was given to him and his “physical” descendants. This is a crucial point as well. The Abrahamic Covenant was given to Abraham and all his descendants.

The last thing that needs to be defined when dealing with any covenant is, “what are the conditions?” What are the conditions required by Abraham for God to follow through with what He is promising? Covenants in the ANE were understood to be made between two parties and a mediator. The mediator in the culture was always a god. What would often take place is what takes place in the covenant God makes with Abraham. Although there is something unique about this event. Genesis 15 says,

And He said to him, “I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess. But he said, “O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?’ He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when the birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go on to your fathers in peace. You shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadomnites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Notice how only one person walks through “these pieces”. This is significant! Upon whomever walked through the pieces were placed conditions for them to fulfill. God makes a promise to Abram, Abram wants to know how he can “know” God is going to do this. God tells him to do what was common in the culture. Get out some animals cut them in half and thrown them down on two sides. What would then happen, is the people in the party would walk through the pieces, which would be understood by both parties that if the individual did not complete his side of the deal he would become like one of these animals.[2] Only God walked through the pieces which meant that Abraham had no part to fulfill on his end of the deal to receive the promises spoken by God. In other words, the Abrahamic Covenant is what is known as an “unconditional covenant”. Therefore, we can conclude that the Abrahamic Covenant was an unconditional covenant of land, seed, and blessings made with Abraham and his seed.

This brings us to our first problem for the dispensationalist. If indeed, the Abrahamic Covenant is made unconditionally to Abraham and his physical descendants, then every descendant of Abraham would be without fault in the land, part of a great nation, and receive of the blessings in the Covenant. Many attempts have been made to solve this problem. Benware states:

If any involved in the covenant relationship chose not to “walk before the Lord,” they would lose out on the benefits and blessings on the covenant. That is a critical distinction to keep in mind. Sin and disobedience would cause the loss of the covenant blessings but would never cancel the covenant. The blessings of the covenant were indeed conditioned on the obedience of an individual. But the complete and final fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant depends on God alone. He intends to fulfill this covenant even if His people Israel are not faithful and obedient.[3]

But does this response actually solve the problem? It does not. In fact, it only contradicts itself. Benware, along with all other dispensationalist want to stand firm on two impossibilities. One, the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. Two, that it is made with the physical seed of Abraham and himself. If indeed, the covenant is unconditional, then it does not matter whether the descendants of Abraham “walk before the Lord”. Did Abraham need to fulfill this stipulation for God to fulfill His end of the covenant? Was not that the whole point being made in the paragraph dealing with the covenant being unconditional? What the dispensationalist wants to do is make the covenant to Abraham and his descendants unconditional, but change the conditions of the covenant when it applies to his descendants (“walk before the Lord”). Was not this the problem with the Jews in Jesus’ day? They thought they were “in” because they were simply Jews by lineage. Jesus rebukes them and tells them that He can raise up sons of Abraham from stones. I will explain who this covenant pertains to when I get to some passages later in the paper to save space and redundancy. But for now, it should be acknowledged that the covenant should not and cannot be understood to mean unconditional to physical descendants.

How is the word “Jew” and “Israel” used in the Old Testament?

In the Old Testament the word “Jew” appears ten times. But what should be factored into this account should be the variable of this word, such as, “Jews”. With these two variations counted together we have the word used seventy times in the Old Testament. It is also undisputed that in every case this word is being used to refer to the people who followed the God of Abraham and were circumcised and were part of the nation of Israel. I did not use the word physical in this definition because of one reason. When Israel was brought out of slavery from Egypt, a large amount of Egyptians left Egypt and became a part of the nation of Israel. And this is not the only exception. There are a couple of other instances where gentiles who were not physically from the seed of Abraham were recognized as part of the nation. This is because in the Old Testament, anyone who forsook their false gods and followed the one true God, YAHWEH, and took the sign of the covenant were to be considered a Jew. So in the case of Esther, Haman wanted to destroy all of the Jews because they would not bow to him. It could easily be understood that even Haman would consider the gentiles who would not bow to him as Jews, whom he wanted to kill off. This being said, it should not be thought that this was the norm for the nation of Israel. The majority of Jews were physically descended from Abraham and Sarah. The word “Israel” is used two thousand four hundred and eighty-five times in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament it used to refer to the chosen nation as the chosen people of God.

How is the word “Jew” and “Israel” is used in the New Testament?

In the New Testament the word “Jew” is used one hundred and thirty-four times. And the word “Israel” is used sixty times. Both these words are used in two types of ways. One refers to the physical descendants of Abraham. The second refers to the believing Jew or corporately believing Jews of Israel. In this section, we will take a look at some of the highly discussed and debated passages found in the New Testament.

The first passage to be looked at is Romans 2:28-29. Romans is an epistle written to the saints in Rome. The saints were composed of both gentiles and Jews. The main thrust of the epistle is to prove that justification is by faith alone. In the first three chapters, Paul is demonstrating that all mankind fall short of the glory of God. He shows that no one is able to fulfill the requirements of the law, and as a result, are under the wrath of God. The pagan worships false gods that are images of creatures and other created things instead of acknowledging the One true God in his attributes that are displayed in all creation. He then goes to the Jew who claims to have the law. Paul condemns them because they had thought that by merely possessing the law they were righteous. Paul says it is not the hearer of the Law that is just, but the doer of the law. Paul knows that after saying this the Jew would think he stills has the trump card, that is, circumcision. Boice comments on this by saying that the Jews of this time believed that by just being circumcised that they were bound for heaven. He says:

Still, the Jew had one last card to play, one final argument. He had been circumcised, and circumcision had brought him into visible outward fellowship with that body of covenant people to whom God had made salvation promises. It was like saying that circumcision had made him a member of that body, and because of that membership his salvation was certain.[4]

Some of the quotes from the rabbis were, “Our Rabbis have said that no circumcised man will see hell”[5] and “circumcision saves from hell”[6] and “Abraham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there.” [7] Therefore, in this passage, Paul is defining what true circumcision is, and as a result what a true Jew is. Romans says,

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor, is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

In reference to this verse, the dispensationalist says that this passage is saying that true “Jew” is one who is both one outwardly and inwardly. They understand this by referring to whom they understand to be the audience for this portion of Romans. Because Paul has dealt with the gentiles and now is dealing with the Jews, the outwardly should automatically be implied in the statement of what a true Jew was. Saucy interprets the passages in this light, when he says:

. . . the context of this statement-like that of 9:6- is concerned with ethnic Jews and not believers in general. Clearly, by verse 17 Paul is addressing those who call themselves “Jews.” The term “Jew” like “Israel,” carried not only ethnic but also religious meaning, and the apostle was concerned to define it’s true meaning, which always involved faith and obedience and not simply external covenant claim. The presence of the Spirit brought a new depth to the inward reality in accord with the promise, but neither in the Old Testament promise nor the New Testament teaching is the any indication that this changes the meaning of “Jew.” Although depth inwardness was a new under the new covenant, one could argue that Paul’s notion of inwardness was not essentially different in kind from that under the Old Covenant, which likewise call for spiritual reality (c. Dt. 10:16; Jer 4:4).[8]

Saucy argues this point as good anyone would, taking this stance. However, the question must be asked, “why didn’t Paul say ‘but also’ when explaining what a true Jew was?” Wouldn’t that be a more accurate way of saying what Saucy and the dispensational camp are attempting to argue that Paul is saying? Why would Paul not clarify and only speak of a true Jew being one who is one “inwardly”? In the immediate context we even have gentiles (vs. 27). In fact, the whole point Paul is making is that there are gentiles who are truly circumcised because they keep the law, while the Jew is not circumcised because he does not keep the law. Would not a plain reading of the passage within the context be stating that, just as the true circumcision is not the one who is outwardly circumcised, but rather, the one whose heart is circumcised, so also, the true Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly? The first example is referring to true circumcision requiring inward only, so why wouldn’t the second example, true Jew, only require the inward only? Where in the text does Paul ever indicate otherwise? Furthermore, when was it ever required to be a blood Jew to be a true Jew, and recognized as part of the nation of Israel. Did we not see in the Old Testament that this was not a requirement to becoming a Jew or part of the nation of Israel? No one would argue that Rahab, the ancestor of Jesus, was not a Jew, merely because in the flesh she was not a descendant of Abraham. Why do we change the standard in the New Testament with no passage to back this new standard for becoming a Jew? Furthermore, in this time where Paul is writing, circumcision and Jew were nearly used interchangeably by the common people. Is not this Paul’s whole purpose in Philippians 3 when he calls the Philippians the “real circumcision.” And following that thought, he says that he considers his flesh and accomplishments in the flesh as poop! Why then do we insist that the physical is a requirement? Where did this idea even come from? Paul is very clear that salvation is for the doers of the law, who have the law written on their hearts, because they have been circumcised by the hand of the “Spirit.” R.C Sproul puts it like this,

Isn’t this a fitting climax to the argument in chapter 2? What Paul has been driving at all along is this: God is going to look as the heart. We come adorned with all kinds of externals, but if there is no circumcision of the heart, it will be to no avail. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit- that is by the Holy Spirit- not by the letter.[9]

This concludes our exegesis with Romans 2:28-29. However, it should be noted that much more could be said concerning this text. Also, because of the length of this paper, not all the problems with this passage could be dealt with. Therefore, it is my hope that this exposition will be sufficient.

In Romans 9:4-6, we have Paul dealing with the obvious question that was inevitably going to come after the great promises being made in Romans 8. “How can we count on this God to do all He is saying He is going to do when Israel has seemingly been forgotten?” Not only this, but also because of this great promise just being stated in Romans 8, it is likely that Paul is reminded himself of his kinsmen and what has happened. When the church began, it was physical Jews only. The Messiah was a Jew, the apostles were Jews, etc. But by the time Paul was writing this letter, the large majority of Jews had rejected the Messiah and Paul was seeing more and more gentiles coming into the New Covenant that was promised to the “House of Israel and the House of Judah.” So within this context Paul writes:

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen. But it not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. (Romans 9:4-6)

Here, the dispensationalist can make a strong argument that what Paul is doing here is not changing who Israel is, but rather narrowing the scope of who true Israel is. For example:

This is what should be understood in reading Romans 9 when it says that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. This is a pretty accurate diagram illustrated what Paul is trying to communicate in Romans 9. Essentially what Paul is doing defending the faithfulness of God to His people by narrowing who the people are. By doing this God is not seen as abandoning Israel. However, this being said, there should be one change in the diagram. It is lacking in one area in Illustrate the completeness to what Scripture is communicating. This diagram has been taken from Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?[10] (as shown below)

The reason for the slight change is because the first chart made no room for the rare exceptions like the Egyptians in Exodus or Rahab. Therefore, this small addition to the chart makes room the rare exceptions for the Old Testament and early New Testament. With this understanding Paul is making it clear that for the ones with whom he shares ancestry and loves, He wishes that he could be accursed, so that some of his physical brothers (kinsman) could be saved. But he adds, that the word of God to Israel has not failed because, not everyone who descends from Abraham is part of the promises. But rather, true Israel are those who believe. This links with Romans 11. Therefore, I will go to this passage in the following paragraphs.

In Romans 11, Paul is further expounding on the fact that God has not forsaken His people Israel. Paul argues this throughout the whole chapter. It should be noted, that Paul, in this chapter, is dealing with the present time, not some future event. He shows this by speaking in the present tense the whole chapter, only going back into the Old Testament for support for what he is arguing is true for his time. The question is being asked in Paul’s present time, because so little Jews are coming to the faith, and yet so many gentiles are being brought in. So the question is, “has God rejected his people?” Paul answers this question with an emphatic “NO!” or in Paul’s words, “By no means!” What is Paul’s argument that God has not abandoned his people? The first is that he himself (dealing with the present) is an Israelite, a descendant from Abraham, and from the tribe of Benjamin. Paul then shows an example from the past to liken to the present situation. Paul appeals to Elijah. Elijah felt the same as Paul, because the people of Israel had turned away from God and had killed the prophets sent by God. But God responds that He has kept for Himself “seven thousand” from that time who were His. Paul then says, “so too at the present time there is a remnant. . .”

Paul then explains that a hardening of Israel has taken place, so that a great amount of gentiles can be “grafted in.” From what were the original branches broken off and into what were the foreign branches grafted? I think a good understanding can be grasped by looking at verse 25-26 which says:

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved.” (Italics and bold added for emphasis).

