Tarheel Covenant Blog

Election in the Book of Acts

2012-02-03T08:15:00.004-05:00

The Book of Acts is a history book, the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. This in no way undermines its infallibility. However, such books aren't generally useful as a doctrinal foundation. They tell us more about what God and His people have done, rather than what they have taught or believed. The reversal of that hermeneutical principle is how we ended up with some of the more bizarre doctrines of some Pentecostals, such as the modalism of the United Pentecostal Church. However, that is not to say that there is no theology in it; I merely suggest that it be used as support for a doctrine, not the foundation.

For example, sovereign election is most-explicitly a Pauline doctrine, though it is certainly prominent throughout both Testaments. Somehow, the Pentecostals overlook it while mining for their distinctive doctrines in Acts.

First consider Acts 4:27-28, "Truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." This is a portion of the prayer of the Apostles after they had been hauled before the Sanhedrin. I think it is especially significant that the Apostles find comfort and renewal in their knowledge that all that had occurred was only according to the prior plan and purpose of God.

And in Acts 13:48, we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Arminians are especially annoyed by this verse. They try to say that those that believe are appointed to eternal life. They gnash their teeth when anyone points out that the Scriptures teach the opposite order: those whom God has appointed to eternal life come unfailingly to believe.

Psalm 5:4-6, The Inconvenient Holiness of God

2012-01-29T16:53:00.003-05:00

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not dwell with you.
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
You destroy those who speak lies;
the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man."

Liberal ministers and the average nominal American Christian both love to talk about a loving God. "I believe in a loving God who accepts me as I am," they say. And it is true that love is a core attribute of God. See, for example, John 3:16 and I John 4:16. However, they wax eloquent over the love of God, not because they enjoy praising Him, but rather because it enables them to block from their consciences the other attributes of God, namely His holiness.

Notice what this Psalm tells us. God doesn't delight in wickedness and evil may not dwell with Him. He opposes the boastful, evildoers, liars, the bloodthirsty, and the deceitful. In fact, David even tells us that He hates them!

We find similar words in Habakkuk 1:13, "You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong..."

We find in Psalm 5 and Habakkuk that God isn't constrained by our fleeting standards of sophistication or political correctness. He doesn't allow us to divide Him, receiving the characteristics with which we are comfortable, but excluding those which might make us uncomfortable. David repeats this theme in Psalm 139. In verses 19 and 20, he pleads, "Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! O men of blood, depart from me! They speak against you with malicious intent; your enemies take your name in vain!" Then he says of himself in verses 21 ans 22, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies." David professes hatred for the enemies of God! I suspect that this is a major part of the reason that God refers to David as "a man after my own heart" (Acts 13:22).

Finally, isn't it significant that those who deny or ignore the holiness of God are repeating the very words of Satan, when he tempted Eve, "Did God actually say..." (Genesis 3:1)?

The REAL God: It Ain't you!

2012-01-27T21:06:00.003-05:00

As I have noted before, I don't believe that the religion of modern America is Christianity, but rather Deism, i. e., the belief that there is a God, but He doesn't take an active role in the world. Americans love our religiosity, as long as it doesn't interfere with our own sovereignty over our lives! Just enough religion to be comfortable, but not enough actually to affect how we live.

The problem is this: the God of the Bible doesn't allow Himself to be boxed in that way. He has a discomfiting habit of insisting that He is God and we aren't.

Consider Psalm 115:3, "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." Short but straightforward. As is Psalm 103:19, "The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all." And again in Psalm 135:6, "The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths." The sovereignty of God was a favorite theme of the psalmists.

the Prophet Isaiah chimes in on the theme. Isaiah 14:24 and 27, " The Lord of hosts has sworn: 'As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand... For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?'" For, as the prophet also says in Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols."

And the Prophet Amos gives us God's words in Amos 3:6, "Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?" He declares that God is even sovereign in bringing disaster. Job reinforces this point in Job 2:10. "'Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?' In all this Job did not sin with his lips." The inspired text even reinforces his point by telling us that Job's comment wasn't sinful!

American evangelicalism is sinfully man-centered, especially that portion known as the "Prosperity Gospel." In contrast, the Bible is radically God-centered. I suspect that uis the reason that the bulk of American evangelicalism is losing membership and growing increasingly impotent. God has given the professing Christians what they wanted: their own spiritual sovereignty. And it has destroyed our nation's spiritual heritage.

Reprobation in the Old Testament

2012-01-24T10:15:00.004-05:00

Reprobation is the flip side of the doctrine of election. Just as God, out of His free and sovereign grace, has ordained some to mercy, out of His sovereign holiness and justice, He has ordained the rest to perdition for their sins. While many Evangelicals balk at this doctrine, it certainly isn't because of any lack of biblical support for it, especially in the Old Testament!

Consider Deuteronomy 2:30, "Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day." God had purposed the destruction of Sihon and his people, so He hardened the king's heart.

And Joshua 11:19-20, "There was not a city that made peace with the people of Israel except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took them all in battle. 20For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses." Here we see the same act of hardening, but over a larger area.

Or the case of the son's of Eli, I Samuel 2:25, "'If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?' But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death." Eli tried to warn them about their evil ways, but God had already determined on their destruction, so He hardened their hearts against the words of their father.

Arminians resist the significance of these passages. They hold that God only hardened the hearts after the respective people had already hardened their own hearts, i.e., what is known as "judicial hardening." However, that appears nowhere in these passages, except in the case of the sons of Eli. Rather, the Arminian commits the very error that Paul refutes in Romans 9:21, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" As Creator and Lord, God has a sovereign right to use His creatures as He sees fit. Our only option is to bow our heads and bless the Lord for His justice.

Erastianism: The Trojan Horse of the Marriage Debate

2011-12-31T20:03:00.008-05:00

"Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, 'You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day.' Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, 'We are witnesses.'"
-Ruth 4:9-11a

The Zwinglian Theologian Thomas Erastus is known for the philosophy named for him, Erastianism, which is a theory of church government that holds that the church should be subservient to the state in a Christian nation. This was in opposition to the Catholic doctrine that the state should be subservient to the church. And both rejected the Augustinian "two-swords" doctrine, according to which the church and the state are mutually independent.

The predominant view of American evangelicals toward state recognition of same-sex marriages is that such recognition should be forbidden. In fact, I bring the matter up because my own state is holding a March referendum on adding such a prohibition to our state constitution. I am opposed to that amendment for two reasons, neither of which, I am sure, is coming into the mind of my reader right now.

First of all, I am appalled by the bait-and-switch tactics used by the proponents of this amendment. The debate has focused on whether same-sex couples should marry. That isn't the issue being voted on! The question is whether the state should recognize such marriages, which is a logically-distinct question. By distracting the debate with the false question, the lovers of the state have an opening for their agenda, which leads to my second and main objection.

There are neutral principles in law that apply to everyone, banning fraud and force. In marriage, that is the legitimate basis for banning, for example, the marriage of children. Those principles are neutral because they are general, applying to all classes of people. However, this amendment forbids a minister, as such, from performing his duty in a situation opposed by the state. That is not general; it is specifically a restriction that applies to the minister in his spiritual role.

That is why I raise the warning against Erastianism. Certainly I understand that the minister should be accountable, primarily to God and secondarily to his church. However, to make him accountable to the state is the essence of Erastianism, and I must oppose it as such.

Take a look at the text I use at the top of this post. It is a famous portion of the story of Ruth, in which Boaz takes her as his wife. Notice what he does: he informs the elders of his marriage contract with Ruth. He appoints that town elders as witnesses. At no point does he ask their permission to marry Ruth. In fact, nowhere in scripture is the government given any role in marriage, except - as noted above- to prevent force or fraud. And that is exactly where we have gone off track. The church has surrendered the family to the state. Therefore, I oppose this amendment as more of the same, and plead for American Christians to throw off the shackles of Erastianism, and return to the biblical pattern for the church and family.

I will close with this passage form the 18th-Century Scottish Minister William Wilson, one of the founders of the Associate Presbytery: "The Lord Jesus Christ alone, as Mediator, is Head, Lord, and Lawgiver unto His Church, and to Him alone it belongs to give laws, ordinances, and statutes unto the office-bearers of His house, in their several [respective] spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and administrations... and unto the Lord Jesus alone it appertains to give instructions unto His ministers, to regulate them in the exercise of their ministry..."

Is Infallibility of the Pope or of the Church Biblical?

2011-12-18T19:47:00.004-05:00

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."
-I John 4:1

The Church of Rome claims for itself that it is blessed with infallibility, that is, that it is incapable of error. She claims this for Her Church as a whole, and for the Pope in particular. In polemics against the churches of the Reformation, Rome claimed that this infallibility made her naturally superior to the Reformers, who explicitly eschewed any personal infallibility.

However, what do the scriptures say? We see above the statement of the Apostle John: The Christian must test the spirits, never accepting spiritual claims at face value, for there are false prophets in the world. In John 5:39, the same Apostle quotes the Lord's praise for those who search the scriptures for knowledge of Him. A little further in the New Testament in Acts 17:11, the believers of Berea are praised for "examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

In other words, the scriptures give the exact opposite surety from the Catholic Church: the foundation of our faith isn't from an infallible Pope or infallible Church, but rather from an infallible Bible, for "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," (II Timothy 3:16).

Song 5:2-6, the Danger of Complacency

2011-11-27T19:29:00.004-05:00

"I slept, but my heart was awake.
A sound! My beloved is knocking.
'Open to me, my sister, my love,
my dove, my perfect one,
for my head is wet with dew,
my locks with the drops of the night.'
I had put off my garment;
how could I put it on?
I had bathed my feet;
how could I soil them?
My beloved put his hand to the latch,
and my heart was thrilled within me.
I arose to open to my beloved,
and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with liquid myrrh,
on the handles of the bolt.
I opened to my beloved,
but my beloved had turned and gone.
My soul failed me when he spoke.
I sought him, but found him not;
I called him, but he gave no answer."

We often hear sermons warning the unbeliever that he shouldn't put off closing with Jesus as Savior. And it is proper that we do so. However, there is also the danger of the believer being complacent, somnolent, when Jesus comes to him. Why does Jesus come to the believer? There are many possible reasons: to give instruction, to comfort, or to apply discipline, just for starters. We see it happening in the passage above. The Lord knocks at the door of His beloved, but she doesn't want to get out of bed. Then, when she does rouse herself, He is nowhere to be found.