Why does Paul want the readers to be careful to understand this mystery, lest they be filled with conceit? I think the answer is obvious. The gentiles could easily become puffed up for being blessed, thinking that they had replaced the original branches and the nation of Israel. But there are two things Paul wanted to make clear. They were only brought in by God hardening others. They had been brought in at the expense of the original branches. Indeed, this would shut up the most boastful of men. They were obtaining something they never deserved nor earned. Rather, they were reaping the blessings of someone else! As a gentile, I will always be humbled by this truth. I was not an original branch. I was without God in the world. I was without Hope. But according to God’s gracious choice, I have been brought in. Charles Hodge says it like this:

The stumbling of the Jews was not attended with the results of their utter and final ruin, but was the occasion of facilitating the progress of the Gospel among the Gentiles. It was, therefore, not designed to lead to the former but to leave the latter result. From this very design it is probable that they shall be finally restored, because the natural effect of the conversion of the Gentiles is to provide the emulation of the Jews.[11]

Secondly, the gentiles were not replacing Israel. Why is this important? Because Paul had just spent the whole chapter and the two preceding it, demonstrating that God was not going to reject His people despite their unfaithfulness. He was not going to forget His people. How then, does Paul argue this? In verse 26, Paul argues this by stating that they are not replacing Israel, but rather being blessed by being grafted into Israel. Did you catch the link between verse 25b and 26a? “Until the fullness of Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved.”(Italics and bold added for emphasis). In what way was God going to save “all” of Israel? By bringing in the “fullness of the Gentiles.” I am not making this up. This is plainly stated in this text.

So what is the point? The point is, God is not replacing Israel! He has not rejected His people Israel. But rather, He is expanding the nation of Israel. This is the mystery Paul is referring to. In the past, true Israel was composed mostly of the physical descendants of Abraham. But now, a partial hardening has happened to the physical descendants, so that the fullness of Gentiles can now come “in.” In this interpretation, God may remain faithful to His promises and yet open the blessings of Abraham to all the nations. In this way, God’s promises and gifts are irrevocable!

Paul writes to the Galatians, because, the Jews are imposing the idea that to become apart of the blessings of Abraham they have to become circumcised. This is because the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. To become a Jew one must be circumcised, so how dare they act as though they were recipients of the blessings apart from circumcision? Paul later points out that these Jews who persecute the Gentiles for not being circumcised are not different then children of the bond woman Hagar. But it should also be noted that Paul is equating the uncircumcised Gentiles as being the children of Sarah as children of promise! Just “like” Isaac was a child of promise, so too, were these uncircumcised Gentiles because of their faith in Christ! How can Paul say this? We find his ground for saying this in Galatians 3:16-29. In Galatians 3:29 he says, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” How can Paul say if you are Christ’s then you are the offspring of Abraham? In Galatians 3:16 Paul lays out who the Abrahamic Covenant was made to, as well as, explain the answer to this, seemingly, outlandish statement. Paul says, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.”(Italics, bold, and underline were added for emphasis). Who was the Abrahamic Covenant made too? Is it the physical descendants of Abraham? No! Had it been made to the physical the Jews would have all the right to be angry. But what Paul points out is completely crucial. The Abrahamic Covenant was spoken to two people, that is, Abraham and Christ. If you are in Christ, then you are in the Abrahamic Covenant. Now here is where the dispensationalist says, “yes, the gentiles are in the Abrahamic Covenant, but only the ‘blessings’ aspect, not the land, or the seed aspect.” They argue this because, in the context of chapter three Paul is dealing with Salvation by faith not by works. But does this do justice to the text? First, the problem the Jews had was how could the uncircumcised Gentiles be part of the Abrahamic Covenant. In response to this, Paul does not distinguish to the readers, by stating that he is speaking only of eternal life but not the land and the commonwealth of Israel. Not all the promises, just one of them. But does Paul not do this, he contradicts this idea by saying that all the promises were being spoken to Abraham and Christ. Notice, Paul uses the plural when referring to the promises of the covenant made to Abraham and Christ. How can anyone exegetically argue that only one promise is being spoken of here in the context? Nor could anyone argue that only two of the promises are being spoken of, for no clarification by Paul is given to which He would be referring to. Instead, Paul does not specify, but rather, uses the plural, implying all the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were made to Abraham and to His seed, that is Christ. And if you are in Christ, then you are heirs to all the “promises.”

Paul carries this idea through the whole book, even in his closing statements being made in the epistle. Galatians 6: 15-16 says:

For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon you, and upon the Israel of God.

When we read this statement in light of we have learned from Paul in Galatians, not to mention, how we have seen Him use Israel in Romans 11, we can understand it more clearly. The dispensational view of this chapter is that Paul is given a blessing first on the Gentile Christians for their observance of this rule and not succumbing to being circumcised and standing firm in the midst persecution. The word “kai” is then understood to be in addition to these people and this blessing, a blessing also to the believing Jews who do not associate with these Jews who persecute the Gentile believers. However, there is a serious problem with this interpretation as Robertson points out, he states:

First, the word kai may be understood as meaning “and,” as it usually does in the Greek New Testament. On this understanding, Paul would be pronouncing his benediction of peace first over “as many as” (that’s, “all who”) hold to the rule that the distinction between Jew and Gentile cannot serve as a basis for determining who is and who is not to be reckoned among the people of God. But then he would be extending that blessing to another category of people, and that presents the problem. He would in effect be violating the very rule that he himself has just established by pronouncing his blessing over elect Jews who did use circumcision to identify themselves as the people of God. “The Israel of God” would be a group of people other than all those who make it a practice never to regard a distinction between Jew and Gentile as a basis for identifying the people of God. But this would have Paul contradicting his own line of argument. It would include in his apostolic blessing people who made the very distinction that Paul has just disallowed.[12]

This is, indeed, what the dispensationalist is arguing for. A strong distinction of the Church and the nation of Israel being different, both now and forevermore. Ryrie says,

The heavenly Jerusalem we are told, is inhabited by angels, the church, God, Jesus, and the “spirits of the just men made perfect. The point is, however, that there are distinct groups of believers in Heaven. Distinction is maintained even though the destiny is the same.[13](italics added for emphasis)

Is this really what the Bible is teaching? Distinctions among the people of God? Distinctions in blessings, promises, and covenants among the people of God? Are not all the promises yes in Christ? Are not all those who are saved in Christ co-heirs with Christ? Is not Christ an heir to all the promises in the Scriptures concerning the covenants? How can anyone draw such strong lines of distinctions, from the Scriptures?

The last passage to be exegeted is in I Peter 2:9-10. Peter is writing to the saints to comfort them in the midst of suffering. He just told them of an imperishable inheritance that is theirs in Christ. He then builds off this theme by speaking of Christ being a cornerstone to a temple of which we are built upon too as “living stones.” It is in this context that Peter says to the saints:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness in His marvelous light. Once you were not a people of God, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

I will comment little on this passage, because I have already gone over the page limit. Please note first that Peter is not just making a random statement here. He is quoting from the Old Testament a promise that was given by God to the nation of Israel(Exodus 19:5). This is significant. Often when one is making an attempt to prove Jesus is God we will go to the Old Testament where we see phrases, titles, and names that are designated to God and then show how these exclusive titles, names, and phrases that are used for God are now being used for Jesus. We then conclude, this must mean that Jesus is God. So when we go to the Old Testament and we see all these covenants, promises, titles, and names used exclusively for Israel now being applied to the Church, would not the same logic follow? No one would say, “Oh, you are replacing God with some guy named Jesus!” So why do some conclude that about those who see the Church being a gift to the true Israel as an expansion to all the world, when, all the names, phrases, and titles, being applied to the church do some say, “OH, you are replacing Israel with the Church.” It should be understood that, the Church is Jewish in its roots. The Church has a Jewish heart! With Jewish Covenant, and a Jewish Messiah, along with Jewish Apostles. How else could Peter refer to the Church as a “chosen race” or a “holy nation”. I often hear, “Israel is a nation, the church is not.” How can some understand that, in light of Peters statement? According to Peter and God the church is a “holy nation.” Should we spiritualize the text and say, “well, that’s just spiritually, it is not literally a nation.” One could ask, “if the church is a nation, where is it’s land?” To this I say, “The Jerusalem above, she is our mother.” Just as Paul did. I believe the Church has a citizenship in Zion in the New Jerusalem above where it awaits being finished by an architect who’s builder is God. For when it is finished it will descend from Heaven on the New Earth. And for all eternity Heaven will be on Earth. Once again, just like in the original creation, only better, will this New Earth be. For the Garden will extend its boundaries around all the earth. Who is the king of this nation? It is Christ Jesus who has been given all authority, and has come from the tribe of Judah, a seed of David. The covenants spoken to Abraham should not be seen as only physical nor only spiritual! Too often we fall to one extreme or the other. God’s promises to Abraham and his offspring was “forever.” The only way this can be fulfilled literally is for it to be fulfilled in the New Heavens and the New Earth. This was the hope of Isaiah that we find in Isaiah 65. We also find that this was the hope of all the patriarchs, in Hebrews 11.

The Beginnings of Israel and the Church.

The people of God have taken on different names as more revelation reveals more fully the purpose of Gods people. It started with the seed of the Adam and Even. In Genesis 12 we find the selection of a man (Abraham)through which will come the promised seed. From Abraham comes forth a great family and a chosen race. The great family becomes a nation (Israel). In acts 2, the birth of the Church is brought forth in new power and authority. This power and authority come as a result of a new and living King, that is, Jesus Christ.

Similarities and distinctions between Israel and the Church.

There are a number of similarities between Israel and the Church. Both are likened to the wife/bride of God. Both are given the New Covenant. Both have the same Messiah. Both have outward and inward aspects them. Not everyone that was from Israel was truly Israel. So also not all professing Christians are truly apart of the true catholic Church. Both are saved grace through faith. Distinctions are fewer, whereas Israel was mainly composed of one physical race, the church is composed of countless nationalities. Israel was under the Old Covenant. The Church was never under such a law. Israel of the Old Testament did not have the power that the Church is given at Pentecost. There are other similarities and differences between the two, but this will suffice for this papers purposes.

Conclusion

In the following paper, I have presented to the reader the two major views concerning the relationship of the Church and Israel. I have exposited the major text listed, as well as, share my own personal views concerning the topic at hand. I also hope, that this paper may be used to clear up any confusion that has been going on for over a hundred years now. I also want to thank the dispensationalist, although I disagreed with their main point. It was the dispensationalist that actually showed me the importance of seeing the Jewish ancestry in the Church, as well as, equip me to study the Bible. As a result, I have seen the importance of a physical fulfillment, as well as, a spiritual one. Much thanks can go out to many of the books published from dispensationalist demonstrating the importance of proper hermeneutics. I feel confident that the conclusions I have come to are a result of the hermeneutic taught by men such men as Roy B. Zuck and Dr. Michael Rydelnik. It is teachers like these that have shown me the importance of taking the Bible and specifically the covenants found in Scripture, literally! I anxiously await to enter the promise land with my Messiah and King who will reign over me and all His people forever! He will be our God, we will be His people, and He will dwell amongst us!

[1] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference, (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990) pg. 56

[2] R.C. Sproul, ESV Reformation Study Bible, (Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005)pg. 35

[3] Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishing, 1995, 2006) pg. 43

[4] James Montgomery Boice, Romans Volume 1 Justification by Faith, Romans 1-4, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991) 258

[5] Rabbi Menachem, Commentary on the Books of Moses, (Fol. 43, col. 1) quoted by Charles Hodge’s commentary

[6] Jalkut Rubeni, (num. 1) quoted by Charles Hodge’s commentary

[7] Akedath Jizehak, (fol. 54, col. 2) quoted by Charles Hodge in Commentary

[8] Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993) pg 197-198

[9] R.C. Sproul, The Gospel of God Romans, (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1999) pg. 58

[10] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism Rightly Dividing the People of God?, (Phillipsburg, NJ, Reformed Publishing Company, 1995) pg. 39

[11] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886) pg. 361

[12] O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God Yesterday Today and Tomorrow, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2000) pg. 41-42

[13] Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1972) pg. 158

"Biblical Regeneration"

2007-12-10T21:41:00.001-06:00

Introduction

Today, in the American professing church we have a wide variety of denominations and beliefs. This broad mix includes four major groups, which are as follows: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and cults. Within these groups it only gets more complex. There are some key questions a person needs to ask oneself. How does one discern which church holds to what was intended by the Messiah? In addition to this, what are the issues over which one needs to separate? And which doctrines are okay to acknowledge within “true Christianity”? After one has established these answers, where does the individual take a firm stance upon what he seeks to see within the church he intends on attending. The doctrine that is being dealt with in this paper concerns the last question being raised. Some of the most major problems that have arisen within the church of America in the last fifty to sixty years are a result of a lack of understanding of Biblical regeneration. This is why this is such a crucial doctrine to understand today.

In this paper it will be my goal to briefly explain what a Biblical understanding of regeneration is. I hope to be able to more clearly display when regeneration takes place in the life of an individual. The latter is the thesis of this paper.

Regeneration, as I see it, is the work of God (alone) raising a spiritually dead person to life, the changing of the heart, the washing of sin, and ultimately the equipping of the person to repent and believe in the gospel. In the following pages I will hope to expound on this statement.