My mind dwells especially on the line where the woman complains that she has already washed her feet, and doesn't want to get them dirty again. I think of the shallow Christian who believes his sins are forgiven, and now he doesn't need anything else from Christ. Isn't that the very attitude that is so commonly produced by today's altar-call evangelism? "Thank you Jesus; I'll let you know when I need you again."

This passage applies, whether we are talking of the individual believer or of an entire congregation. We see the latter in Revelation 3:20.

In a sermon in 1840, Scottish Presbyterian Minister Robert Murray McCheyne explains, "To awaken out of sleep is to see sin as it is - your heart as it is - Christ as He is - and the love of God in Christ. And you can see all this by looking to Calvary's cross. O! it is an awful thing to look to the cross and not be affected, nor feel conviction of sin - not to feel drawn to Christ." We have a saying, "Opportunity only knocks once." What have we missed by snoozing when Jesus was at the door?

McCheyne on II Corinthians 5:14: The Heart of the Hypocrite

2011-11-24T09:35:00.003-05:00

"For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died."

Robert Murray McCheyne was a minister of the Church of Scotland in the early XIXth Century.

"We have so choked up the avenues of self-examination - there are so many turnings and windings before we can arrive at the true motives of our actions - that our dread and hatred of God, which first moved man to sin, and which are still the grand impelling forces whereby Satan goads on the children of disobedience - these are wholly concealed from our view, and you cannot persuade a natural man that they are really there."

Ephesians 2:1 and the Erroneous Free-Will View of Man

2011-11-13T18:16:00.004-05:00

"You were dead in the trespasses and sins."

Calvinism starts with a view of a spiritually-dead man, in whom God works by His sovereign grace to renew, regenerate, and justify. The various stripes of anti-Calvinist Christianity hold to a spiritually-able man who works his way to a relationship with God. To paraphrase, free-will Christianity teaches that a man is sick in trespasses and sins, while the Calvinist agrees with the Apostle Paul that the natural man is dead, completely unable to help himself spiritually.

In contrast to free-will Christianity, the Bible teaches that all of the initiative in salvation belongs to God, and none to man. Ezekiel 36:26 tells us, "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." That is, God changes our hearts, from the dead heart described in Ephesians, to a new living heart. And verse 27 continues, "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." Now that He has given us a new heart, He sends His Holy Spirit to work in it, leading and enabling us to obey Him. For, as Jesus Himself says, "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). Unlike the free-willer, God says that we are unable to seek Him, so He draws us to Him by His own will and power.

But we believe and are then saved, right? Nope. Jesus died for us while we were still in our sins (see, for example, Romans 5:6, I Peter 3:18). We aren't saved because we believe; we believe because we are saved! But our part in salvation is to have faith, right? Nope, wrong again. Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Even our faith, our response to what Christ has done, is given to us by God.

But I know the free-willer is til holding on to his dream of contributing to his salvation. He's asking, "Alright, but I take it from there in my sanctification, right?" Nope, not that, either. Philippians 2:13, "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." God's sovereign grace continues its work in us, conforming us to the holiness of Christ. As Paul also says in I Corinthians 15:10, "by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me."

Only Calvinism is consistent with the teachings of Scripture that man is utterly helpless in his own salvation. Rather, it occurs in every step by God's grace and Holy Spirit.

The Apostle Paul, Member of Presbytery

2011-11-11T18:08:00.004-05:00

We tend to think of the Apostle Paul as a spiritual Lone Ranger, single-handedly establishing Christianity around the Mediterranean fringe. And it is true that he only occasionally speaks of companions, such as Timothy, Titus, John Mark, and Barnabas. He only gives snippets of the ecclesiastical organization which he established along with the congregations. But I do believe that he gave us such information.

In I Timothy 4:14, the ESV reads, "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you." That phrase "council of elders" is translated "presbytery" by the King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible, and "eldership" in Young's Literal Translation. "Presbytery" is a transliteration of the Greek word, while "council of elders" and "eldership" are translations. Either way, we see the church leaders joining together to ordain Reverend Timothy. I suspect that this same ceremony is what Paul intends in I Timothy 6:12, "Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses." That is, Paul is urging Timothy to continue in the faith to which he testified in his examination by the presbytery.

Next look at II Timothy 1:6, "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." Notice the switch in Paul's choice of words. In I Timothy, the ordination is by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Then in II Timothy, it is by the laying on of Paul's hands. I think that the logical implication is that Paul participated in the ceremony of the presbytery.

I see in these verses the kernel of the early church government. It wasn't bishops; nor was it democratic congregationalism. It was presbyterian.

Psalm 51:10-12, a Dividing Line between Hypocritical and True Believers

2011-10-31T06:12:00.005-04:00

"Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit."

In an earlier post, I defined a hypocritical believer as a professing, but false, Christian who has hidden from himself the reality of his spiritual lostness. I believe that the text before us reinforces that contrast.

In it, we see David after II Samuel 11. In that story, he had been looking out over the city of Jerusalem from his palace. He saw Bathsheba bathing on her roof. Stirred by lust, he had arranged for the murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite, so that he could gain her for himself. After the Prophet Nathan rebuked David (II Samuel 12), David was overcome by sorrow over what he had done. Psalm 51 is the prayer he wrote, confessing his sin, and seeking a restoration of his damaged relationship with Jehovah, his God.

Consider also Psalm 38, another psalm by David. In verse 3, he describes the physical trauma caused by sin. In verse 6, "all the day I go about mourning." And verse 8, "I groan because of the tumult of my heart."

In both of these psalms, we see a man traumatized, sorrowful and cast down, because he is aware of his sin. That doesn't happen in a hypocrite. Almost by definition, the hypocritical believer is self-satisfied with his spirituality, and would be quite insulted if anyone were to suggest that he isn't as holy as he imagines himself to be. He wears blinders, so he won't see the reality within him (though, of course, those blinders don't prevent him from seeing faults in others).

Further, even if a hypocrite were to recognize that maybe he isn't so spiritual afterall, another aspect of his condition is that he won't consider his shortfall something to be concerned about, something that needs to be dealt with. And he certainly isn't going to respond positively if someone were to confront him about his complacity! Since he has no real relationship with God in Christ, he isn't conscious of having lost that relationship.

Prophets like Nathan make a true believer change. But they merely reinforce the blindness of the hypocrite. With just one exception: if the sovereign Lord sees fit to grant the hypocrite repentance (Acts 5:31 and II Timothy 2:25).

News: Baptists Turn Away Church for Being "Too Calvinistic"

2011-10-28T21:17:00.004-04:00

News out of Owensboro, KY, reports that the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association has refused membership (by a lopsided vote of 104-9) to the Pleasant Valley Community Church. The story can be read on the Associated Baptist Press website. And the church's website can be seen here.

I especially want to bring to your attention the statement of the Association's credentials committee: "Our concern in the initial stages of our investigation revolved around the fact that Pleasant Valley Community Church’s confessional statement is one that (is) Calvinistic in nature. It affirms the doctrine of election and grace." This is a stunning expression of ignorance, considering the Calvinistic roots of the Baptist churches. The London Confession of Faith (1689), a Baptist adaptation of the Westminster Confession, says in Article 3, "God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass," which is quoted almost word-for-word in the objected portion of PVCC's statement of faith (60 pages?!?). The Confession continues, "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace. Others are left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice."

Thus we can see that Calvinism is well-entrenched in Baptist roots. Doesn't this mean that the Association is aberrant, not Pleasant Valley? Consider this article on the tradition of Calvinism among Southern Baptists. And I chose the picture at the top for one very good reason: Charles Haddon Spurgeon, perhaps the greatest preacher in the English language, was both a Baptist and an unapologetic Calvinist!

I Timothy 2:1-7, Does Paul Teach a Universal Atonement?

2011-10-27T22:34:00.007-04:00

First, a celebratory announcement: this is my 200th blog post. As always, my prayer is that it will be to the glory of God and the edification of His people.

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth."

This passage frequently comes up in debates about the extent of the atonement. With all Calvinists, I hold that Jesus died for all of the elect, and only the elect, fully redeeming them from the just judgment of of their sins. In opposition to this view, Arminians hold that Christ died for every person in the world, throughout history, making their salvation possible, but not certain. Arminians claim verse four here, "who desires all people to be saved," as supporting their view. But does it really?

First, I have just one simple, logical question for the Arminian: if God desires something, anything, who can refuse Him? Wouldn't your interpretation of this passage logically lead to the doctrine of universal salvation?

But to particulars: Let's look at the context. Verse one ends with that same phrase, "all people," but the sentence continues in verse two, referring to kings and others in authority. Then in verse seven, Paul refers to himself as called to be a teacher of the Gentiles. Thus, in context, "all people" here cannot refer to "every individual without distinction," but rather to "individuals of every class or ethnicity." God desires, effectually, for the Gospel to impact every level of society, and every nation. And in this desire, He attains that goal! The Apostle John envisions the success of the Gospel in this very fashion (Revelation 7:9): "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I prefer this vision of the success of the Gospel, over the Arminian view of potential redemption!

Ezekiel 9:3-7, The Godly Must Speak Out!

2011-10-23T12:47:00.007-04:00

"Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub on which it rested to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed in linen, who had the writing case at his waist. And the Lord said to him, 'Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.' And to the others he said in my hearing, 'Pass through the city after him, and strike. Your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. Kill old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one on whom is the mark. And begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were before the house. Then he said to them, 'Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain. Go out.' So they went out and struck in the city."

This is a tough passage! It speaks of a time of latitudinarian spirituality. Anything goes. Everything is okay. Don't be judgmental. There are times of such ease throughout the Old Testament, See, for example, Deuteronomy 12:8, Judges 17:6, Judges 21:25, and Proverbs 21:2. And again in Ezekiel's time. But this time the Lord pours out His wrath against the lackadaisical church-member. He commands a man to go through Jerusalem and place a mark on all those who weep over the apostasy of their society. Then He sends others out to slay everyone without that mark.

Doesn't this describe our own time? The leadership of many churches deny the fundamentals of the faith. One prominent "evangelical" has now declared that there is no Hell. There have been ministers for decades who deny the divine inspiration of the Bible. And now we have loony theology flying all over the place, such as the Prosperity Gospel. But we mustn't criticize. Mustn't act superior. Mustn't judge. But John 7:24 tells us to judge, but to do it "with right judgment." And doesn't this passage from Ezekiel indicate that we face severe judgment ourselves if we disobey this instruction? Doesn't God reveal that He hates loose and impotent Christianity?