A summary of the major views on the order of salvation concerning “regeneration”.

Before we go into the two views, I would like to clarify that, when speaking of anything concerning the order of salvation, I am not denying that salvation takes place in a moment. But rather, the order of what precedes the other aspects of salvation for the logical working of salvation in the sinner. Dr. Geisler states:

But before we look at the text, a clarification must be made in the question. The word “prior” is not used in a chronological sense, but in a logical sense. For salvation and faith are simultaneous, since one cannot be saved without faith, and faith cannot be present without our being saved. The question is: Which one is logically prior to the other? That is, which one is the logical condition for receiving the other?

Now with this in mind, let us go into the topic at hand. The doctrine of regeneration has two major differing views concerning the order of where it takes place in the Christian. One camp would argue that regeneration takes place as a response of the individual’s repentance and faith in the gospel. Norman Geisler, one the proponents of this view, speaks about this topic in his book, Chosen but Free. In this book, he writes a whole chapter explaining how the view of regeneration prior to faith should be rejected. He states:

Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses properly understood that teach regeneration is prior to faith. Instead, it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it. Consider the following selection of numerous text on the topic.[1]

He goes on to list passages such as: Romans 3:24-25, 5:1; Luke 13:3; 2 Peter 3:9; John 3:6-7,16; Acts 16:31; Titus 3:5-7. He is clear on this, by adding a brief commentary on the passages listed above, that in every case, salvation is through faith and judgment does not come upon those who believe. Because of these passages, Dr. Geisler believes strongly that logically speaking, faith is the first act on man’s part that then initiates the working of God on man to be regenerated.

The other camp sees regeneration as a work of God upon man that enables him/her to then believe in the gospel message given. This camp is often called “Calvinist”. Those who are reformed hold this as a crucial doctrine to understanding “grace” and the good news of the “gospel”. One of the proponents for this views, R.C. Sproul, says:

In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith. [2]

Contrary to Dr. Geisler, those who hold this view believe that they have the Scriptures

weighing in their favor. John Murray argues by stating:

If we think in scriptural terms it is not difficult to insert another step. It is that of regeneration. It, in turn, must be prior to faith. Much controversy turns on this question and into all the angles of that controversy we now enter. Still further, it will not be possible in this chapter to give all the evidences establishing the priority of regeneration.[3] (Italics added for emphasis)

There seems to be from both camps a confidence that Scripture is backing them strongly on their understanding of the order of salvation. Therefore, the next topic will be to dive into the Scriptures to see which view is truly founded on the Rock.

An exegetical significant overview

In the past section we saw the two major views concerning the order of salvation when dealing with regeneration. Dr. Geisler set out for us a large list of passages that he saw clearly teaching faith prior to regeneration. It is, therefore, important to note that the list given by Geisler is not pertinent to the question at hand. The question at hand was, “is regeneration prior to faith?” But in the list given by Geisler, he is arguing for salvation through faith. This argument is known as a straw man, because the Calvinist camp holds this truth as well. Therefore, the argument that Geisler is arguing is pointless. This is because both views would emphatically agree that salvation is always solely “through faith”. To use passages that teach that God saves “through faith” and state that they clearly mean faith precedes regeneration does not answer our question. This mistake is made, seemingly, by all of the proponents of this camp. Dave Hunt also argues against the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith by saying,

But doesn’t Scripture say that the new birth comes as a result of faith? Paul reminded the Galatians that they were “all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”(Galatians 3:26, emphasis added). Yet White insists that “regeneration must take place first”.[4]

Notice how Hunt uses a passage that is not even talking about regeneration, but rather adoption (“all children of God”). This seems to be the major misunderstanding of Scripture that causes the camp to come to the conclusions they do. Again, both camps would cheerfully agree that adoption proceeds faith. What is needed to prove, from Scripture, the point of view held by Geisler and many others would be passages speaking directly on the topic. That is, that a person believes the gospel and then is “regenerated” not “saved”. The mistake being made by Geisler and many in this camp is lumping aspects of salvation into one big mess. That is to say, justification is not regeneration, nor is sanctification the same as adoption. For, in the quote on page two of this paper, he does use the words “regeneration” and “salvation” interchangeably (the words were italicized to show this). These terms are important to keep distinct, because each term has a unique meaning to understanding the fullness of the gospel and salvation. The purpose in this paper is not defining all of these terms of one being saved. It is rather to explain specifically what regeneration is and when it takes place in the list of: The gospel call, effectual call, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. Therefore, in this section we will look at passages that deal specifically with faith and regeneration, rather than, general passages dealing with salvation through faith.

In the Old Testament, the people of God were promised a New Covenant because of the failure of the people to fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant would succeed where the Old never could. The New Covenant is the Covenant by which everyone to whom it is made will truly be saved. One of the New Covenant passages that is pertinent to the topic of regeneration being a complete and solo work of God is Ezekiel 36: 24-27 which says:

I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Here, God had just condemned the house of Israel for profaning His name among all the

nations. They had failed Him and, because of this, had made a mockery of His name among the whole world. This is because, in this culture, a god of a people would destroy a people like this. But in this case, the God of Israel would be accused of being either too soft-hearted, or unable to cause His people to honor Him. So in response to all this, God declares that He will do a great work to save His name from being shamed in the nations. He will do such a mighty deed that all the nations will honor His name. So what is this mighty act that God is going to do to “save face”? In this passage God declares that He will make a people who will be set apart for Him alone. They will know and love Him, honor Him as God, and joyfully obey all that He commands. One’s first impression of this passage is usually that God uses the phrase “I will” a lot. This is important because it indicates the list given in the passage is a work of God alone! He is not going to be dependent on the individual for this to take place. For He emphatically says thirteen times that He “will” do this! We know that God does not lie! What He says, He “will” do, He “will” do! He is, indeed, the Great “I AM”. It is also important to note that in the passage there are five times He states that His people “shall” or “will” do certain acts. We as Christians must understand we can be absolutely sure that whatever God says He will do. However for our part we must realize that whatever He says we 'shall' and 'will' do, we 'shall' and 'will' do. None of the things listed in this passage are dependent on anyone but God. This is relevant because in this passage one of the things God is talking about is regeneration. From this passage then, we can deduct that regeneration is solely a work of God in which nothing of its work is dependent on anything that man does.

How then does this work of God come about? In Ezekiel 37 we see another passage dealing with regeneration. In this passage, the prophet, Ezekiel, is commanded to preach to “dry bones”. The dryness of the bones is to point the contribution that these bones can do. That is, nothing! You may ask, “what is the point in preaching something to someone who is unable to hear what you are saying?” Not to mention that these bones would be unable to even respond if they could somehow hear the message. Yet, God promises the prophet that He will bring “breath” into these “dry bones” through his preaching and “cause” these “dry bones” to “live”. Here, the raising of the dead and giving of life is not the work of anyone but God! He promises to use the preaching of the prophet to give life to death. An important question should be asked here, “did these dry bones do anything prior to being regenerated?” The obvious answer to this question is “NO!” Ezekiel 36 and 37 go together to speak of the great work of salvation and, more specifically, regeneration. In both these passages we see how regeneration is completely a solo work of God. In addition to this, we find in Ezekiel 37 that nothing is done on the recipients side to be regenerated. In other words we have now looked at two passages where faith is nowhere seen to logically cause or precede regeneration. But something else should be pointed out from Ezekiel 37. Take note how the scriptures define man’s condition prior to regeneration. Could the “dry bones” desire to exercise faith in the preaching of the message prior to being made alive? Not only could the “dry bones” not desire to exercise faith, but they couldn’t exercise faith, period. However, because of the work of regeneration these “dry bones” can be commanded and fulfill the commands given to them through the preaching of the word. Because of regeneration taking place these “dry bones” are able to do the impossible. We then find from Ezekiel 37 the necessity of regeneration to precede faith. For if regeneration does not precede faith, faith will be impossible. The Prince of Preachers, Charles H. Spurgeon had this to say on the need for regeneration :

…if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should have I stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so…I did not commence my spiritual life-no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good…It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him.[5]

Notice the strong language Spurgeon uses to describe the affections of his heart and desires. Spurgeon recognized the great need of regeneration before he could place his faith in Jesus. R.C Sproul uses the historical event of the raising of Lazarus from the dead to equate our deadness prior to the regenerating work of God. He says:

Lazarus was dead, not critically ill or at the point of dying. He was already a corpse and was decomposing. The stench from his rotting body was repugnant to his sister Martha. The miracle of his resurrection was accomplished without means, that is, without balms, medicines, CPR, and so forth. The only power Christ used was the power of His voice. He uttered a command, not a request or an invitation. He made no attempt to woo Lazarus from the tomb. This resurrection was strictly monergistic. Lazarus rendered absolutely no assistance. He was incapable of assisting in any way because he was completely dead.[6]

Sproul is using the language that is found to referring to sinners (spiritually dead) and taking a physical situation to give us understanding in the necessity of regeneration or being born-again for the spiritually dead person to believe. Is this an adequate equivalent? Let’s look at some more passages to discern whether this is an accurate understanding of man prior to regeneration.

In the gospel of John, which is where we see the phrase “born-again” first being used, we come to a passage dealing with spiritual birth. This will give us more light on this topic. John 1:11-13 says:

He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name. He gave the right to become children of God. Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

This passage is often used by those who advocate a regeneration proceeding faith, because it says that all who “receive” Him, that is, to “believe” in His name, He gave the right to “become children of God.” Indeed, the passage clearly teaches that one first “believes” and then God gives them the right to become children of God! But then the question, again, must be asked, “is becoming children of God the same as being regenerated?” The answer is, indeed, no. Here the passage is teaching that one places their faith in Jesus Christ, and then God adopts those who believe to be His children. Notice, however, the next verse speaks of being born. Why does John see this as being significant? I believer the obvious answer is, one cannot be adopted as a child unless one is first born. But how does John explain the means to one being born, and what kind of birth is John talking about? The first phrase “not of blood” removes the concept that John is talking about a physical birth. John is speaking about one being “born-again” or born from above. John makes it clear that no one becomes a child of God because he is born of blood. He also makes it clear that it is not because of the “will” of the “flesh” or the “will” of “man”. John is very specific with his words in limiting any possibility of anyone thinking that their being born from above had anything to do with what they did. For someone may have said, “of course I am not a child of God because of my ancestry nor because of the will of my flesh, for that is very wicked, but in my spirit or soul or heart or somewhere in me I desired to be saved and placed my faith in God and so I was born again”. But John says not of “blood” nor of the “will” of the “flesh” nor any part of the “will” of “man”. John clearly states the being born is “of God”. There is nothing else that contributes to this work of one being born-again. So here, John states that though one is a child of God after they have placed their faith in Jesus, they only believe because God has made them alive first. God takes “dry bones” and causes them to be born-again, so that, the bones can believe in the name of Jesus!

But where does John get this idea? Is he original in thinking this? Or had he learned it from His teacher, Jesus? I would argue that John learned this from Jesus’ teachings. We find Jesus speaking to a man about being born-again in John 3. The passage speaks of a Pharisee named Nicodemus coming to Jesus and claiming that he knew that Jesus was a teacher from God because of the signs that Jesus did. Jesus, seemingly, misunderstands what Nicodemus says by responding, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” What in the world does this have to do with Nicodemus’ statement? I have wondered this many times when reading this passage until I understood what Nicodemus was claiming by his statement. He was claiming to know God and who came from Him and to Him. Jesus responds lovingly that Nicodemus cannot know this, let alone “see” the kingdom of God unless he be born-again. Nicodemus asks an important question, “how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus responds by explaining with what kind of birth He is speaking of by stating:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

Jesus repeats Himself by saying that someone must be born-again, but he changes it this time to state that one must be born-again to “enter the Kingdom of God”. He says that it must be a birth not of flesh but rather of Spirit. Well, how do I get born of the Spirit? Jesus says that the Spirit goes wherever it wants and it cannot be known where it is going or where it came from. No one can control it for the Spirit “goes wherever it wishes”. Jesus explains that we can know when it has come for we hear its sound, but we cannot manipulate the Spirit to go where we want, nor can we know its plans. No amount of faith can make the Spirit come to you. No amount of prayer can push the Spirit to go somewhere. The Spirit will do whatever it “wishes”. In other words, we have faith because the Spirit has come and not the other way around. We pray not to move the Spirit, but because the Spirit moved in us. The Spirit is the mover, and we are the moved. We do not influence the Spirit, but rather, He influences us! Jesus is telling Nicodemus, if you want to see or enter the Kingdom of God you must be born from above, and the only way that is going to happen is if the Spirit blows your way. This places Nicodemus’ dependence on God completely for salvation. We see here that Jesus is teaching, again, the same concept of being “born-again” or being “regenerated” as we had been seeing the previous passages. Charles Leiter when speaking on this passage says:

Why is it that I am a Christian and my neighbor is not? There are only two possibilities: either the explanation lies in man (“I was more responsive; I was not so hard-hearted; I sought God of my own initiative.”) or the explanation lies in God (“He chose to ‘blow’ by His Spirit, softening my hardened heart and making me responsive to His call.”). The Bible makes it clear that the latter alternative is the correct one: “It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy.” In our natural state, “there none who seeks for God.” But God being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ.”[7]

Over and over again we are seeing a pattern that when dealing with regeneration it has nothing to do with man’s contribution. Like it was stated earlier in the paper, regeneration is “the work of God (alone) . . .” But do any of these passages outright say that regeneration or being born-again precedes faith? In the next passage we will look at a passage dealing specifically with this area.

In the Epistle, I John, John is writing to his “children” in the faith, how they may know they have been born-again. In the letter he lays out some test, so that, they may know whether God has done such a work in them. This is because many false teacher had arisen within the church and caused much confusion and problems and eventually left the church. John says that they (false teachers) left them because they were never of the family of God. How then can they know that they have been born-again? How then can they know if they are God’s children? This is the context into which John is writing this book. One of the first test in knowing whether one has been born of God is in I John 2:29b which says, “you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him.” Notice the order and structure of the sentence. John says if someone practices “righteousness” he “has been” (past tense) “born” of God. In this test, both camps would agree that one is first born-again and then he/she practices “righteousness”. No one in the evangelical camp is going to argue that one first must practice righteousness and then he is “born” of God. So in this test, John says if you do righteousness you “have been” past tense” born of Him. The second test is in I John 3:9 which says, “ No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.”(Italics added). Again the same order and structure in the sentence. How can I know if I have been born of God? Well, John says that if you don’t make a practice out of sinning then you can know that you have been (past tense) “born” of God. Again, both camps would agree that it is teaching that one is first born of God and then he is no longer able to practice sinning. No one within the Evangelical group is going to argue that by ceasing from a practice of sinning one is “born of God”. The third passage with this type of test is in I John 4:7 which states, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” Again, the exact same structure and order in tense where one is first born f God and then is able to love God and know God. No one is going to argue that one first must loves God and knows him before he can be born of God. The order and tense is clear, “has been”. It is because one “has been” born of God that he/she is capable of loving and knowing God. John gives the reader another test in 5:1b where he writes, “and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him.” You may ask, “what is the point Stephen?” or say. “you are beating a dead horse”. But the point is this, in everyone of these test, being “born of God” always precedes the deed or thing being done by the one being “born of God”. This is important when we look at the next text which is from the same book and context in which he writes, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,” (Italics added for emphasis in 5:1a). Did you catch it? The structure of the sentence and order is the exact same. Not only this but also the tense for being born of God is the same. John in writing the saints tells them; you want to know if you “have been” been of God, well if you believe that Jesus is the Christ you have. Just like in every other case, the deed is following being “born of God” so also in this case believing is following the work of God alone, that is, being “born of God”. If one is honest with the text, there can be no other conclusion to come to. John is teaching that belief is a gift from God that comes the one who “has been” born of Him. This being born-again is a much needed work of God, because just like in every other case, the work of God in causing one to be “born of Him” enables the person to be able to “practice righteousness”, cease from “practicing sinning”, “loving” and to “know God”, to “love those born of Him” and to “believe” that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. This is because prior to this work of God no man will ever desire to seek to be saved. The affections of a man’s heart prior to regeneration will do nothing but reject and hate the truth apart from God’s common grace or saving grace. One theologian put it like this:

In Deuteronomy 30:6 we find our spiritual renewal figuratively described as a circumcision of the heart: “ The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live” Since the heart is the inner core of the person, the passage teaches that God must cleanse us within before we can truly love him. What we would call regeneration is described by Jeremiah in these words: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts”(31:33).[8]

The point is, every man is in utter need of God to show mercy and be gracious, from start to finish, in order that one may be born of God. In the following section of the paper I will go in what I personally believe and why.

A statement of my position and why.

In the past section we dove into some of the primary passages dealing with when and how regeneration works. In this section, I will seek to explain what and why I believe what I do on this topic. I will do so in two ways, first negatively. That is, I will explain why the other view fails or falls short. And I will do so positively, that is, why my view is right.

I believe a doctrine that teaches that being born-again is something we do, when we believe, leads to a false assurance as well as removes the miracle of it. In all the passages we looked at, we saw how regeneration is a work of God. It is God raising the dead. It is God giving a man a new heart that loves Him and His commands. It is God causing the man to obey Him by placing a Spirit within the person, so that, he/she will do so. When one removes this monergistic work of God and places any necessity on man, to that degree they will fail. If God is unable to raise the dead without the man’s permission, then God is unable to raise the dead. If God is unable to change the affections of the man, apart from the cooperative work of man, God is unable to change the affections of man. If we teach that man is able to believe and repent, apart from the working of God prior, then God is no longer needed in what was once taught a miracle. That is, salvation. As a result of this understanding of regeneration being either a cooperative work of God and man or man alone, two things have resulted. One many have come to think wrongly of what faith is. When man has been called to believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, man has come to think that faith is some sort of intellectual ascent to a doctrine. That faith is an agreement to a truth. That faith is walking an aisle, or driving a stake in the ground, or raising the hand, or signing a card. Faith is no longer a reckless abandonment of all one has to chase after his/her one hope, that is, Jesus and His work accomplished on the cross. Faith is no longer letting go of all that one has to grab hold of Jesus. The second danger that flows from this understanding of regeneration is a lowering of the standard/ command of God for salvation. Some have come to see that it is impossible to command men to come follow Jesus and die to self, and have them do it. As a result of being dependant on the man’s cooperation, preachers no longer have the confidence to preach as Jesus did to the rich young ruler. That would certainly be a hard teaching, and too difficult for man to do. Instead, we will encourage men to do something that any man in the flesh can do. That is, say a prayer, or come forward, or stand –up, the list can go on. Any man can do this. It is no miracle nor is it ever the command given by our LORD Jesus when He proclaims the gospel to the lost and dead. Instead, Jesus tells men that, those who are not willing to forsake family, money and self are not worthy to be His disciples. The apostle Paul commands those in Rome to confess that Jesus is LORD in a time where doing so meant having your head chopped off. Because of a misunderstanding of the work of God alone in regeneration, many have lost the confidence that God will save. And so, many have lowered the standard by which one may be saved. This is also why much of the gospel being presented in America is man-centered, rather than Christ-centered. Walter Chantry says:

Much modern preaching is anemic, with the life-blood of God’s nature absent from the message. Evangelists centre their message upon man. Man has sinned and missed a great blessing. If man wants to retrieve his immense loss he must act thus and so. But the Gospel of Christ is very different. It begins with God and His glory. It tells men that they have offended a holy God, who will by no means pass by sin. It reminds sinners that the only hope of salvation is to be found in the grace and power of this same God. Christ’s Gospel sends men to beg pardon of the Holy One.[9]

This type of Gospel is the result of a false teaching on the doctrine of regeneration. Oh the power in the God who saves! Many have forgotten that our God is “mighty to save”. That of all that He calls, none are left missing. But He calls His sheep and they know Him and they follow Him.

This altering of the truth about regeneration for another has been detrimental to the church in America, and it is why we have so many professing Christians. So soon have we forgotten the LORD’s teaching that many are those who are on the road to destruction, but few who those who find and walk on the path to life. Many have forgotten that with man salvation is “impossible” but with God all things are “possible”. Many have forgotten the strength of the LORD’s grace and efficacy, and so, they feel as though they need to prop God up with catchy music, or tear jerking stories, or charismatic speaking, and have ultimately abandoned the preaching of the World. This is why I hold strong to this teaching concerning regeneration. For fear that I may become useless.

It is here that I will explain why I see my position as correct. First, it promotes a Christ-centered Gospel. In the quote given above we saw how denying regeneration as a monergistic work of God leads to a humanistic gospel, so also, to affirm it, is to promote a Christ-centered Gospel. This is not to say that one who holds to a monergistic regeneration view will preach a Christ-centered Gospel. But rather, an understanding on regeneration encourages and promotes a preaching of the true Gospel. Another reason I hold to this view is because it fits best with what scripture says of regeneration. I have found this view being consistently taught throughout the whole of Scriptures. Lastly, but most importantly, this view promotes a Christ exalting environment. When one see’s how completely dead he/she is, and how much in need they are of God, they will become solely dependant on one person, that is, Jesus Christ and His work, not there faith or anything else. There are more reasons for holding this view but the reader will be able to see most on their own. You will also find, that the blessings that flow from this doctrine are seemingly, endless. Also, because more will be listed off in the practical section of the paper.

Why this doctrine is important practically.

When looking at this doctrine from a practical level, one can see many reasons for why this doctrine matters. Perhaps the most obvious practical outflow of this doctrine is this: Christians will show grace in the way they believe it has been given to them. When one teaches that a person needs to be repentant and place their faith in God prior to Him showing grace, then we will place the same requirement on those around us. Someone may hurt me, or may be in need of money (due to a lack of diligence). Do I require of them to first be repentant and do something to earn or forgiveness or generosity? Is this really how God works with us? Is it faith that prepares us for grace? Or grace that prepares us for faith? I believe that Scripture teaches the latter. Because God did not wait for me, but rather, poured out His unmerited favor, trusting that His grace would change my heart towards Him and my attitude towards sin. Because of this doctrine, I have been freed to give to many, with no reason, other that I have been shown such mercy and grace. And because I believe God will use my mercy and grace towards those to hurt or are in need of me to change them! This, I believe, is the practically out-flowing of a proper understanding of regeneration.

Conclusion

This teaching concerning the regenerating work of God does not sit alone by itself. Indeed, how one understands this doctrine, will effect one’s understanding of many other doctrines. It is here I will lay out a list, albeit, not an exhaustive one. Some of the major doctrines that will be affected are: Anthropology, Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Soteriology, and Ecclesiology. The list above is a vague one, however, it should be noted that because of the number of doctrines this one doctrine will effect I left the list more broad. For example, in Anthropology one could have a wrong view how lost man is, or what man is capable of and so on. For Theology Proper, one could get God’s aseity wrong, or sovereignty wrong, or omnipotence wrong. When dealing with Christology, one could misunderstand what Christ accomplished on the cross. For Pneumatology one could fail understand the applying work of the Spirit on the lost. There are many obvious reasons for why this would effect the doctrine of salvation. And for ecclesiology, it would affect how the Gospel is preached, and how church discipline should be applied etc. Again, this doctrine on regeneration does not stand alone. It is beautifully weaved with all the doctrines in the Holy Scriptures.

This view will affect my life, ministry, and worldview in so many ways! Some can be found in the section above on application. However, I must say, that studying and learning about this doctrine has change my whole outlook on how I share the Gospel. It has also given me such a new and fresh confidence that is unwavering! Learning about regeneration has changed my whole worldview of how lost man is! How much man is in great need of a compassionate, loving, gracious, patient, forgiving, merciful God. And this study has enabled me to see God as all those thing so much more fuller that I could have ever imagined.

This study has also changed the way I intend on doing ministry. Not only will it affect my style of preaching but how I prepare to preach. It has also affected how I pray. Understanding the more fully the great work of God in regeneration has changed the way I will minister to people with struggles and trials in the Christian walk. The list of how this study will effect and affect my ministry is growing as I continue to reflect on the richness of the grace shown to me!

The learning that had come in studying regeneration has affected spiritual life in a plethora of ways. Again, I learning more and more new things from this doctrine and how it applies to my life. It has greatly impacted my understanding of how God works with His people. And in following, how I should treat His people, as well as those I deal with every day. Grace is an amazing thing that changes the way we live our lives and understanding regeneration is just another way in more fully seeing grace for what it is.

In conclusion, I have presented the major points of views on the topic at hand, as well as, explain my conclusions from my studies. I hope and pray that this paper will be a blessing to those who read it, as much as it has been to me.

[1] Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free, 2^nd edition, ( Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Publishing House, 1999,2001) pg. 237-238

[2] R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, (Wheaton, IL.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986) pg. 235

[3] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, ( Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955) pg. 85

[4] Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism, five points two views, ( Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2004) pg. 282

[5] C.H. Spurgeon, Autobiography,(Edinburg: Banner of Truth, 1962) 1:164

[6] R. C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, ( Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997) pg. 185

[7] Charles Leiter, Justification and Regeneration, ( Muscle Shoals, AL: Heartcry Missionary Society, 2007) pg. 72

[8] Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved By Grace, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) pg. 95

[9] Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel Authentic o Synthetic?, ( Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970) pg. 25

Sacred Space in the Bible and the Ancient Near East

2007-12-10T21:36:00.001-06:00

Sacred Space in the Bible in the ANE

Introduction to paper and thesis statement

After spending the bulk of time in research from G.K. Beale’s book [1]. I learned a lot concerning the temples in the Old Testament and the cultures around Israel and their great influence on Israel’ temples and in particular sacred spaces. G.K. Beale gave me much insight on this ongoing theme throughout scripture as well as a better understanding of the other cultures mentioned in the Bible.