However, we must understand that we face not only God's wrath if we fail to judge error and sin, but also that we face the government's wrath if we do. In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted a clause into the federal tax code to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches, if their pastors used the pulpit to criticize government. The Alliance Defense Fund is attempting to stir up pastors to resist this shackle on their work.

Acts 5:29 tells us that we must obey God rather than men. Since it is the duty of pastors especially, but also all Christians generally, to speak against the evils of our time, surely the tax code should be an inferior authority in our concerns. Let the Pastor, and each Christian, exercise his spiritual responsibility and constitutional rights. And what consequences the government brings on us, let us be honored to suffer for doing right (I Peter 3:17)!

Isaiah 53:2, the Danger of Images

2011-10-10T06:12:00.006-04:00

"For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him."

The picture here shows an iconostasis, which is the display of images in an Orthodox Church. Unlike the Church of Rome, the Orthodox hold that the Second Commandment forbids carved images, but not painted. Thus, no statues. However, I would contend that their distinction has no biblical foundation. As the Commandment (Exodus 20:4) says, "“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Notice that it clearly states "carved" or "any likeness."

But, other than the sin of disobedience (I John 3:4), where is the harm? That is the most-frequent question asked by today's latitudinarian Christian. That great Puritan preacher John Owen, suggests a good answer: "[M]en who are complete strangers to seeing the person and glory of Christ by faith have turned to images, pictures, and music to help them in their worship." Owen's position was that we walk by faith in this life, in preparation for the life of sight that we will enjoy in the eternal state (I Corinthians 13:12, I John 3:2, II Corinthians 4:18, 5:7, Hebrews 11:1). Therefore, images enter the religion of the individual or church which does not know Christ by faith. It is a sort of short-circuit, and fools that person into believing that he is in a spiritual condition that he does not truly have. That is why I used the Isaiah text at the top: it precisely makes the point that the experience we need to have with Jesus, the Suffering Servant, is not found in looking upon His likeness.

That is the danger: that images would create a spiritual complacency in a person which blinds him to his real need for the Gospel. To use an analogy, it is like filling the stomach with sand, creating a false sense of fullness, while the person is actually starving to death.

The Reprobation of Pharaoh and the Comfort of Election

2011-09-19T06:31:00.003-04:00

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with a strong hand he will send them out, and with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land.'"

We all know the story: Israel had taken refuge in Egypt during a time of famine in Palestine. God prospered them there, in spite of their oppression by the Egyptians. At this point in Exodus, it has come time for Moses to lead them to liberation in the promised land, but the Egyptians feared the loss of their labor force.

As we see in the verse above, God gave comfort to His people with a promise that He would overrule the opposition of Pharaoh, such that Pharaoh would actually be glad to set them free. However, He also has an eye to His own glory, and He chooses to harden Pharaoh, so that His hand will be made visible in the liberation.

Notice Exodus 7:3-5, "But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it." We see here the biblical Calvinist doctrine of reprobation, God's choice to reject, in advance, an unbeliever for the purposes of His own justice and glory. The reprobation of Pharaoh is seen again in Exodus 9:12.

Why has God done this to Pharaoh? We do not need to guess, for He gives the explanation Himself. Exodus 9:16 tells us, "for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." God's first inspiration in all things is to promote His own glory. That is why Arminians hate the doctrine of reprobation. They want God's purpose to serve us. They hate it that He refuses to adopt their agenda! But His response is seen in Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other..."

Matthew 26:39, The True Humanity of Christ

2011-09-18T15:39:00.004-04:00

"And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.'"

Early in the Second Century, immediately following the time of the Apostles, a heresy arose called Docetism. The Docetists held that the human body of Christ was an illusion, since (they claimed) the divine cannot possibly be united with flesh. This was a particular variant of Gnosticism. We really don't see this heresy around much, though aspects of it pop up here and there. For example, Sabellians (represented mainly by the United Pentecostal Church) deny the Trinity, claiming that the three persons are actually merely modes of the one God. Since they hold that there is no Second Person of the Trinity, then obviously He could not have been united with a human nature. And Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the resurrection was only spiritual, not a literal resurrection of the flesh of Jesus. While neither of these is strictly Docetism, there are obvious parallels.

However, consider the Scripture above. We see Jesus showing true fear, real human emotion, in the face of His impending suffering and death. Trepidation cannot be a quality of His divine nature. Therefore, we see experiential evidence of His true humanity. He was a man, regardless of what Muslims, Sabellians, or Docetists can protest. And as a true man, in addition to His true divinity, Jesus can therefore sympathize with our own fears and sufferings (Hebrews 4:15). That is great personal comfort that we can take from the high theology of the dual nature of Christ!

The Westminster Standards and Biblical Inerrancy

2011-08-20T19:22:00.007-04:00

"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."
-Westminster Confession of Faith I:5

The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith is devoted to the doctrine of scripture. The logical basis for that choice was that the Assembly wanted to set out immediately their standard for everything else that they would declare. Since they held that the Bible alone is and should be the source and judge of all that we are to believe about God, the spiritual condition of man, and the relationship between the two, they set their doctrine of scripture as the gateway to the Confession.

As you can see, in this paragraph, the Bible is called the "Word of God." In Paragraph 8, it is described as "inspired by God." And in Paragraph 9, it is called "infallible." We now use the adjective "inerrant" to mean the same thing.

The answer to question 4 of the Larger Catechism teaches the same precept: "The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God."

Thus, we see that the orthodox, confessional view of Presbyterians is that the Bible is inerrant, because it is the actual Word of God. The instrumentality of its writing is by men, but the words are from God. As Peter explained (II Peter 1:21), "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." While liberal Presbyterians have been denying the inerrancy of the Bible for the last century, the confessional statements above prove that the claim of such teachers to be Presbyterian is a deception.

I want to bring to your attention another part of those confessional statements. Both the Confession and the Catechism state that the inward witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the individual to believe the nature and teachings of the Bible. If the inspiration and necessary inerrancy of the Scriptures are self-evident, as the Standards teach, why don't all professing Christians, at the very least, believe it?

God in His own word says that we should believe because of who He, its author is. Zechariah 12:1, "Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him..." He is the Creator of everything around us, and even our spirit within us. Thus He claims a singular qualification to be believed. Yet, so much of the world refuses to believe. And His word explains why.

Romans 1:18-20 is a description of the spiritual condition of unregenerate men. Notice especially verse 18, which describes "men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." Sinful men hate God's Word, so they suppress their knowledge of its truth. The Apostle Paul also describes this spiritual condition in two places in I Corinthians. I Cor. 1:21 says, "the world did not know God through wisdom." Natural wisdom blocks out the knowledge of God. And I Cor. 2:14 much the same: "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 unregenerate man cannot perceive spiritual truth because his sin blocks it from his awareness. He is like the spoiled child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sing-songs, "La-la-la, I can't hear you," to avoid acknowledging the instructions or admonishments of his parents.

John 17:15, Jesus versus the Rapturists

2011-08-16T06:31:00.003-04:00

"I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one."

I have written before on the I Thessalonians passage that some premilleniallists claim teaches a "rapture," i.e., that God will take the Church out of the world to avoid tough times.

But look at the words above, from the High Priestly Prayer of Christ. His exact words are a prayer to the Father that He not take His people out of the world. If Jesus says the opposite of what the rapturists proclaim, what are we to think of the rapturists?

Zechariah 11:6, An Elegy for the American Republic

2011-08-15T06:22:00.004-04:00

"For I will no longer have pity on the inhabitants of this land, declares the LORD. Behold, I will cause each of them to fall into the hand of his neighbor, and each into the hand of his king, and they shall crush the land, and I will deliver none from their hand."

I am currently studying Zechariah in an intense fashion. I have been working on it for several months. When I got to this verse, it struck home with so much of the reaction I have had to the recent "debt ceiling crisis." I have been so saddened by the imperial attitudes by both members of Congress and the President. They demanded the power to increase their own credit limit in order to borrow money in order to pay the interest on existing government debt! I know that I would never be allowed to do that with my own credit cards. Set my own credit limit? I don't think so! Pay the interest only? Isn't that what was done with the mortgages that supposedly caused the mortgage crisis? And the demand for tax increases by some (to which I expect the rest to capitulate)? What a foolish idea, in general, but especially in light of the historical habit of Congress to spend $1.50 for every $1 of tax revenue. It is like trying to cure an addiction by taking more drugs! Hand the alcoholic a beer!

Zechariah is warning of a covenant society that has earned an oppressive government. A previous pastor of mine regularly repeated his mantra, "We get the government we deserve." What kind of government is He bringing, when He warns that He will cause us to fall into the hand of the king?

I Samuel 8:10-18
"'According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.' So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, 'These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.'"

Does this sound familiar?

Romans 1:18-23, the General Revelation of God

2011-08-11T08:16:00.006-04:00

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, 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. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

The Bible clearly declares that God has revealed Himself in His creation. Theologians refer to this as "general revelation", as opposed to the "special revelation" found only in the Bible. It also insists that the failure of unbelievers to acknowledge that fact is not a matter of ignorance, but rather of the active suppression of the knowledge.

The same point is made in poetic form in Psalm 19:1-6, especially verse 1, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

I suspect that this is what we see in Adam, just after the Fall (Genesis 3), when he hides in terror from his offended Creator (verse 8). The same verse says that "he heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden." Now, since we know God is a spirit (John 4:24), we also know that He has no body. Thus, to refer to Him as "walking" is an anthropomorphism. I think that this refers to Adam's awareness of everything around him in the Garden as testifying to the sovereignty of God. That certainly should put him in terror, as everywhere he turned, he was reminded of his rebellion and the holiness and wrath of God!

Since Adam's Fall was only minutes old at this point, I think that we can assume that he still retained a greater sensitivity to the general revelation of God in everything around him. Being far removed from that event in our own time, sin has increased our deafness, blindness, and willfulness, rendering us far less sensitive to God's presence. Thus was necessitated the special revelation in the Bible, which alone gives us the knowledge that leads to salvation.

The writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (I:1), got it exactly right: "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

Did the Apostle Paul Consider Unbelieving Jews to Be "God's Chosen People"?