The Benefit to doing this study will give the reader a more full understanding to the great amount of time the Biblical writers go to explain aspects of temples throughout the scriptures. These, what seem to be, drawn out passages are rich with meaning when one understands what the symbols and patterns are communicating to the modern culture of that time, in the books of the Old Testament.

It is my purpose in this paper to clearly define what sacred space was and how it was understood in the ANE (Ancient Near East). Not only for Israel but also for: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Little will be said specifically concerning Sumer and Akkad. This is because there is little evidence outside the scriptures concerning these people groups and what their understanding of sacred space was. That is not to say there is no evidence concerning these groups. In fact, archeologist have recently come across a new artifact from the Phoenician people group. On the artifact was inscribed, “qodesh le’ Asherat”[2] Which means “Sacred to Asherat.” In this place where the artifact was found is what could possibly be a old 7^th century Ekron temple to a god named Asherat.

Sacred Space in the Old Testament and Intertestamental time explained

When studying the concept of sacred space in the ANE it should be noted that more ground could easily be covered concerning a compare and contrast of sacred space. This is because sacred space played such a crucial role in the ANE. In all these cultures religion, government, and land all harmonized together and were way more closely knit together in these cultures when comparing it with the mindset of today’s American culture, where we have a separation from church and state mindset. In reference to the Roman culture and it’s relationship between state and religion, Adkins and Adkins have this to say:

As the community grew in a state, religion became closely connected with politics and society. Religion governed all political activities because it was essential to ascertain the will of the gods before any state action.”[3]

We must take this mindset as we dive into comparing and contrasting the sacred space of the Bible in the ANE.

Comparing the sacred space of the people of God with pagan sacred spaces in the ANE

This was the norm for all culture in the ANE. The king or ruler of the land was often viewed as a representative of a god, and in many cases the ruler himself was seen as a god. Sacred space in this time was understood to be the place god rested or manifested his glory. The gods were seen as powerful and able to do things that the people of the land were in need of. This is why in all these cultures there was a god to each need the people had. Some of these gods would be gods of: light, futility, love, and etc. When the god was done from his work he resided in a temple (i.e. sacred space). The people of the culture would build a temple in which the god could rest after his work for the people. For example, the people in the ANE were in great need of rain because of the topography of the land. The people would build a house/ temple for a god of futility and offer gifts/sacrifices to appease the gods, so that, the god would bless them and give them then rain. This was a common link in the cultures and the purpose for a temple. Enuma Elish says:

Their ways have become very grievous to me, by day I cannot rest, by night I cannot sleep. I shall abolish their ways and disperse them. Let peace prevail, so that we can sleep.

(Enuma Elish 1.37-40)[4]

Dr. Beale comments on this quote from a text in the ANE and says:

After defeating Tiamat Marduk reorganizes the cosmos and the lesser gods under his sovereignty, concluding with the building of Babylon conceived as a shrine-like temple in which gods can find rest.[5]

This is also seen in the Sumerian culture with the god Ningirsu, where the temple was a place of resting after his work was completed. The Egyptian Pharaoh also built a temple for Ptah for rest. In reference to this idea G.K. Beale says, “Consequently, ‘in the Ancient Near East as in the Bible, temples are for divine rest’, and divine rest is found in sanctuaries or sacred space.”[6]

Another big concept when understanding sacred space in the ancient Near East is that they were seen as microcosms. Nearly in every culture we find that temples were tripartite. They had a outer courtyard, and further in was a more holy place, and in the third part was found the most holy place. These temples and sacred spaces should be seen as microcosms due the seemingly unending quotes from this period and excavations that show strong relation to the temples reflecting the whole cosmos. It was consistently seen in the these tripartite temples the outer courtyard reflecting the earth, the second part reflecting the heavens, and the third being the throne room of a god as well as a further in the heavens picture. G.K. Beale says:

One of the best examples of the cosmic symbolism of temples is the notion in the Enuma Elish 6.113, where it is said concerning the building of the Marduk temple, ‘He shall make on earth the counterpart of what he brought to pass in heaven.’ Likewise, the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III restored a temple for the god Amon and made it ‘like the heavens’. And Ramses III affirmed about his god: ‘ I made for thee an august house in Nubia. . . . the likeness if the heavens’. The same Pharaoh said of an Amon temple, ‘I made for thee an august palace. . . like the great house of [the god] Atum which is in heaven.’. It was not unusual for Egyptian temples to be called ‘heaven on earth’.[7]

Another common aspect in sacred spaces in the ANE was the placing of an image bearer in the most sacred space of the temples built for the god. For example, in the Baal temple they would place a statue that had the same appearance and represented the god Baal. G.K. Beale shows this in an example of Egyptian culture and there temples and says:

The Egyptians believed that the sun god, Re, would empower other lesser deities to enter the stone images placed in temples. Accordingly, an inscription from the Pyramid Age affirms that the Creator Ptah ‘fashioned the [lesser] gods. . . . He installed the gods in their holy places. . . he equipped their holy places. He made likenesses of their bodies. . . Then the gods entered their bodies of every wood and every stone and every metal’.[8]

Harpers Bible Dictionary makes this statement clear by affirming the same thing. In the quote from Harpers Dictionary the statement made is more a general statement referring to all the cultures in the ANE during the Old Testament period. Which says:

The formation of nation-state or city-states in the ancient world involved the concept that the nation’s or city’s chief approved and would support the concentration of power in the hands of the few who controlled the administrative structure of a state. Consequently, the building of a temple nearly always accompanied the establishment of a dynastic power. A temple building, as the visible symbol of a god’s presence was the most effective way for the leaders of a country to communicate, in the days before mass literacy and broadcast media, the fact that their god favored the political organization that was being established. The building of a temple added the essential note of absolute legitimacy to the formation of a new system of governance.[9]

In this case, we see the temple was to communicate to the people that their land and government was ruled by the god who dwelt in a certain temple. In every culture, it was understood that their was a hope and expectation for the expansion of their kingdom by the building of their temple to their god in different lands. This was to show that the god of the temple had power over the land where his house/ temple was set-up.

Another commonality between the cultures and their sacred spaces were that they more often than not faced east. We see this in the Bible even in the earliest sacred space or dwelling place of God in Genesis 2. We see it in many writing and excavations of temples from all over the land of the Bible. The Oxford Classical Dictionary notes, “ Orientation was generally towards the east, and often towards that point on the skyline where the sun rose on the day of the festival.”[10] Some argue that because the similarities in all these temples in the ANE that there must have been a blueprint , in a sense, that all the cultures were working off of. As a Christian I believe the original temple of God was in Eden.

This leads me into my next point in similarities in the cultures in the ANE. Temples often had gardens just outside the temple as well garden like décor in the temples. Tree-like furniture and so on were not uncommon in Jewish temples and pagan temples alike. Much of the allusions seem to be almost referring back to the Tree in the garden. Indeed, even pagan temples had in their temple what was called a “tree of life”.[11]

The last comparison to be shown in this paper before going into the contrasting between Israel and all the other cultures is that all temples share commonality of being built on hills/mountains. Whether we look at temples from Sumer, Akkad, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greco-Roman, or Judean cultures, they all are built on hills and mountains. In G.K. Beale’s book, he goes to great lengths not only to show this as true with the Jewish Temples and pagan temples but also from the Eden, Noah and the Patriarchs. More time will be spent discussing this idea in the contrasting half of the paper. Beale says:

We need to remember that just as the primordial hillock was thought to have expanded to form the entire earth, so temples were constructed to memorialize symbolically this initial creation: hillocks were depicted in the back of temples and the temple structure from that point was built in an ever-widening, expansive design.[12]

Beale explains that the reason for this is because of the imagery that mountains have of ever expanding which is what he is attempting to argue is the purpose of the temple. This is why temples were built on mountains. More time will be spent here when we go into the next section discussing the differences between Israel/ people of the One True God and their temple to all other temples to false gods.

Contrasting the Temple of the people of God to pagan temples in the ANE

The second portion of this paper will now take all the similarities found in the temples of the people of God to the temples of pagans in the ANE and show where there is crucial difference between them. G.K. Beale says it like this:

These commonalities with Israel’s Temple reflected partial yet true revelation, though insufficient for a personal knowledge of God. Yet Israel’s temple are not like her neighbors merely because they reflected some degree of perception about the true reality of God’s dwelling, but because Israel’s temple was intended to be viewed as the true temple to which all other imperfect temples aspired. Israel’s temple was likely a protest statement against all other pretenders, of whom she was quite aware.[13]

I think this is an important point that Dr. Beale makes. Although there are many similarities between the true temple and false temples, it should not lead to a rash decision that, that means they must be all the same. This is why this portion of the paper is crucial to understanding true sacred space in the ANE.

The first point made in the comparing portion of the paper was that all the temples were a place of resting for the gods after they had finished there work. Although this may sound very similar to the narrative found in Genesis where God rest from all His work on the seventh day, but it is here that I will show the distinction in the understanding of the true sacred space and God to the other frauds. In the pagan accounts the temples were built as a place of resting because the gods were tired from there work and needed a place of rest. This is completely different than the God found in the Pentateuch who never grows weary or faint. Instead, the seventh day of rest is to show rather, that His objective was done. In this case, the creation of the Universe. Beale explains:

Similarly, the gods of the nations needed ‘housing’ for rest but God Himself says that no human-made structure could be adequately be a dwelling for Him. One reason for this is that, as we have already hinted and will see later, Israel’s temple pointed to the end-time goal of God’s presence residing throughout the entire cosmos, not merely in one little, isolated structure. The pagan temples ha no such eschatological purpose as a part of their symbolism.[14]

Another contrast to be shown is that as the pagans had a god for every ailment that the people had, Israel had one God who was LORD over all. Including in this idea whereas, the false priest would offer sacrifices in hopes of appeasing their gods and cause them to show favor upon them. The priest of the God of Israel was in need of these gifts nor the people offer Him anything to cause Him to change His mind and show favor upon them. Rather, “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”[15]

In the first portion we mentioned how in the temples they would place an image bearer in the most holy place of the sacred space and this image represented and in some cases became the god. However, this is much different than the temples of Israel. Israel in its most holy place had no statue or carvings or graven images of their God. In fact, quite the opposite was in there. God footstool was placed in the most holy place for Israel’s temple. We see the God of Israel being declared to be much different than the false gods in Isaiah 40 which says:

To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with Him? An idol! A craftsman cast it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts for it silver chains. He who is too impoverished for an offering chooses wood that will not rot; he seeks out a skillful craftsman to set up an idol that will not move.. . To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? Says the Holy One.[16]

Contrary to man placing an image of God in the sacred space we see in the true temple, that is, the cosmos before the fall. God created for Himself an image bearer and placed the image bearer Himself in the sacred space and gave the command to cultivate and protect the sacred space. This is most likely where all the pagan cultures get there ideas for an idol or image bearer to represent the god on earth and to expand the sacred space given to the whole world.

It is important to take some time to explain the history of the temple of Israel. Like it was said earlier in the paper, nearly every time we find a mention of a temple we see that a mountain is not far from the text. This flows from the first or original temple which can be strongly argued was all creation. The holy of holies being Eden. There are allusion that Eden was set on a hill in Genesis as well as quotes from the prophets in the Old Testament referencing that Eden was on a Hill/ Mountain. This is why we see the Patriarchs of Israel building tabernacles or temples on hills in Canaan.

The book of Genesis lists the places where the patriarchs worshiped on the soil of Palestine. In each instance God is believed to have manifested Himself to the founder or founders of the sanctuary, which consisted, as a rule, of an open-air area akin to the high places of the Canaanites, with the usual combination of sacred tree or trees, raised stones, an eventually an alter and a well or a reserve of water.[17]

G.K. Beale links the commission in Genesis 1:26 and 1:28 as being given each time there is a true temple built. He list five things that occur every time with the exception of two instances where they exclude the first on this list:

1. God appearing to them

2. They pitch a tent

3. On a mountain

4. They build alter and worship which include prayer and likely a sacrifice.

5. The place where these activities occur is often locate near or at Bethel, that is, “the house of God”.[18]

After the patriarchs comes the time where Moses goes to Mount Sinai to get the law and directions to building a tabernacle or temple for the LORD to dwell in. When we look at the even of Mount Sinai we can note that this event is in itself a picture or type of a temple. We have God presence in a dark cloud, a mountain, and a division of the sacred space into three parts. The outer courtyard, if you will, where the people congregate, then you have at the foot of the hill the priest, and then you have one man going up the mountain to the Holiest place.

Next is the temple built by Solomon. This temple and it’s direction have clear allusions back to Genesis. The temple is tripartite. The outer courtyard has pictures of lion and other beast on the basin. The colors and scheme to point to the earth. Next is the holy place where the colors, lights and images mirror that of heaven. Then in the holy of holies there is the presence of God in a dark cloud and the ten commandments and so on. The temple measurements were not huge by any means. In fact, the size was smaller than most temples. This is not to say the temple was not beautiful in comparison. Vos shares this comparison:

The temple of Solomon was not large, compared with other temples of antiquity. But to some degree it made up for the lack of size with quality and expense of decoration. Its dimensions were 75 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Its measurements were somewhat influenced by divine instruction, being double those of the tabernacle, which had been built according to God’s specific directions.[19]

He goes on to compare the size with some temples in Athens:

By comparison, the well-known Parthenon in Athens was 238 feet long, 111 feet wide, and 65 feet high. The nearby temple of Jupiter was 354 feet long, 135 feet wide, and over 90 feet high. [20]

Israel rebels against God and does not honor Him as the One and only true God. The temple is destroyed and the people are dispersed and taken captive. It is here we have the book Daniel written. In this book there is a vision of a mountain not cut with human hands that expands over the whole earth. This is to reminisce Genesis and the original temple that was lost being regained. Under the reign of the Persians, Israel is given the freedom to go back to their land and build their temple and walls. By this time there is confusion to where and who the people of God are. Scott comments on this Dilemma saying:

Some Jewish traditions associate the Samaritans’ building of a temple on Mount Gerizim with Nehemiah’s expulsion of Tobiah form the Jerusalem Temple. Others ascribe the building of the Samaritan temple to the time of Alexander the Great. Undoubtedly, the controversy between Samaritans and Jews over the place of worship and other matters was aggravated (if not begun) when both Samaria and Judea were parts of the Persian province called Beyond the River. [21]

Much more could be said in comparing the temples in the ANE. However, this should be a sufficient amount of information concerning the requirements of the paper. A doctorate could be easily written on this paper and most likely has by someone. However, this will conclude the section on comparing the temple of God’s people with the pagan temples in the ANE.

Application to what was taught concerning sacred space.

In the past 8 pages, we have looked at how the temple of God is similar to and different than the temples made to false gods. When one reflects and sees the similarities of the temples in the ANE. One can see the sovereignty of God, how God uses the nations and the people for His purposes. When we look at the differences, we see how lost we would be had it not been for God who has chosen to show us mercy and compassion.

But more important that all of that is that we are now God’s people. And He calls us holy ones in which His glory now dwells. We are a temple. No longer is land necessary for worship or fellowship with God. For wherever we go the Spirit is with us and we now worship God in “Spirit and in Truth”[22] There is no need of some physical building to represent God presence with His people, because those things were shadows to point to something greater! Although, we do not see the fullness of the beauty of this temple whose architect and builder is God, we hope with joy inexplicable. John Walton put it this way:

God’s presence does not dwell in a sanctuary today- there is no building that is sacred space. The temple is no more, and church buildings do not represent sacred space. It is fair to say that sacred space has not been a central plank in the theological platform of Protestant Christianity. There is, of course, good reason for that generation before the temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, a remarkable event took place. The Gospels report that at the moment Jesus died, the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Often Christians do not recognize the significance of this event because we have so little understanding of sacred space.[23]

Because that curtain has been torn in half we can now approach God, whenever and wherever we desire to. There is no “right place”, there is not wrong time. The holy of holies now dwells in the saints. This is truly, AWESOME!

Conclusion

In this paper I have contrasted and compared the temples in the ANE. I showed where the idea of sacred space came from and what it means. I have also shown, the development of the idea of sacred space as well as it’s redemption the sacred space that was lost at the fall. I trust that paper has met the requirements given in the syllabus. Thanks and God bless!

[1] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004)

[2] Ephraim Stern, “Archaeology of the Land of the Bible” , ( New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001) 2: 1: 118

[3] Lesley Adkins and Roy A. Adkins, “ Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome”, (New York, NY: Facts on File Inc., 1994) pg. 251

[4] Dalley, S. (1991) 1991:234, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford: Oxford University Press; see also the translation of Heidel 1942: 19

[5] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004) pg. 64

[6] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004) quote in Beales quote is taken from a book by Levenson 1988:110-111

[7] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004) pg. 52 quoting Breasted 1906:4:115 $ 192

[8] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press. 2004) pg. 88 quotes Breasted 1959: 46 and Budge 1951: 72,82,87,93-94,98,102,106,304

[9] Carol L. Meyers. P.H.D., Harpers Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul Achtemeier, (San Francisco, CA.: HarperSanFrancisco) pg. 1026

[10] Richard Allan Tomlinson, “The Oxford Classical Dictionary 3^rd Edition”, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) pg 1482

[11] Ephraim Stern, “Archaeology of the Land of the Bible” , ( New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001) 2: 1: 70

[12] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004) pg. 149

[13] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004) pg. 59

[14] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004) Pg. 59 and 60

[15] God recorded by Moses, “The Reformation Study Bible”, ed. By R.C. Sproul, (Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005) pg. 144

[16] God recorded by Isaiah, “The Reformation Study Bible”, ed. By R.C. Sproul, (Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005) pg. 1007

[17] G.A. Barrois, “ The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible” ed. By George Authur Buttrick, ( Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1962) R-Z pg. 566

[18] G.K. Beale, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission”, NSBT, ed. By D.A. Carson, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity Press, 2004) pg. 96

[19] Howard E. Vos, “ Nelson’s New Illustrate Bible Manners and Customs”, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999) pg. 177

[20] Ibid.

[21] J. Julius Scott Jr. , “Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament”, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995) pg. 77

[22] Jesus recorded by Apostle John, “The Reformation Study Bible”, ed. By R.C. Sproul, (Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005) pg. 1516

[23] John H. Walton and Andrew E. Hill, “ Old Testament Today” (Grand rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004) pg. 121-122

A brief overview on the doctrine of Eschatology

2007-12-10T21:33:00.000-06:00

In following doctrinal statement concerning eschatology I will define certain terms and views and lay out what I personal believe on the specific topic. The doctrines that will be covered in this paper are as follows: the nature of death, value and challenge of prophecy, rapture, Bema seat, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, Biblical covenants, the Tribulation, Millennial Kingdom views/systems, the nature of the Millennial Kingdom, resurrection and judgments, and eternal state being Heaven or Hell. Because of the purpose of this paper, I will only briefly go over each of these views. For a more thorough study of these topics, I refer the reader to systematic theology books by writers such as: Wayne Grudem, Robert L. Reymond, or Millard Erikson.

The nature of death has numerous meanings and understandings in scripture. Most often it is understood in some way to separation. Separation from freedom or most often God. In the Bible, Adam is told that the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he would surely die. This was not an empty threat. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they spiritually died, as well as, began the process of physically dieing. It should also be understood that death is the antithesis of life. Life is associated with God’s goodness, favor, blessings, or presence. So death would be the absence of all these things. The imagery of God hiding His face is often used in this way as well. The lake of fire is also referred to as the “2^nd death”. This is for numerous reasons, but, it should be understood that the Lake of fire is the complete removal of God’s goodness being given. Sorrow, loneliness, fear, pain, anguish, and suffering are all the results of an absence of God’s goodness being given or sometimes realized. Death has touched every man because all died in Adam. This effect is both corporate and individual. Everyone taste death, and experiences aspects of it in life. Those who are saved, have been delivered from the second death and no longer are subject to it. The believer, although his body is decaying, is alive, and is waiting with great hope of a new body, that is, imperishable. Death is the last enemy to be put in subjection under Jesus’ feet. I Corinthians 15 explains that Jesus will destroy death finally at His return.

The challenge in prophecy, has become abundantly clear to anyone who has done much reading on the topic. There is a large amount of disagreement on the timing and order of events with Evangelicalism. Anyone who picks up the book of Revelation will also see it to be a great challenge. One of the main reasons for prophecy being such a great challenge is due to its weaving of so much of Scripture together. For one to understand prophecy, one needs to have a good foundation in the rest of Scriptures. Prophecy can rarely be understood in itself alone. That is because the nature of prophetic books in the Bible is to link imagery, ideas, and concepts from the rest of the Bible and show its future and fulfillments. Much of the prophecy in the Old Testament is pointing to a need of a Messiah or what He will be like or what He will do. Because it is often not the purpose of the author to draw out a timeline of events for the reader but rather give hope, we find that it is often difficult to harmonize and organize the order of all the events prophesied. But the value of prophecy in Scripture is endless. One value is prophecies in the Bible, authenticate itself, to be what it claims to be, Words of God. Another value to prophecy is more of a practical one to the saints. Paul, in the New Testament, often uses prophecy to encourage the suffering saints. He often uses it to give them hope in a future. The book of Revelation was written to the seven churches, to grant hope in a secure victory and future fulfillment of promises. Prophecy is also used to prepare the people for certain events that are to take place. Prophecy has many other purposes but these three are the most prominent uses of how prophecy is used in the Bible.

The rapture has become quite a debatable topic in the last thirty years. This is because the number of different views concerning the topic. Within Evangelicalism there are four major views concerning the rapture. Those views are as follows: Pre-tribulationalism, Mid-tribulationalism, Pre-Wrath, and Post-tribulationalism. The two most popular views held are most likely Pre- and Post-tribulationalism. Historically, Post-tribulationalism was the only view held up until the mid 1800’s. Pre-tribulationalism formed from the dispensational system. Pre-tribulationalism became popularized mostly by Scofield’s Study Bible. It became so popular that it, seemingly, was the only view held by Evangelicals. In the last twenty years, Post-tribulationalism has become again a respected view by Evangelicals. All the differ on the timing of the rapture of the church. They can be understood by their prefixes. Pre-tribulationalism means that Christ comes for the church before the Tribulation. Mid-tribulationalism says that Christ comes for the church midway through the Tribulation. Pre-wrath believes that Christ comes for His church just prior to Him pouring out His wrath, which they believe to be about ¾ through the Tribulation. Post-tribulationalism teaches that Christ comes for His church after or at the end of the Tribulation. It is important to point out that all views agree, unanimously that Christ will come at the end of the Tribulation. However, the argument is over whether He will come prior to that coming for the church. I take the post-tribulational viewpoint for numerous reasons. Perhaps the most compelling reason, for me, is that Scripture only explicitly speaks of the timing of Christ coming as being directly after the Tribulation. All other views, see another coming prior to this one because of a system or because of other logical deductive reasons. I find none of these reasons compelling enough for me to have another coming of Christ. I see enough harmony and repetition of all the passages dealing with the coming of the LORD to see them as the same one. Some of the reasons the other camps will argue for a separate coming are as follows: there are differences on the passages dealing with Christ second coming to be two distinct events, God has promised not to pour out His wrath on the church, God pours out His wrath on the earth during the tribulation; therefore, the church can not be there, and the tribulation is for Israel so the church cannot be there or has no need to be there. The purpose of the tribulation is two-fold, it is the “trying of Jacob” and it is the judgments of God on the earth for peoples rebellion. During the tribulation, many will suffer and die from great catastrophes and wars. The participants of the tribulation is different depending on the view on the timing of the rapture. All views hold that God will abstain and protect His people from His wrath. The pre-tribulational view sees in no way the church being a participant in the tribulation. The mid-tribulational and pre-wrath view sees the church being present up until the point God begins to pour out His wrath which is somewhere between the mid and ¾ point of the way through the tribulation. The post-tribulational view sees both the Church, Israel, and earth dwellers all being present during the whole tribulation. All views would see Israel and earth dwellers being present on the earth during the tribulation. All views would also hold that their will be gentile believers on the earth during this time as well.

The Bema seat is the doctrine of a judgment that is unique only to the church saints. It is not a judgment of where the individual is going for eternity, but rather, how the saint will be rewarded for his faithfulness on the earth. This is a relatively new doctrine. It came as a result of a Dispensational, Pre-tribulational view that because the church is completely distinct from the nation of Israel, they will have a completely different judgment immediately proceeding the rapture which will take place before the Tribulation (it should be noted, however, that this view is held also by Mid-tribulationalist, as well as, those who hold to a Pre-wrath view, the only difference being the timing of the rapture, which will alter the timing of the judgment to some degree). This doctrine is found in Corinthians where Paul speaks to the Corinthians, telling them that they will one day stand before the Lord and have the works judged. The word Bema comes from the Greek, where Paul uses one of the Greek words for judgment. I feel as though, too much is built on so little when pertaining to this doctrine. Paul does not make such strong distinction of this judgment for the saints as those who hold to a separate Bema seat judgment would hold to.

The Marriage Supper of the Lamb is found in Revelations 19. It should be understood as a celebration between the Bride of Christ and Christ. Whether their will be physical food there or that this is just imagery pointing to a celebration is unsure. There is no reason to not take it literal, as being a great feast. Indeed, the saints will be capable of eating in their resurrected bodies. The Dispensational view sees this taking place in heaven during the Tribulation and after the Bema seat judgment. Not much more can be said about this feast.