2011-08-08T22:32:00.009-04:00

"I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." -Genesis 12:3

This verse , the beginning of God's calling to Abraham, is popular with certain dispensationalist preachers, most notably John

Hagee. He loves to quote it as God's supposed endorsement of the modern state of Israel and American political and military support for her. On his TV program, he has asked Jewish guests to stand, and then had his congregation give them an ovation. He also has the flag of Israel flying outside his church building, alongside the American and Texas flags.

But is that how the biblical writers understood it? By no means!

Consider Galatians 3. In verse 7, Paul tells us, "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Faith, not biological descent, is what makes one a descendant of Abraham. Thus, he says in verse 9, "those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." And in verse 14, "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham [has] come to the Gentiles." It is Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile ancestry, who inherit the promise to Abraham. Unbelieving Jews and the modern nation of Israel have no claim to that blessing. As Paul states it in verse 29, "if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

This is completely contrary to Hagee's Israelolatry.

I think the crowning text is Galatians 6:16, where Paul refers to the Church as "the Israel of God." This epithet is the logical conclusion of Paul's argument, that it is faith that makes descendants of Abraham. It is Christians who are a blessing to the world, not unbelieving Jews. And it shows that Hagee, in spite of his fundamentalist pretensions, either doesn't know or doesn't understand the Scriptures.

Deuteronomy 28:43-44, Is There a Message from God in Our Immigration Crisis?

2011-07-31T18:26:00.003-04:00

"The sojourner who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail."

I have written before about the treatment of sojourners, popularly referred to as "illegal aliens," in our country. I consider it a mark of shame. But I am also thinking there is more to it.

Among the curses enumerated in Deuteronomy for unfaithfulness is the one above. God warns that he will economically downgrade His covenant people, and lift up the unbelieving immigrants among them. Have we not seen this? I see a lot of Hispanic workers in the store where I work. As a result of their work ethic, not only are they able to support themselves here, but they also send money home to their families. And after that, they have enough left over for a lot of beer! I know that I don't have enough left after the bills to spend so much on frivolous pleasures like that. And I know a lot of Americans who have become unable to keep up with their basic expenses.

In my earlier post, I protested the treatment of the sojourner in our society. The Bible speaks strongly against this. Exodus 22:21, "“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt." And Exodus 23:9, "You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt." Look also at Leviticus 19:33 and Ezekiel 22:29.

Our society has been retreating from its covenanted commitments for quite a while now. It looks to me as if God has chosen the particular curse that will strike most at our pride. Where we had looked to the Hispanic immigrants to provide cheap migrant labor or domestic service, "wetbacks" some people call them, instead God has blessed them to strike at our neglect of Him. What sorrow we should feel!

Thank God for the Wonder of Election!

2011-07-24T12:38:00.004-04:00

"Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother

Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
I Corinthians 1:1-3

I was inspired to write this by the sermon at church this morning.

After leaving Athens, Paul went to Corinth, to establish a church there. This journey is described in Acts 18. This journey could not have been made gladly, because Corinth of that time had a reputation for immorality. Prostitution was endemic, including cult prostitution by both men and women. The name of the city actually became a by-word, "to corinthianize", meaning "to be devoted to sexual excess."

However, Paul came with a promise from God (Acts 18:10): "I have many in this city who are my people." Paul had the comfort of God's election, knowing that God had chosen from eternity past, particular individuals in Corinth to know Him through the ministry of Paul. I suspect that this would be a great comfort to all Reformed ministers, knowing that human sight may look on their ministries as hopeless, but God's purposes of grace guarantee them eternal success.

And what was the fruit of Paul's ministry? I Corinthians 6:9-11 demonstrates the triumph of the Gospel. "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." The very people whose morality was the butt of jokes in a society known for bathhouses and orgies are now made new creatures in Christ!

I think this demonstrates a number of things. First, it shows the lie to the Arminian accusation that Calvinism kills the evangelistic spirit. Here it is actually the encouragement to Paul's evangelistic effort. Second, it exposes how small our view of grace is. As our pastor asked us today, who do we prefer for evangelism and church planting? Middle-class, upright people (which is not to say that I don't believe such people need the Gospel). Who would we least expect to reach? The very people that Paul announces were former prostitutes! Our hands are too clean and our Gospel is too small!

Luke 22:24-27, Does Christ Forbid Bishops, a Class of Clergy that Rules over the Rest?

2011-07-23T17:40:00.004-04:00

"A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.'"

Referring to Titus 1:5-9, I have said before that the Bible knows no office of "bishop," except as a synonym for "elder." In particular, I believe that the office of monarchical bishop as it exists in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Episcopal Churches is opposed to Scripture, and, in fact, rebellion against the only Head of the Church. Such an office sets one clergyman in rule over his fellows. And, of course, the office of the Pope sets one man over even his fellow bishops.

I believe that the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXV:6) is correct in saying, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." The passage above is a key support for this doctrine. If Christ forbids an apostle from ruling over the others, requiring them instead mutually to serve one another, how can any lesser person claim such authority for himself? I won't even go into what these verses say about the supposed supremacy of Peter!

Christ, as Head of the Church, has given her a government of elders, whether primarily ruling or primarily teaching. And these elders hold no rule over any other elder (except in the sense of mutual subjection). The Pope and all the popelets in the world have set themselves up in rebellion against their Head. How can such rebels feed the flock from illegitimate places of power? Yet this is the fundamental calling of their office (I Peter 5:2)!

John Bunyan on Prayer

2011-07-17T19:34:00.005-04:00

The Puritan John Bunyan is best known as the writer of "Pilgrim's Progress." But the rest of his ministry has been forgotten. For example, I didn't know until I started putting this post together, that he had spent twelve years in prison for his faith. He also wrote other spiritual works. The one that is relevant here was "I Will Pray with the Spirit" (available online here).

Bunyan was a sincerely spiritual man. I found the following quote in "Taking Hold of God: Reformed and Puritan Perspectives on Prayer," edited by Joel Beeke and Brian Najapfour. I find so much that the Puritans said to be deeply convicting. I frequently ask God to give me the faith, faithfulness, and passion that they had.

Bunyan said, "Prayer is a sincere, sensible, affectionate pouring out of the heart or soul to God through Christ, in the strength and assistance of the Holy Spirit, for such things as God hath promised, or according to the word, for the good of the Church, with submission, in faith, to the will of God." Notice the things that he includes in his definition of prayer: the attitude of the heart, the intimate devotion to the Trinity, and the scripture-based expectations. In fact, the Puritans were known for their advocacy of praying the Bible back to God, with the expectation that He would always be pleased to hear His own Word. That implies an intimate knowledge of the Bible. Can any of us read this without feeling ashamed of our cold and impotent prayers?

Is a Universal Gospel Inconsistent with a Particular Atonement?

2011-07-14T22:25:00.009-04:00

"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." I Timothy 4:10

I've written on this topic before, but it has been on my mind again today.

There are several verses in Scripture which declare that the Gospel is universal, i.e., worldwide, without restriction of time or ethnicity, "no respecter of persons" (e.g., Acts 10:34). The verse above is one. John 3:16 is well-known. I John 2:2 is another. these verses are often thrown up in the face of Calvinists, as if our critics think that we have never seen them before.

The doctrine at controversy is the extent of the atonement. Most Christians hold to a universal atonement, that is, that Christ on the cross died in an equal sense for every person without discrimination. Calvinists, such as myself, hold to a particular, or definite, atonement, i.e., for a specific class of named individuals, known only to God. We would say that the doctrine of universal atonement suffers from two fatal flaws: first, that it is thereby a hypothetical atonement only, not a certain one, or second, that there are and will be people in Hell for whom Christ died. I am appalled by either option and sickened that so many Christians are agreeable to such blasphemies.

Let me list a couple of places in Scripture that I understand to teach a particular atonement.

"At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me,a is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.'" -John 10: 22-30

"When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, '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. I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.'" -John 17:1-2, 6-9, 24-26

Is there a conflict here? I would certainly deny so. It seems rather clear to me. Jesus received a known (to Him) class of named individuals to redeem on the cross. That part is clear from the passages from John just above. But it is equally and gloriously true that He is the Savior of the world! How so? Because the latter is taken in general, while the former is taken individually. Jesus is the Savior of every believing man, woman, and child anywhere in the world, of any ethnic background, from Adam to the end of the world. Every person who is saved is saved in Him (such as Romans 10:9-13). Furthermore, no one who is saved is or can be saved by any person or means other than Him (such as Acts 4:12 and II Thessalonians 2:12).

The Gospel is universal because it is the message of salvation to every time, place, and people (Mark 16:15). And because the atonement is definite and particular, every individual can know that His atonement is sufficient to satisfy the justice of God, and restore a right relationship between the Father and the repentant sinner. The universal Gospel is the warrant for every hearer to believe. The atonement is what satisfies both God and sinner that all his sins are forgiven (Isaiah 53:6).

No one can know in an a priori sense that he is one of the elect, for whom Christ died. This is only an a posteriori knowledge, arising from having believed. In fact, we are forbidden to meddle in the secret decrees of God (Deuteronomy 29:29). But no knowledge of election is required to take hold of that universal Gospel, and thus to be saved in Christ Jesus!

The Prosperity of the Gospel in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards

2011-07-13T07:50:00.004-04:00

Jonathan Edwards is probably the most famous theologian ever produced by the United States. Even though he died about twenty years before our independence, his preaching has been credited with beginning the great revival which inspired the colonials to resist British tyranny. I seek here to focus attention on Edwards' eschatological view, now called postmillenialism. It is seen especially plainly in his most famous sermon, "An Humble Attempt to Promote Prayer for Revival." Since Edwards' view is explained better than I can do in the article linked above, I will not attempt to do so. I wish here merely to list the Scriptures that Edwards believed taught the successful spread of the Gospel in this age.

In Genesis: 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, and 28:14

In the Psalms: 2:6-8 (cf Hebrews 1:2 and 2:8), 22:27, 65:5, 65:8, 67:7, 72:11, 72:17, 98:3, 113:3

In Isaiah: 2:2, 11:9, 54:1-2, 54:5, 60:12

In Jeremiah: 3:17, 10:11, 10:15

Malachi 1:11

Romans 11:12 and 25

In "Taking Hold of God," Editor Joel Beeke comments, "In typical Puritan fashion, Edwards urged believers to turn these promises into prayers, calling upon the Lord to extend the kingdom of His Son. Christ's victorious position at God's right hand should move us to pray to God to establish Christ's royal dominion ('the rod of thy strength') in the very midst of His enemies (Psalm 110)."