One of the major reasons for the disagreements on how one should organize the events of the future had to do with the understanding of the Biblical covenants. The covenants being debated over are: Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, and in some ways the New Covenant. The Dispensationalist sees the fulfillment of these covenants being in the Millennial Kingdom to the ethnic nation of Israel. These covenants promise: land, a reigning king on the throne of David, rest, and blessings forever. Many debate over whether the covenants have been fulfilled spiritually in the Church or some say they were taken away because of Israel’s unbelief. Both these takings do not do the covenants justice to what they promise or who they are made too. It is important to understand that these covenants were made “unconditionally”. That means that nothing was required on the part of the recipient of the party in the covenant for it to be fulfilled. God has promised that He will do this, no matter what. The covenants cannot be transferred to another party nor can they be changed (i.e. spiritual only fulfillment). I hold to a expansive view, in that, just like in the Old Testament, God considered people like Rehab or the Egyptians that followed Israel out of captivity and followed the God of Israel were considered a part of the nation of Israel. The time that we are in is strange for the original branches have been broken off and hardened and yet a larger group of foreign branches are being grafted in. God is still going to give the nation of Israel its promises, however, God has used Israel as a vehicle to bless all the nations. And so, many will be brought into these covenants as they follow the God of Israel. It is also important that any who hold that the Millennial Kingdom will be the fulfillment of all the Biblical Covenants cut the promises short as well. This is because the promises were made to be given “forever”. As a literalist, in a good way, a thousand years does not fulfill the promise of forever! I see the fulfillment of these covenants being fulfilled in the both physical and spiritual “New Heavens” and “New Earth”.

There are many differing views concerning the Millennial Kingdom. The word millennial comes from Revelation 20 where we are told Christ will reign for a “thousand” years. Although, this is not the only passage speaking of a reign of Christ, it is the only one that speaks of Him reigning for a thousand years. This does not mean, that if there was no Revelation 20 there would be no Pre-millennialist. There are three major views on this topic of the Millennial Kingdom, they are as follows: Premillenialism, Postmillenialism, and Amillenialism. Again, one can understand these views by just looking at the prefixes on the words. Again this is dealing with the time of Christ coming in relation to the Millennial Kingdom. The premillenialist says that Christ second coming, comes before the Kingdom. The post- and Amillienialist see Christ second coming, taking place at the end of the Millennial Kingdom. Dispensationalist are Premillenialist but this does not mean all Premillenialist are Dispensationalist. This is because even within Premillenialism there is varying degrees of understanding of the purpose for being. The premillenialist sees the Kingdom as in the future in which Jesus Christ will physically reign on the throne of David on the earth in Jerusalem for a thousand years. In this time, there will be long life, peace, prosperity, removal of much of the curse from a result of the fall. Much of its conditions will be likened to the time of Adam and Eve in Eden. However, there will be sin and death in this period. As well as, a rebellion at the end of the age, in which, Satan will rise up an army as many as the sand on the shore against the gates of Jesus’ kingdom. Jesus will send down fire and judge them and this will close the end of this Kingdom. The Amillienialist and Postmillennialist see this kingdom being now in a more spiritual sense. They will use the parables often to show that the Kingdom of God is a growing process. The Postmillennialist would differ with the Amillienialist in that they would see a golden age at the ends of this kingdom, because of a result in the spreading of the gospel to all the nations. I would take a modified Amillennial view. It seems that Scripture consisting speak of the order that when Christ returns it is judgment and eternal state. This fits with the parables of Jesus, as well as, Jesus’ descriptions of what His kingdom is like. It also, to me, has the least amount of problems in it with harmonizing all of Scripture. This being said, I am wavering on this topic and am not firmly standing in this position or any for the reason that no view seems to be without it’s holes.

The resurrection ties itself with a lot of other doctrines when dealing with eschatology. In a dispensational mind-set there are three major resurrections. They are as follows: rapture of the church, those as His second coming, and those who have died during the Millennial Kingdom. In a not Dispensational, Premillennial view there are two and they are as follows: those at Jesus second coming, those who die during the Millennial Kingdom. In the A- and Postmillennial view there is one general resurrection. That is those at His coming. It should also be understood that there are two types of resurrection. A resurrection of life and a resurrection to judgment. The resurrection to life is for the just or God’s children and the resurrection to judgment or death is for the unjust of children of wrath. We find this in John 5 as well as Revelation 20. Interesting enough the same writer for both of these passages. For the saints the resurrection is a glorious hope in which sanctification will be completed and what is known as “glorification” will take place. The bodies given are given a long list of blessings found in I Corinthians 15. We are not told what type of bodies those who are raise to judgment receive. Perhaps they are not different then the ones they died in. This would, indeed, be a judgment in itself.

The other judgment found in Scripture is the Great White Throne Judgment, which is found in Revelation 20. In this passage the books are opened and God sends all the raised to there eternal state and judges them according to their deeds. The sheep will enter into His eternal Kingdom. The goats will enter into eternal judgment in the Lake of Fire. It should be understood that both of these judgments are eternal. One who has sinned against an infinite God will take forever to pay his debt to God. The righteous will enjoy in the blessings of God and His Kingdom forever because there righteousness is also infinite.

The Eternal state should be understood as a place of both physical and spiritual aspects. Thus the need for a resurrection for both parties. Those raised to a second death are in a place completely separated from God’s face or goodness forever. This is a place of utter torment. It is where God pours out His wrath on the ungodly. This is a sobering truth that needs to be understood for both peoples, the saved and unsaved. Heaven will also be a real physical and spiritual place of utter ecstasy. Here the saint will see and taste the richness of God and His goodness forever and ever. Here it is said of God, “ I will be your God, you will be my people, and I will dwell among you.” This is indeed a complete restoration of what was lost in the original fall of man, but also greater than the original creation in many respects. The bond and relationship between God and man is greater. Here, God has become incarnate so as to be fully manifested to His people. Here is no a promise or never failing or falling of man again. There are other ways in which the New Heavens and New Earth will be greater than the first, but this does not fall into the purpose or topics of this paper.

In closing, I have covered all the doctrine I listed in the first paragraph. I have also given a brief summary on where I stand pertaining these doctrines. I hope this will suffice for the requirements of this paper and will be pleasing not only in the sight of Dr. Zuber, but more so in the sight of God. For whom, I have done this paper.

Psalm 8

2007-08-25T09:55:00.000-05:00

O LORD, our Lord,
How majestic is your name in the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens! From the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have established strength , because of Your adversaries, to make the enemy and revengeful cease.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars, which you have ordained; What is man that you take thought of him, And the son of man that you care for him? Yet you made him a little lower than the angels, and you crown him with glory and majesty! You make him rule over the works of your hands;

You have put all things under his feet,

All sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,

Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.

O LORD, our Lord,
How majestic is Your name in all the earth!

The Gospel: The Cross of Christ

2007-04-30T20:09:00.000-05:00

I personally want to invite and plead with everyone to make time to listen to this sermon! Click on my link for sermon audio when you get to the site go to the link sermon by speaker after you have gone there in list look for Paul Washer. There will be a list of sermons there and click "play" for the sermon entitle "The Gospel: The Cross of Christ". I am confident it will administer grace to you! Please! Again, make time to listen to this sermon it is along one but again it will be more benficial to you then wathcing a movie or just surfing the web. Those who are married perhaps turn it into a date night and get it out and sit on the couch and listen to this sermon together. Please take advantage of this opportunity! God bless you all!!!

I am a man of unclean lips and I live amongst a people of unclean lips!

2007-04-28T22:27:00.000-05:00

As I continue through Ephesians I seem to be contiually reminded of the depravity of my own heart! It is amazing of what an effect the Word of God can have on you. Is it not?

The book of James speaks of the Bible as being a mirror at which we are able to accurately see ourselves. Sadly, the more I see of myself from scripture, the more I see that which I hate!

This not necessarily a bad thing!

See, this is the point of the gospel! It's not something we do once for salvation and never look to again. The gospel is the "power of God" by which I continually place my trust and hope because I find none within myself.

My hope is in Christ! My faith is in the God that "chose me" , "saved me" and is now making me like Christ. It is not done by my efforts! For this is clear in scriptures, that I can find no hope in myself, but I can have all the hope there is in Christ who works in me!

This being said, I am basically giving the ground work to speak on what sin is in me that God has recently exposed with His Light (the Word).

Here's the passage I was reflecting on:

"Therefore, be imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love. Just as Christ loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God, as a fragant aroma. But immorality and all impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper as saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which is not fitting, but rather giving of thanks."

Now, growing up, I have often prided myself in the fact that I have never said a "swear word". I am not gonna get into which words qualify as the swear words and which are thought as minor bad words. The point is that I have never seen myself as being one who struggles with sinning with my mouth.

OH! How much more WRONG could I be!

Not only am I guilty of not fulfilling what I am "to do" with my mouth which is stated in Eph. 4:29 as well as the end of 5:4. That is to "ONLY" use my mouth to edify, to build up, and to give thanks. But also, I am guilty of often both allowing for filthiness, silly talk, and coarse jesting to entertain me, and to use them myself to entertain or amuse others!

After reflecting on how horribly I have failed in fulfilling what I am commanded to do.I was then burdened for all those around me who are guilty of the exact same thing and probably not thought twice about it, as did I!

Oh how I wish someone would have shown me sooner the sin I have allowed in my life for soooo long! My life was filled with this. Movies and my own conversation have been often fillled with this and yet I go on as though I was innocent of this sin.

If only we could view sin as God does! We seem to think that we can Love God and Love righteousness and not have to hate sin and wickedness equally as much.

But the truth is we fool ourselves. For our hearts ARE desperately wicked and decietful above all things who can know it!

The truth is one cannot "love" something anymore than that same person "hates" the antithesis of that thing he claims to love!

You see, I "LOVE" babies, and so I "HATE" abortion!

We tend to not so much hate sin and wickedness as much as be "uncomfortable" with it. And yet scriptures speak of sin as the very thing God will pour out His WRATH on. How then are we different from the world if we do not HATE sin? For I know unbelieving people who are uncomfortable with sin as well, but they do not hate it!

We seem to be "ok" with compromising sin in things that we watch or listen to or even say because well, "it's not THAT bad" or "it doesn't really effect me".

These are lies from our own decietful hearts and the evil one! If We truly love all that is right and good then we will truly hate all that is bad and wicked and will do whatever we can to seperate ourselves from that which is impure.

Is this not what God does?

So the challenge has been to me and I hope to you as well is to "examine yourself". what are you feeding yourself. what are you allowing yourself to delight in? Are you laying aside the "old man" or are you feeding him with this wickedness.

Guard yourselves! Be careful dear brothers and sisters what you allow yourself to watch and listen to! I implore with all my heart to seperate from that which is unclean and impure with all fervency. Guard your tongue and watch what you say.

Does what comes out of your mouth line up with this list of: filthiness, silly talk, and coarse jesting, or does what you say line up with that which is pure, profitable, and edifiying to those around you, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

I close with a passage from James.

"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts you double-minded."

-James 4:8

check out this blog!

2007-04-26T19:21:00.000-05:00

Everyone should check out the blog on Adam's site! Just click my link to Adam's Blog and you can read it there! I am confident that it will be a blessing to you! God bless everyone! I hope to have a new blog up for you soon!

Every part is NEEDED!!!

2007-04-23T18:58:00.000-05:00

In the Last blog we looked at some important gifts that are given to the Church for the building up of it.

It is has often been thought, although not often said, that these gifts: Apostleship, Prophecy, Evangelists, Pastors and teachers are more important than some of the other gifts that are given to the church for the building up of itself.

This thought is so destructive!

It IS taught in scripture that EVERY part is necessary for the building up of the Church. Please follow me in Ephesians 4.

"Until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of statue which belongs to the fullness of Christ. So then we will no longer be children tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the TRUTH in LOVE, we are to grow up in ALL aspects into Him who is the head, Christ. From whom the body being fitted and held together by what EVERY JOINT SUPPLIES, according to the proper working of each INDIVIDUAL PART, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love."

I put the all the words I wanted to emphasize in all caps.

When I first came across this passage I was so greatly distured in my soul. And this is why, I am a firm believer in God's sovereignty and it has long been my conviction that Christ build's His Church, Christ will build HIMSELF a temple.

Indeed, this is what it says in Matthew 16:18. However, there is more to the story yet to be revealed by God to His holy Apostles and Prophets concerning this mystery of Christ.

And so here we are with my dilemma, "If Christ builds His Church how then is this passage saying it is 'fitted' and "held" together by ALL the parts which 'causes the growth'?"

This, however, after much prayer and meditating became a passage of scripture that has most encouraged me these past few days.

Christ, indeed, is and will continue to build His Church. And nothing not even the gates of Hell are going to stop Him! But here is the cool part, what the Ephesians passages then answers is "how is He going to build it?"

CHRIST is both working IN us and THROUGH us to build His church. And it is absolutely crucial that every part does it's job. I need the brother in Africa so that I may grow! And there are brothers in China who need me so that they may grow. And if one part of the body were to fail, then the church would cease from growing!

This is a HUGE and IMPORTANT truth that needs to be proclaimed more often dear brothers and sisters! Know this! You are important not because of what you can do! But because of what God IS doing THROUGH you.

Remeber back when we were examining Ephesians 3 and we saw that God answers request according to the "power" that works "within US". This is the same idea!

Paul has taken it from, chapter 3, an individual basis and is now showing this on a universal scale! This brings me much joy that God is working THROUGH ME not only to make me like Christ! But He is also working THROUGH ME constantly to cause the growth of every single one of my dear brothers and sisters to be like Christ.

God works through us in such a way that the Temple of God is both "fitted" and "held together" by what every single one of us supplies. And He does this how?

"...according to the proper working of each individual part..."

Are you beginning to see this GLORIOUS TRUTH?

Jesus, after purchasing for us redemption, the Holy Spirit, and so much more on the cross, ascended into the highest point where He is seated and sent us the HOLY SPIRIT who distributes among the church specific and crucial gifts perfectly appointed for its particular good work which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them! And in return God is glorifed for being both the author and finisher of His Temple in which He dwells and will soon (Maranatha) dwell in the fullness of His glory!

I rejoice in this truth and I will continue to rejoice in this TRUTH!

And I rejoice in knowing that the Spirit inside of you rejoices with me! I would like to close with a passage of scripture I closed another blog with that I feel is applicable.

"Now to Him who is able to do for more abundantly beyond ALL that we ask or think, according to the POWER that works within US, to HIM be the GLORY in the Church and in Christ Jesus, to ALL GENERATIONS forever and ever! AMEN!"

-God through the Apostle Paul

Modern Day Apostles and Prophets????

2007-04-15T13:44:00.000-05:00

"Stephen, what in the world are you talking about! There is no such thing as a modern day apostle or prophet." I can already assume what the majority of my readers are going to say when seeing this title. However, as I continue in my venture I am compelled to be honest and share what interesting things I am learning from Ephesians as I dig into the word which God has given to us for us to grow.

So what am I talking about? "Where are you getting this topic in the first place", you may be asking.

Well it all started as I was meditating on Ephesians 4:7-16. Paul is now speaking of the unity of the church and the instruments God has ordained for the building up of it. So Paul speaks of the gifts that were given to the church from Christ. It reads, "But to each one of us grace was given, according to the measure of Christ's gift."

When were these gifts given you may ask. They were given at His ascension when He led the captive free and He sat down at the right hand of God. When Jesus sent His Spirit to the church these gifts were delegated to elect individuals that God chose for the very purpose of building up the church, the bride of Christ.

What are these gifts you may ask. Well the gifts listed off in Ephesians are listed in order of there authority I think. (See I Cor. 12:27-28) They are as follows: "and He gave some as apostles, and some prophets, and some as evangelist, and some as pastors and teachers.

What for, you may then ask. "For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;"(Eph. 4:12).

So what does this have to do with today? What does this have to do with Modern day apostle and prophets? Haven't these gifts ceased since the finishing of the New Testament? What in this context would even imply that these gifts of offices are still here today for the equipping of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ? Allow me to quote the next verse.

"UNTIL we ALL attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." Eph. 4:13

Paul points out that these gifts of offices were given for the purpose of the equipping of the saints for the building up of the body of Christ (which is the Church) UNTIL everyone within the church has attained to the unity of the faith. Not only that but also until everyone has become a mature man to the measure of stature which belongs to the FULLNESS of Christ.

This is important to point out because I have never in all my years been taught or heard anyone speak of the Church arriving to this point nor would anyone be able to prove that every individual within the church has matured to point to the fullness of Christ. And there is good reason for this. For these things will not come about until Christ returns for His Bride(I John 3:2).

"So knowing this now what could this possibly mean?"

This was my question as I was coming to these truths. I began to think back of all the reasons I had believed otherwise, all the teaching I recieved explaining why these gifts were gone.

I was left unsatisfied.

I then went to commentarries but none of them venture to explain verse 13's first word "UNTIL".

The president of Emmaus (William MacDonald), President of Master's Seminary(Dr. John Mac Authur), renouned scholar from Trinity D.A. Carson, and good ol' Matthew Henry, at best attempted to explain how, because in Ephesians 2:20, they are the foundation of the church. That, therefore, must elimnate them from being around today. They also pointed out how the apostles all saw Christ and that this was requirement for one being an Apostle.

These are good points, however, when one is honest with this text with a biblical exegesis none of those clearly eliminate the possibilty of a modern day Apostle and Prophet.

Couldn't the Apostles and Prophet be the foundation of the church and still be offices for the edification of the church today? Couldn't modern day apostles see Christ as Paul did?

Although, I am not claiming that there are, these are all nonetheless fair possibilities scripturally. Are they not?

"So then Stephen, what ARE you claiming, or suggesting?"

What I am recommending to you, the reader, to study God's Word diligently and show me with plain and simple logic from scripture that there can't be a modern day apostle or prophet. For this is the dilemma I am having as well.

However, I will say this, there are testimonies from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ of God doing miraculous things through individuals in other countries, such as China. Things that an apostle would do(II Cor. 12:12). And the church as a whole there view him as an apostle. Are we to call them liars? Are we to assume they are just primitive and possibly decieved? Or are we to believe their testimonies and rejoice with them that God is still moving in mighty ways through men that He has risen up for the purpose of the equipping of the saints and the building and perfecting of His bride the Church?

One book I suggest reading is "The Heavenly Man". It speaks of a brother who was miraculously saved and whom God has been working through to perform mighty works in China.

I request for you not to be so quick to "write someone off" as a liar or foolish for believing in God still raising up men whom He has entrusted these gifts to bring about His work in, through, and to the church.

Is it possible for there to be modern day apostles and prophets? You tell me. For I am just beginning my theology on this topic and what it could possibly mean.

God bless you all, and rejoice that, in either way, God is bringing about His work and He will finish His work in, through, and to the Church so that it may be presented to the Son: holy, blameless, and without blemish in the fullness of stature which belongs to Christ.

As a result, "we will no longer be children tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in decietful scheming. But speaking the TRUTH in love, we are to grow up in ALL aspects into Him who is the Head, Christ. From whom the whole body being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in Love." -God through the Apostle Paul to the church of Ephesus

I anxiously await this day with all hope and joy! and Rejoice in knowing my fellow brothers and sisters do as well! God bless!

Is God SELFISH for His glory?

2007-04-10T12:49:00.001-05:00

For the past couple of months I have been working my way through Ephesians and I cannot help come to ask this question.

Is God "SELFISH" for His glory?

In the first chapter alone there are numerous references stating that God does these things for "His glory", "His purpose" , "His pleasure" and a number of other forms pointing back to Himself and His glory. This is truly amazing because for anyone to do this they would be understood as boastful, prideful, egotistical, and completely selfish.

So whats the deal here? How are we to follow in God's footsteps when it states He does this very thing. And how is God found to be righteous in doing this?

This is the conclusion I have come to in meditating on these passages. God is truly worth all that He PROCLAIMS. You see, He is found JUST in doing this very thing! He would be wrong in not doing so. For God not to seek to GLORIFY His name above all other things (first) would be idolatry.

It is wrong for us to be selfish for ourselves and to boast about ourselves because we are NOT by any means worthy of these proclamation (we are not God). For us to praise any other being than God is idolatry and for God to praise any other being (or place any other person as being more valuable) but Himself is also idolatry.

So, in ephesians where God has told us that HE chooses and works all things for His will, pleasure, or glory. God is essentially worshipping HIMSELF. He is glorying in HIMSELF. God is being selfish and HE will do it HIS way.

God is not a contigent being. However, we are! God's choice in us, God's plan of salvation before the foundations of the world is not bethwarted by any means! It is coming about just as HE has "predestined" it to be. And in this He rejoices! And yes!!!! I will rejoice with Him! For I know He is working all things together for according to His good pleasure! and what He desires is "good" and it is, what is, "best".

"Having predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, to HIMSELF, according to the 'good' pleasure of 'HIS' will. to the PRAISE of the glory of HIS grace."

-God through the Apostle Paul to the church of Ephesus

God glories in me???

2007-04-03T22:03:00.000-05:00

Over a month ago I was meditating on Ephesians chapter one and I came across the verse ,". . . so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power towards us who believe. . ." This caught my eye. In the context Paul is praying for the Ephesians he says, "For this reason, I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus, which exist among you, and your love for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you while making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power towards us who believe..." Paul in reflecting on the gospel and knowing that they believe and seeing their love for the saint rejoices and prays to the Father that He would give them a "spirit" of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. He prays that God would open the eyes of their heart so that they mayknow three things. What are those three things? First that they would know the hope of His calling. We learn more of this calling and what hopes are tied to it in the following chapters. But then he gives the second which is to know what are the riches of the glory of God inheritance in us the saints!!! This is UNBELIEVABLE! All my days I have been told of the riches of God and the glory of God and to glory in Him. But never that the Father glories in us?!?! How is this possible? What is it in me or in any of the saints for God to glory in? The answer is nothing! But yet He glories in His inheritance in us "the saints" because we have been redeemed by His sons blood! The value in us is in what we have been purchased with! The value in us is in what our redemptions communicates to all creation. The whole chapter continues to speak of God causing salvation on whom He chooses according to "His will" and according to "His purpose" and according to "His good pleasure". Then is goes on to say in verse13-14, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, having also believed you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the REDEMPTION of God's own POSSESSION, to the praise of His glory." This is in direct accordance with Paul's prayer and this is why he says in the following verse, "for this reason...". God can glory in us because we are the REDEEMING of His own possessions! God can glory in us because it is in us that the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness is made known in the ages to come. Because it is in the redeeming of us that God's manifold wisdom is made known in all the heavens and to the rulers and authorities there. God's glorying in us is virutally rejoicing in Himself and in His handy work and His glory being made known to all creation and in this God is glorified! This is how God can glory in His inheritance in the saints. Truly God is worthy of this glory and this praise is due Him.

The Fullness of God???

2007-04-02T22:08:00.000-05:00

"...that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God." God through the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians in chapter 3:19b

what does it mean to be filled up to all the fullness of God. Is not the believer the dwelling place of God? Surely he is, for it clearly states that at the conclusion of the previous chapter. So then what does this saying mean? In the context Paul has been dealing with Christ and His body. In particular the "mystery of Christ". He then states that the church of all things is the administration the Father has chosen to reveal the manifold wisdom of God to the "rulers and authorities in the heavenly places", thats quite a blessing and humbling responsibility. Paul then moves on to something that is linked to this topic, however, he is moving on to something new, this is why he states "for this reason..." and then goes on to speak of it. Paul's reason is to pray before the Father to grant strengthen all the saints with "power" through His "Spirit" in the "inner man". He then says the result of this is Christ dwells in our hearts. Here, Paul is pleading to the Father for the equipping and building up of all the saints. So then, how is a Christian sanctified? By God granting strength with POWER through HIS SPIRIT in our inner man. the result is quite beautiful. We come to understand the breadth, length, height, and depth of the Love of Christ. This Love of Christ surpasses knowledge. The other result of this is we are filled up to all the fullness of God. So what does this mean? I am still pondering this however it is my current positon to believe that this passage is dealing with the sanctification of the saint/believer. It is true that God indwells in all His saints. And it is not as though part of God is in us but part of Him is not. God cannot be fractioned into pieces, for He is spirit. However, the intensity by which He dwells in us can change. And this is the glorious part. When our Savior Christ Jesus returns, the fullness of God's GLORY will be in us. Can you imagine? It is utterly beautiful and amazing. No wonder Paul finds himself praying for this. No wonder he bowed his knees before the Father. This is why and how God has chosen the church to be the instrument by which He shows the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places His manifold wisdom. This passage is ultimately about God glorifying HIMSELF!!!! Oh what a mighty God we are blessed to serve. I would like to conclude with the rest of the passage.

"Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us. to HIM be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever! AMEN!" Ephesians 3:20-21

Welcoming All!!!

2007-04-02T22:00:00.000-05:00

Hello and welcome to my new blog site. I hope you will take time to ponder along with me the Glories of God. I am dedicated this site to God as I study and examine His Word I hope to be a tool of His to proclaim the Unfathomable riches of Christ. Comments are much desired and any input is appreciated. I am currently going through Ephesians so as I meditate on His Word I will be posting on what I learn from there, or just blogging with what I have been pondering from this epistle God-breathed through the Apostle Paul. God bless!!! Thanks again for stopping by!