Further information on the Puritan view of last things and its impact on missions can be found in "The Puritan Hope"," by Iain Murray. Other books on postmillenialism can be found here.

Matthew Henry on Prayer

2011-07-10T15:15:00.005-04:00

Matthew Henry is best known for his Bible commentary. However, among his lesser-known works was "A Method for Prayer." He developed this list of characteristics for powerful, effectual, and soul-satisfying prayer (as adapted in "Taking Hold of God: Reformed and Puritan Perspectives on Prayer," edited by Joel Beeke and Brian Najapfour).

1. Address the infinitely great and glorious Being
a. with holy awe and reverence
b. distinguishing Him from false gods
2. Reverently adore God as transcendently bright and blessed
a. the self-existent, self-sufficient, infinite Spirit
b. His existence indisputable
c. His nature beyond our comprehension
d. His perfection matchless
e. infinitely above us and all others

In particular, adore the Lord as
1. eternal, immutable
2. present in all places
3. perfect in His knowledge of all
4. unsearchable in wisdom
5. sovereign, owner, and Lord of all
6. irresistible in power
7. unspotted in purity and righteousness
8. always just in His government
9. always true, inexhaustibly good
10. infinitely greater than our best praises

3. Give God the praise of His glory in heaven
4. Give Him glory as our creator, protector, benefactor, and ruler
5. Give honor to the three distinct Persons of the Godhead
6. Acknowledge our dependence on Him and obligation to our creator
7. Declare God to be our covenant God who owns us
8. Acknowledge the inestimable favor of being invited to draw near to Him
9. Express our unworthiness to draw near to God
10. Profess our desire for Him as our happiness
11. Profess our hope and trust in His all-sufficiency
12. Ask God graciously to accept us and our poor prayers
13. Pray for the assistance of the Holy Spirit in our prayers
14. Make the glory of God as the highest goal of our prayers
15. Profess our reliance on the Lord Jesus Christ alone

I don't imagine that Henry foresaw us going through all of these elements each time we pray. That would turn prayer into a chore, a matter of checking off a to-do list, rather than conversing with our Father in Heaven. However, as we think to cover them all over time, I would expect that our awareness of the grandeur of God would be magnified and our dependence on Him deepened. Those would seem to be worthy things!

Zechariah 1:2-6, Biblical Repentance

2011-07-04T07:53:00.006-04:00

“The Lord was very angry with your fathers. Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.’ But they did not hear or pay attention to me, declares the Lord. Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? So they repented and said, As the Lord of hosts purposed to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so has he dealt with us.”

The Prophet Zechariah shared the ministry with the Prophet Haggai in the period immediately following the return of the Jews to the land of Israel after their exile in Babylon. In a curious aside, archeologists may recently have found his tomb!

As I have noted before, repentance is a prominent theme among the writings of the Jewish prophets. When I consider the claim of classical dispensationslists that the Gospel isn't found in the Old Testament, I often wonder whether they are reading the same Bible that I am. But I digress...

Matthew Henry paraphrases verse 2, "Turn you to me in a way of faith and repentance, duty and obedience, and I will turn to you in a way of favour and mercy, peace and reconciliation." I think Henry brings out the essence of repentance: it isn't merely a sorrowing over one's sins, though that is part of it, but rather a change of course, a turning away from one's old path to a new path in fellowship with God. The Westminster Confession of Faith, in the chapter on Repentance unto Life, states it wonderfully (XV:2): "By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments."

Zechariah illustrates where Judas failed to repent. The story is told in Matthew 27:3-10. In verse 3, we see that Judas "changed his mind." But what does he then do? Plead for the forgiveness of God and the disciples? No, as verse 5 tells us, he committed suicide. In other words, Judas certainly sorrowed over his sin, but he didn't depart from it to walk in a new way. That is what distinguishes his sorrow from repentance.

Returning to Zechariah, we see that God has punished the forefathers of the prophet's audience, and this remnant acknowledges the justice of God's judgment (verse 6), a step that Judas failed to take. Then in verse 12, a new character appears, the Angel of the Lord, who pleads, "O Lord of hosts, how long will you have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have been angry these seventy years?" Along with most orthodox readers, I consider this Angel to be the preincarnate Second Person of the Trinity, because He is frequently addressed alternatively as the Lord Himself. Here, He intercedes on behalf of Jerusalem, acting in His role as Mediator. This is another essential difference between sorrow and repentance: true repentance relies on the intercession of Jesus Christ, the Mediator. Repentance doesn't restore or create holiness; rather, it serves as a step in applying the imputed righteousness of Christ, which alone restores our standing before God the Father.

Then in verses 16-17, Jehovah responds to this intercession: "Therefore, thus says the Lord, I have returned to Jerusalem with mercy; my house shall be built in it, declares the Lord of hosts, and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. Cry out again, Thus says the Lord of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity, and the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.’"

Here are the steps that Zechariah shows for true repentance: sorrow for sins, a new path of obedience (not that this can be done infallibly, since the person is still a sinner), dependence on the intercession and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, and a restored relationship with God. Leaving out any step necessarily overthrows the reality of the others.

Isaiah 55:6-9 vs The Worship of the God of Chance

2011-06-30T08:22:00.004-04:00

“Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

If you ask an unbeliever, "What is two plus two?", he will respond, "Four." Is it ever anything other than four? Of course not, he will say. So ask now, "Where does the sun rise?" "In the east," he will tell you. Does it always rise in the east? Never the west, or appear in the center of the sky? "How silly!" he will probably say.

Yet, he will play the lottery, expecting that luck will eventually pay off for him. Or ask the origins of the world around him, and he will unthinkingly respond,"Chance." And he will say it without any consciousness of the logical tension between that belief and his earlier statements.

My point is this: the world operates according to laws, predictable laws. That is because it was created by a God of laws. The very predictability of the universe is a consistent evidence of the hand of God. However, the unbeliever covers his eyes at that evidence, even as he admits the particular examples that he himself acknowledges.

This is what Paul talks about in Romans 1:18-22, especially 18b, "by their unrighteousness [they] suppress the truth." To acknowledge the God Who made them would force the unbeliever to acknowledge that he is in rebellion against Him, and deserving of his judgment. That he can never permit! And it is this that the Christian confronts in apologetics and evangelism.

My Governor is a Shameless Hypocrite!

2011-06-29T08:00:00.004-04:00

I have written several times on the issue of abortion. See, for example, here, here, and here. My friends are often amazed at my vigorous opposition to legalized abortion, because my social views tend to be quite liberal. However, as I see it, we are talking about the extermination of innocents here!

Recently, our state legislature passed the "Women's Right to Know Act," which required a waiting period and an ultrasound before permitting an abortion. Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed that bill on June 27. Her reasons are astounding! Madame Governor believes that the bill had two fundamental flaws: it interfered in the relationship between a woman and her doctor, and it failed to respect women's judgment.

Let's consider that first objection, that the bill interferes in the relationship between a woman and her doctor. North Carolina also has laws establishing insurance regulations, restricting access to prescriptions, requiring medical licensing, and banning medical marijuana. Does Madame Governor suggest that the state doesn't already interfere in the relationship between a woman (and man) and her doctor?

Her second objection, that the law fails to respect women's judgment, is even more laughable! North Carolina bans the use of midwives for the delivery of babies (unless they are otherwise licensed healthcare workers). So the state has criminalized a major choice for women during childbirth. The state restricts access to alcohol, tobacco, and certain drugs. Don't those laws "fail to respect women's judgment"?

I must seriously question the judgment of this one woman, my state's governor, when she won't let a woman buy a joint, or even have a beer without state approval, yet she objects to mere information for a woman contemplating killing an unborn child. That is a seriously disturbed order of priorities!

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" -Isaiah 5:20

The Reformers and the Doctrine of Prayer

2011-06-26T14:40:00.004-04:00

While it wasn't their only motivation to prayer, both Martin Luther and John Knox gave much attention to the commandments to pray.

Luther focused on the Third Commandment (Second Commandment according to the Lutheran

division): "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7). According to Luther's understanding of this commandment, not taking the name of Jehovah in vain is a negative way of commanding that we are positively to take it according to His word. Lack of prayer means not taking His name as He desires, and thus is a violation of this commandment.

On the other hand, Knox developed his position from a wider range of texts: Psalm

50:14-15, Matthew 7:7-11, Matthew 26:41, I Thessalonians 5:17, and I Timothy 2:13, 8. In his "Treatise on Prayer," Knox explained, "He who, when necessity constrains, desires not support and help of God, does provoke His wrath no less than such as make false gods or openly deny God." Thus, in Knox's mind, lack of prayer is tantamount to paganism or atheism!

Both men said, and I want to emphasize, that they did not mean the Christian of frail conscience who struggles to overcome his sense of unworthiness when approaching the throne of grace. We are unworthy! Anyone who approaches God on the basis of his own worthiness doesn't understand his sinful state nor the necessity of the atonement in Christ. However, for the believing sinner, that atonement covers his unrighteousness, so that he can come before a loving Father God. Consider the text that I would add to the list above, Hebrews 10. Consider especially Hebrews 10:14 and Hebrews 10:19-23.

Deism as the American National Religion

2011-06-21T08:00:00.006-04:00

"[A]s you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 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. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority."
Colossians 2:6-10

About 90% of Americans are professing Christians. In fact, Islamists often refer to that fact, along with American materialism and immorality, as supposed evidence of what Christians are really like. I suggest that not only are they wrong, but that the profession of Christianity is based on self-deception.

In any discussion, that is, of the sort that we call "water-cooler" conversations, whatever the topic, how common is it to refer to the biblical standards for judging the matter? In fact, there is even a presumption that most subjects, e.g., economics, politics, education, employment, family, have no distinct Christian evaluation or solution. They are considered spiritually neutral. But that view itself is contrary to Scripture.

Look at I Corinthians 1:18-25. Look especially at the second half of verse 20, "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Where is the wisdom of God found? Jesus Himself tells us (John 17:17): "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." The foundation of truth is the Word of God, not some supposed common ground we share with unbelievers.

In fact, "neutrality" is exactly the presumption of unbelief. The average American believes that there is a god (note lower-case "g"), while simultaneously believing that he/she/it is irrelevant to life. This is properly labeled "Deism," not Christianity. In other words, while most Americans label themselves Christian, they are in error. The true national religion of America is Deism!

Paul gives the contrasting position in Colossians 2, quoted above. He gives the contrast between naturalist precepts and biblical faith, which is founded on the deity of Christ. He uses that principle himself in his sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17). Look especially at Acts 17:28: "In him we live and move and have our being." Our lives exist in God's world, under His laws, according to His plans, whether we are willing or not. There is no neutrality here; rather, there is only truth contrasted with error. In fact, biblically-speaking, unbelief isn't neutral. In Romans 1:18-21, Paul warns us that unbelievers "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth," and are "futile in their thinking." To seek common ground with them is to seek futility, the very opposite of rationality!

Matthew 13:10-15, Truth and the Natural Man

2011-06-05T17:45:00.004-04:00

"Then the disciples came and said to him, 'Why do you speak to them in parables?' And he answered them, 'To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them."'"

I am currently reading "The Battle Belongs to the Lord" by Westminster Seminary Professor and Reformed Apologist K. Scott Oliphint. Recently, a short phrase stood out in a remarkable way: "Unbelief is designed to miss the obvious." First, I just kind of nodded in agreement. Then I felt a more vehement, "Y'know, that is so true!" Then various scriptures on the issue started to come to mind.

First was the one quoted above, which comes immediately after Jesus gave the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13. The Disciples asked Jesus why he told truths to the people in obscure stories. Notice His response above (verse 11): "to them it has not been given." It wasn't coincidental that the truth was obscured to them, but intentional! But why? Verse 15 tells us, "For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them." The truth was withheld from them as punishment for the very hardness of their hearts which first hated the truth! This is commonly referred to as "judicial hardening."

Then I thought of the Apostle Paul, in Romans 1:18, the second half of the verse, which reads, "men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Unbelievers don't merely ignore or avoid the truth, they actively suppress it. They seek to bury it, so that their wickedness can reign unchallenged!

Then the Prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 7:11-12): "They refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear. They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the Lord of hosts." Then the next verse (Zechariah 7:13) gives His reaction: "'As I called, and they would not hear, so they called, and I would not hear,' says the Lord of hosts." The hardness of the hearts of the reprobate brings the judgment of the hardness of God's heart toward them. That is a frightening truth!

Ezekiel 33 and Simple Repentance

2011-05-27T21:39:00.005-04:00

In the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XV, Section 2, we find this profound statement regarding repentance: "By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments." We find almost identical wording in Question 76 of the Larger Catechism.

I love these expressions, and I am grateful to God for the wise men who summarized the teaching of the Bible on this subject in such succinct but profound words.

However, there is also a precious simplicity and child-like joy in the expressions of Scripture on the same matter. Consider the words of the Prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 33:11), "Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?" Here we see the turning about to which the Westminster Standards refer, but notice the appeal in them. Jehovah doesn't simply lay out the nature of repentance, but strenuously urges the elect to avail themselves of it.

And verse 19, "When the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he shall live by this." This is more of the dictionary-style definition we see in the Standards. As if God lays out for us precisely what repentance is, to ease our finding of it in our hearts.

And here, both in the words of the Standards and the words of God Himself, the nature of what He requires is laid out as simply as possible. Therefore, He adds this promise (verses 14-16), "though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live." Is the very promise of Jehovah Himself enough?

I Samuel 17, David, Goliath, and the Sovereignty of God

2011-05-25T09:50:00.006-04:00

19-26, "Now Saul and they and all the men of Israel were in the Valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines. And David rose early in the morning and left the sheep with a keeper and took the provisions and went, as Jesse had commanded him. And he came to the encampment as the host was going out to the battle line, shouting the war cry. And Israel and the Philistines drew up for battle, army against army. And David left the things in charge of the keeper of the baggage and ran to the ranks and went and greeted his brothers. As he talked with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, came up out of the ranks of the Philistines and spoke the same words as before. And David heard him. All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him and were much afraid. And the men of Israel said, 'Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Israel. And the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel.' And David said to the men who stood by him, 'What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?'"

41-47, "And the Philistine moved forward and came near to David, with his shield-bearer in front of him. And when the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was but a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance. And the Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine said to David, 'Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.' Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hand.'"

This story has entered our common lexicon. Even the most biblically-illiterate person has heard of David and Goliath, and uses their names any time an apparent underdog defeats a better-provided opponent. However, that popular version of the story actually misses its significance.

First, consider Goliath. A last survivor of the race of giants, Joshua 11:22 (eleven and a half feet, or about four meters, tall, v. 4), heavily armored and weaponed. All of the greatest fighting men of Israel, even comparably accoutered, were too afraid even to face him.

Second, consider David, the youngest of eight sons (v. 12). In fact, he was even the youngest of the five sons who were too young to join the army (as implied by the fact that only the three eldest were at the battle, v. 13). He refused Saul's armor and sword (vv. 38-39). Instead, he approached the giant with just his shepherding staff and a sling with five stones ( v. 40). Both in his person and in his provisions, David was no match for this foe of all Israel.

What does David say? Verse 45, "You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied" He counters the humanistic bullying of Goliath, not with human strength, reasoning, or arms, but with the name of Jehovah his God. Notice especially how this contrasts with Goliath's earlier curses in the names of his own pagan deities, verse 43. David takes these curses, not as a personal insult, but rather an aspersion against the God of Israel (vv. 26 and 45).

And now we see the real nature of this battle. David's words continue, verse 46-47, "This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hand." He understands that Jehovah is jealous for His own deity. And indeed, He could have struck down Goliath directly, with a mere thought. However, in His grace, God condescends to bless us His people, by allowing us to be the means that He uses for His purposes. David is just a boy, with only the weapons of his shepherding, facing a battle-hardened, heavily-armed literal giant. He is perfectly aware that he has no native ability to defeat this foe. Yet his faith assures him that his God is not limited by our powers and talents, but rather acts by His own power and intent.

The significance of this story isn't that Jehovah, the true and living God, has a guiding concern about borders and political competition. Rather, His concern is for His own glory. As He Himself says (Isaiah 42:8), "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols." This is the exact principle that Goliath explicitly challenged! And subordinately, He is concerned for the safetly and conversion of His elect people. As David says in verse 47, he intends that "all this assembly may know that the Lord saves..."

In the words of Paul (I Corinthians 1:27), the true moral of this story is that "God chooses what is weak in the world to shame the strong." Is this not something we need to know in our own daily spiritual confrontations?

Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah's Vision of a Converted World

2011-05-22T21:32:00.004-04:00

"It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.'
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."

How much plainer can the scriptures be, than that the nations shall flow to the mountain of the Lord? The mountain of the Lord is Mt. Moriah, the Temple Mount, a type of the church (compare Isaiah 56:7, and Psalm 48:1). This prophecy is repeated verbatim in Micah 4:1. It is the second aspect of the prophecy of Daniel 2:35 (with 2:44): the Prophet Daniel saw the kingdom of God as a rock which smashed the great empires and then grew into a great mountain. Compare also Zechariah 8:3. Isaiah saw the peoples flocking to that mountain to be instructed by the Lord. "Law" here is not a reference to the Mosaic Law, but rather is an inclusive term for "teachings," as used in Psalm 119:18, etc.

The Proper Dating of the Revelation of John

2011-05-19T09:07:00.003-04:00

While I have long held to the necessarily-early dating of the writing of the Revelation, I am indebted for the reasoning below to Rev. Kenneth Gentry's book "Postmillennialism Made Easy."

The general view among evangelicals is that the Apostle John wrote the Revelation in the early 90's AD, during the persecution under Emperor Diocletian. Liberal theologians time it much later, and deny the apostolic authorship. However, I don't take that view into consideration. Gentry, and many in the preterist and postmillenialist crowd, time it about 25 years earlier, during the reign of Emperor Nero. I find their reasoning, based on the internal evidence, to be compelling.

First, John writes with a view of a standing Temple. Revelation 11:1-2 reads, "Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, 'Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.'" Since the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70AD, as Jesus Himself prophesied in Matthew 24:2, then the Revelation must have been written before that date. Notice especially the parallel wording used by John here and the words of Jesus in Luke 21:24.

Now go down to Revelation 17:1-6, the vision of a seven-headed beast. Verse 9 then interprets the vision: the seven heads represent seven mountains, surely a reference to the renowned seven hills of Rome. Then verse 10 adds that the heads also represent seven kings. The presumption is strong that these would then be kings of Rome. John specifies that there were five past kings in the chain, one reigning currently, with his successor doomed to reign only briefly. The first seven emperors of Rome were Julius Caesar (49-44BC), Augustus (31BC-14AD, see Luke 2:1), Tiberius (14-37AD, see Luke 3:1), Gaius (37-41AD), Claudius (41-54AD, see Acts 11:28 and Acts 18:2), Nero (54-68AD. see Acts 28:19), and Galba (June, 68-January, 69AD). So, sixth Emperor Nero's death in 68 (followed by the six-month reign of Galba), requires that the Revelation have been written no later that his death on June 6, 68AD, an historically-objective circumstance not subject to anyone's theological presuppositions.

Where this leads me is to the expectation that John was describing the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the sacrificial system, in the Revelation. Not exhaustively, since I am conscious obviously that the resurrection and Second Coming are yet to be fulfilled. However, this is logically the predominant focus of the book. Not the European Union or Social Security numbers or the myriad of other passing fantasies that arise daily in the "prophetic" crowd, most-recently from Harold Camping.

Does Matthew 24 Teach a Future Tribulation?

2011-05-14T20:25:00.005-04:00

"Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, 'You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.' As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' And Jesus answered them, 'See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.'"
Matthew 24:1-8

Bits and pieces of this passage have been brought into modern parlance, primarily through the work of popular apocalyptic preachers, such as Hal Lindsay. Every time some foreign conflict is mentioned on the news, someone starts spouting about "wars and rumors of wars," and every earthquake is touted as proof of the coming rapture. However, there is very little critical thinking in these usages. Are they actually justified by the text?

My answer is no, they are not justified. Not only do I deny that Matthew 24 teaches a future tribulation, but I even insist that it is about events that happened long ago, indeed, soon after Jesus spoke these words. I suggest that the apocalyptic interpretation is not only not required by the text, but is actually forbidden by it. I can hear all the voices out there, bellowing, "What, are you CRAZY?!?!?!"

First, go a little further down the passage to verse 16, "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Who is Jesus addressing with these warnings? Not people all over the world, but rather specifically in Judea! That is, He isn't warning of wars in general, but specifically in Judea (the area around modern Jerusalem). Nor is He warning of earthquakes in general, but rather specifically in that same area. This is reinforced by the parallel passage in Luke 21:20, "“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." There, Luke paraphrases "abomination of desolation" as "Jerusalem surrounded by armies," a situation that doesn't occur in the many conflicts in our modern era. Thus, the geographical references within the passage forbid its use as is popular in our time.

Second, the time references given by the Lord forbid a futuristic interpretation. Note His very words in verse 34, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." He explicitly states that the events He is describing will occur within the general lifetimes of His audience. Some dispensationalists have tried to get around this verse by referring it to some future generation, in spite of His use of "this generation." However, their interpretations are excluded not only by the "this," though that would be sufficient, but also by other usages in its context. Just before, in Matthew 23:36, Jesus, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, tells them, "Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." He is referring to their judgment. Remember that our chapter and verse divisions are relatively modern, dating from the 1500's; they were not part of the inspired text. Matthew 23 and 24 are a continuous narrative, with no break in time between the "generation" of 23:36 and the "generation" of 24:34. Jesus is telling the hypoocritical leaders of the Jewish nation that the hardness of their hearts will soon bring His retribution. When? In the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD, including the demolition of the temple (24:2, "not one stone left upon another") and the ending of the priestly and sacrificial system. Jesus came again, not in the salvific Second Coming that we yet look forward to, but in awful judgment on those who rejected and murdered Him. Matthew 24, describes a horrible tribulation, it is true, but for them, not for today's Christians.

The Messianic Psalms and the Prosperity of the Gospel

2011-05-11T10:20:00.002-04:00

Three of the Davidic Psalms are quoted frequently in the New Testament to refer to David's descendant, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. They also teach much regarding his mediatorial reign between His first and second advents.

Psalm 2:7-8, "The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession." God the Father, speaking to the Son, promises Him all the nations, His merely to ask for. Did Jesus do so? Matthew 28:19 quotes Him, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." The Father promised and the Son received. Referring to this passage, Keil and Delitzsch explain, Jehovah "has appointed the dominion of the world to His Son: on His part, therefore, it needs only the desire for it, to appropriate to Himself that which is allotted to Him." Can this mean anything less than that the nations shall belong to Him?

Psalm 22:27-28 reads, "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations." Again, the Lord's dominion is taken as the basis for the expectation that a time will come when the nations (not necessarily all individuals) will worship Him through His mediatorial Son. The Apostle Paul borrows this theme in Ephesians 1:20-22.

And finally Psalm 110:1-3, "The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours." After His ascension, Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father's throne in heaven, compare Acts 2:33, Hebrews 1:3, and Hebrews 10:13. There He receives the Father's promise to bring all things under His dominion. Notice especially that this is said while Jesus is in Heaven, and explicitly states that He is to wait there until it is achieved. There is no allowance here for the premillenialist error that holds that His dominion is established after His second advent. This is a description of His mediatorial work between His first and second advents, i.e., it is being achieved now!

It is an error, dishonoring to our Redeemer, to hold that He is impotent to change the world, until some future millenium. I hold that the millenium is now, and Jesus reigns now, and history is the story of His conquest of His enemies. Having once been His enemy, I rejoice in His conquest of my heart (Romans 5:19, Colossians 1:21).

Evangelicalism for the New Age?

2011-04-23T21:19:00.004-04:00

I have written before of the abandonment of the Regulative Principle of Worship by Lake Forest Church, a local, very large congregation of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Now, in addition to creeping Popery, Lake Forest has added New Age spirituality to its eclectic mix.

For Easter, Lake Forest is promoting its "prayer labyrinth." Their website announces, "Come participate in an interactive visual and auditory journey of prayer in our Gathering Space meant to draw you deeper into a centered relationship with Christ." While such labyrinths have become commonplace among liberal churches, especially Episcopalian and Catholic, this is the first time I have heard of it in a professing evangelical church. Such labyrinths were absorbed by the state church from Roman paganism about the Fourth Century.

Lake Forest Pastor Mike Moses promotes the labyrinth on his personal blog. Note that he refers to not even one Scripture as a justification for the labyrinth. Rather, he tells us, "The inward journey – ‘letting go’ or shedding. The middle of the journey – centering. The outward journey – incarnation." That isn't biblical Christianity; that is New Age psychobabble!

Moses does refer to one (and only one) Scripture in his blog post, Romans 14, implying that the one who refuses to participate in the labyrinth is "the weaker brother." But I would refer Rev. Moses to I Corinthians 10: 14, "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry." And verse 20, "what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons." I suggest that by adopting a pagan ceremony, Lake Forest Church is fellowshipping with demons.

Acts 17:1-4, the Bereans and Christian Apologetics

2011-04-06T20:34:00.004-04:00

"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, 'This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.' And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women."

In our Wednesday evening service tonight at church, we started a video series by R. C. Sproul on apologetics. The elder who was leading started us with reading a couple of relevant Bible texts, including I Peter 3:15 and Acts 17, part of which I have quoted above.

That portion reminded me of the book pictured here, which I received recently from Amazon. Note that I haven't read it, yet, so I'm not necessarily endorsing it. I merely note its relevance to the matter at hand.

I also thought of Isaiah 55:11, "[S]o shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."

I notice in the Mars Hill (or Areopagus, depending on version) story, Paul didn't preach on justifying what Scripture teaches. Rather, he taught the Scriptures as authoritative and sufficient in themselves. A former pastor of mine advised the congregation to read what Scripture says on a matter, then to stop, and let the Holy Spirit work. Afterall, the Scriptures are His word, and He will sustain and apply them, as Isaiah promised. He doesn't require us to protect Him from opposition. When Paul followed that advice, though he was an apostle with the authority that office carries, Jews and Greeks were converted!

Baptism and the Visible/Invisible Church Dichotomy

2011-04-03T12:51:00.004-04:00

This morning at church (The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church of Huntersville) we had both an infant baptism and communion. I heard it called several times, "Sacrament Sunday." While communion was as regularly scheduled, it is unusual to have both sacraments together. The subject of "why baptize infants" came up in Sunday School, and was also the subject of the sermon. I have addressed the biblical basis for the baptism of the infant children of believers before (see here, here, and here; and regarding the mode of baptism, here, here, here, and here), so I won't repeat that here. Rather, I want to address why paedobaptists, i.e., those who baptize the infant children of believers, see this, while credobaptists, i.e., those who advocate believers' baptism only, don't. Note that my reasoning here is a Reformed position, and is not intended to explain the views of Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox.

I think that the problem is that credobaptists seek to apply the characteristics of the invisible church to the visible church.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 62, defines the "visible church" as "a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children." That is, an organization on earth, such that one can point to it, and say, "there it is." Scripture uses this sense in such places as Romans 16:3-5, in reference to the church that met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila.

In contrast, Question 64 defines the invisible church as "the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head." Scripture uses this sense in such places as Ephesians 1:22-23, "the church, which is his body..."

The visible church is as man sees it, while the invisible church is as God sees it. The latter is necessarily pure, because God knows our hearts. The first cannot be, because men have no infallible means of perceiving the hearts of other men (and imperfectly even their own). The credobaptist expects the visible church to be equivalent to the invisible church, even though this is beyond the ken of mortal men. That is what blinds him to the status of the children of believers (see I Corinthians 7, especially verse 14). By maintaining this dichotomy, the paedobaptist experiences no dissidence in the baptism of someone who is not, and in fact may never be, a believer.

For further reading, try this article, by a longtime credobaptist who converted to a paedobaptist position.

Matthew 13:10-17, Election and Reprobation in the Words of Jesus

2011-04-02T22:33:00.006-04:00

"Then the disciples came and said to him, 'Why do you speak to them in parables?' And he answered them, 'To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them." But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.'"

This exchange between the Lord and His disciples occurred immediately after His giving of the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-9). They wanted to know why He told truths in parables, rather than explaining them in plain words, i.e., in "layman's terms" as we might say today. His answer is astounding, verse 11: "to them it has not been given." The Arminian cannot explain His words, but they flow naturally from the Calvinist perspective. Jesus is teaching the doctrine of election, in that He has chosen them to understand. And He is teaching reprobation, in that He intentionally withholds comprehension from others.

This confronts the errors of some that hold that the doctrines of grace are somehow a distortion of the Gospel taught only by Paul (as if that would invalidate them anyway). And it also undermines the equivocations of those "red-letter" Christians who believe that the words of Jesus alone are authoritative. And there is no wiggle-room for the Arminians who seek to deprive election of any meaning by making it contingent on some foreseen quality in the elect. Jesus claims this choice as His own sovereign act of will.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. I am content to depend on these other words of His, from John 15:5, "I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."

Ephesians 5:25 and Limited Atonement at Its Simplest

2011-03-21T23:05:00.003-04:00

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

If one asks the question, "For whom did Christ die?", no more-straightforward answer than this one can be given. For her, i.e., the Church! Can it be more explicit? Here is limited or particular atonement in one sentence! One must really struggle to avoid that consequence of this verse. While it would be correct to say that it is not the thrust of Paul's intent to explain that doctrine here, it is necessary to recognize that it is his assumption of it that provides the basis of his instruction to the Christian husband.

Strange Fire: The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura by American Evangelicals

2011-03-12T20:22:00.006-05:00

I have written before about the abandonment of the opposition to Rome by modern Protestantism. Today, I want to write about the abandonment of Protestantism itself.

The Reformers established five principles which divided them from Rome, traditionally designated by their Latin forms: sola fide, sola gratia, sola Christus, sola scriptura, and soli gloria Deo. You can go here for my explanation of them.

Here in my hometown, a large church, called Lake Forest Church, promoted its Ash Wednesday service in the local newspaper (no longer available online). Lake Forest is a congregation of the Evangelical Presbyterian Chruch, but check their website, and see how hard you have to look to find that connection. It never appears in their promotional announcements and advertising. According to the article, Lake Forest Pastor Mike Moses extolled the event on the basis that his congregation is "a modern church that delights in ancient practices."

And there lies my objection: instead of the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, scripture alone, Moses uses the Roman Catholic standard, i.e., tradition. As the Westminster Confession (XXI:1) says, "the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." The Larger Catechism, answer 109, reads in part, "The sins forbidden in the second commandment are all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself." As a Presbyterian Church, the EPC, and Lake Forest Church as an affiliate thereof, is constitutionally committed to the WCF as its primary subordinate standard of doctrine (however, the EPC has extensively amended the WCF, and may actually have removed this passage; I simply don't know).

The WCF position, commonly referred to as "the regulative principle of worship," is based primarily on Deuteronomy 12:32, "“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." But it can be seen historically in the story of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, whom God executed for offering "strange fire," or "unauthorized fire" as worded by the ESV, on the altar of the tabernacle. See Leviticus 10:1, Leviticus 16:1, Numbers 3:4, and Numbers 26:61, for references to the story. Further explanation can be found in this article from Archibald Alexander Hodge, the son of Charles Hodge.

What separates Protestants from Catholics is that Protestants ask, "What do the Scriptures say?" while the Catholic apologetic appeals to the historicity of a practice. My question to Rev. Mike Moses is this: Human sacrifice is far more ancient than Ash Wednesday: according to your theology, does that make it equally- or even more valid? Sola scriptura gives one answer, but your apologetic seems to lead to another.

According to the Koran, All Muslims Should Become Christians!

2011-02-27T19:28:00.007-05:00

"We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying that which was before him of the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, and verifying that which was before it of the Torah, and a guidance and an admonition for the dutiful. And let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah has revealed in it. And whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed, those are the transgressors."
The Koran, Sura 5, verses 46-47

We find something here in the Islamic Scriptures that I find very interesting. They teach that the Gospel, i.e., what Christians call the New Testament, was given to Jesus to provide guidance to His followers. And the final sentence clearly states that anyone who refuses to judge spiritual truth by the New Testament is a transgressor. There is no indication here of what has become a tradition among Muslims, that the Gospel has been corrupted.

They hold that Jesus was a great prophet. To my mind, that should indicate that what He said of Himself must therefore be taken as truth from God.

John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'” Here, Jesus claims for Himself the divine Name of God the Father, I Am, found in Exodus 3:14, i.e., the very Torah of Moses that the Koran claims was confirmed by Jesus in the Gospel.

John 10:30, "I and the Father are one.” Jesus identifies Himself with God the Father, using again the words of Moses, from Deuteronomy 6:4.

John 14:7, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” And 14:9, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." Jesus claims that to know Him is to know the Father.

John 16:15, "All that the Father has is mine." Here is a clear claim to divine omnipresence and omniscience, for they are logically necessary to identify all that is the Father's.

John 17:11, "Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one." In this portion of what is called His High Priestly Prayer, Jesus again claims a clear identification of Himself with His Heavenly Father.

John 20:28-29, "Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'” Here, in a post-resurrection meeting, the Apostle Thomas proclaims His recognition of Jesus as Lord and God! If it weren't so, shouldn't Prophet Jesus have protested against Thomas's declaration as idolatry? That is exactly the accusation that Muslims make against Christians. Apparently, Jesus is guilty of the same sin! But then the Muslim is trapped by his own logic, because a man cannot be a great prophet if he allows idolatry!

My point here is that the very beliefs of Islam, if followed consistently, must force the Muslim to become a Christian. And I will offer the Muslim one ever more-compelling reason, again in Jesus's own words, John 14:6, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" Jesus declares that there is no way for access to God in heaven without His mediation. But He also gives this promise, John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." We have His promise to receive all who come to Him, that we may know without doubt that we have received eternal life. Is that an assurance that Islam can give you?

"Signs and Wonders" for When? And by Whom?

2011-02-20T22:34:00.006-05:00

I have posted before about my opinion of the "miracles" associated especially with the charismatic-pentecostal movement. My position is commonly referred to as "cessationism," i.e., the belief that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were intended for the apostolic period only, and ceased with the passing of the Apostles. That is not to say that miracles cannot or do not still occur, but rather that they are not the norm, any longer.

My fellow reformed blogger Andy, himself a converted Pentecostal, has written on this issue much more competently than I can (see here and here), so I refer you to him for a detailed biblical case for cessationism. I wish here only to give some brief thoughts that arose during the sermon in church today.

The sermon was on Acts 2:42-47, and focused on the Lord's vision of the how the church should work. But, as it is wont to do, my mind was sidetracked at verse 43, the latter portion, "many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles." Who did the signs and wonders? Not the whole church, but specifically the Apostles! I was also reminded of Hebrews 2:3-4, "How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." Again, the miraculous gifts were given to verify the testimony of the Apostles!

I think that this explains why so much of Pentecostalism (by no means am I saying all) degenerates into a circus atmosphere and bizarre doctrine. They are focusing on the signs, instead of teaching what the signs gave testimony to!

Isaiah 3:12a and the Judgeship of Deborah

2011-02-09T20:15:00.005-05:00

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. " (ASV)

In Judges, chapter 4, we have the story of Deborah, the only female judge of Israel. In verse 4, she is described as a prophetess and judge, so she is both the political and religious leader of Israel (though I assume there was still a high priest). Believing as I do that both of these offices are parts of God's calling for men, not women (I Timothy 2:12), I was pondering this evening what the significance is of her holding these offices.

Note further in verse 7, where she has delivered God's commandment to Barak, the chief general of Israel, to go out to battle against the oppressors of Israel. His response in the next verse is telling: "If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” It is as if he said that he needs her to hold his hand, so he won't be afraid of the bogeyman. Deborah bluntly tells him in verse 9 that the glory for the victory will go to a woman. Even Sisera, the enemy general, turns out to be a wimp. Verse 20 reads, "And he said to her, 'Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No.’”He sends a woman out to guard him as he sleeps!

I think that we have here a disparaging view of the spiritual condition of Israel. Her men have been so feminized and spiritually-castrated that there are no man for God to call into leadership (humanly-speaking; I certainly would never say that God cannot graciously raise a man above his natural ability). Do we not see that condition developing in our own country? I see more and more female preachers on TV. My home state has a female governor. Our federal secretary of state is a woman. The previous speaker of the US House was a woman. Will we soon see our own Deborah?

Zechariah1:2-17, The Pre-Incarnate Mediatorial Role of Christ

2011-01-30T20:06:00.003-05:00

“The Lord was very angry with your fathers. Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.’ But they did not hear or pay attention to me, declares the Lord. Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? So they repented and said, As the Lord of hosts purposed to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so has he dealt with us.” On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, which is the month of Shebat, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, saying, “I saw in the night, and behold, a man riding on a red horse! He was standing among the myrtle trees in the glen, and behind him were red, sorrel, and white horses. Then I said, ‘What are these, my lord?’ The angel who talked with me said to me, ‘I will show you what they are.’ So the man who was standing among the myrtle trees answered, ‘These are they whom the Lord has sent to patrol the earth.’ And they answered the angel of the Lord who was standing among the myrtle trees, and said, ‘We have patrolled the earth, and behold, all the earth remains at rest.’ Then the angel of the Lord said, ‘O Lord of hosts, how long will you have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have been angry these seventy years?’ And the Lord answered gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with me. So the angel who talked with me said to me, ‘Cry out, Thus says the Lord of hosts: I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion. And I am exceedingly angry with the nations that are at ease; for while I was angry but a little, they furthered the disaster. Therefore, thus says the Lord, I have returned to Jerusalem with mercy; my house shall be built in it, declares the Lord of hosts, and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. Cry out again, Thus says the Lord of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity, and the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.’”

One of the errors which has been perpetrated down through history is that the mediatorial office of Christ began at His ascension. Afterall, wasn't His mediatorial work based on His crucifixion and resurrection? And, of course, it was. However, I believe that the Scriptures teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was active in mediating between God, i.e., the First Person, and His people throughout history, including the Old Testament dispensation, looking forward to His mediatorial sacrifice.

We see that work here in Zechariah 1. The section begins with a record of God's judgments on Israel for her idolatry, See especially verse 6. Then the Angel of the Lord appears in verse 8 (revealed as such in verse 11).

I agree with the traditional understanding that the Angel of the Lord (specifically, not angels in general) is the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, due to the interchange of His identity with that of the Lord in various parts of the historical portions of the Old Testament. See, for example, Genesis 16:7-11, compared with verse 13. The Angel of the Lord is described distinctly, yet identified with Jehovah, a classical representation of these two Persons of the Trinity.

Now, back in Zechariah 1, we see the Angel speaking up for the remnants of Judah. In verse 12, He asks, "O Lord of hosts, how long will you have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have been angry these seventy years?" And immediately we see a change in the countenance of Jehovah. Where we saw His wrath, as described above, now contrariwise in verse 13 we read, "and the Lord answered gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with me." From wrath to grace and comfort, merely in response to the Mediator's interposition.

For us, we should find much comfort here. We see the covenantal faithfulness of Christ, revealed even centuries before He was born in the manger. And we see the righteous wrath of God, which we have every reason to fear, turned aside by our theanthropic Mediator. What peace that should be to each of His people! And for those who hold erroneous views of the person of Christ, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, the Word witnesses against you, and you cannot hope in the mediatorial work of that Christ Whom you malign!

Papal Claims of Supremacy Examined by Scripture

2011-01-23T14:46:00.005-05:00

The Church of Rome claims that the Pope is the supreme head of the organized church on earth, meaning that anyone refusing that supremacy is by definition outside Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Independent Churches (such as the Coptic Church in Egypt), and Protestants have always refused and denied that supremacy.

Since the Bible alone, not the opinion of men, is the final standard in spiritual matters, that testimony alone must be the deciding issue.

The trail of logic in Roman theology holds that the Apostle Peter was given supremacy over the other apostles by Christ Himself in Matthew 16:17-19. After Christ's ascension, Peter moved to Rome and became bishop of the church there, where he revealed that his authority was to be passed by succession to all future bishops of Rome after him. So, the questions involved are, Did Peter receive supremacy over the other Apostles? Did he become a bishop, and, if so, was his diocese in Rome? And finally, did his supremacy succeed through the office of bishop in Rome, to all future popes?

On Peter's supposed supremacy, the essential portion is in verse 18, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..." Jesus is making a play on words, for the name Peter, both in Greek and Aramaic, is the masculine form of the word for "rock." However, is Peter the rock He means? Jesus refers to Himself, and is referred to by the apostles , including Peter himself, as the chief cornerstone (Matthew 21:42, Ephesians 2:20, and I Peter 2:6-7). So, referring back to Himself as the rock would be consistent with Scriptural usage. Some interpret the rock as being Peter's confession of Christ. Either one meets the demands of parsimony far better than does the interpretation of Rome. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul even refers to the church's being built on the apostles as a group! Were the apostles, including Peter, simply confused? I guess the Church of Rome must know better than the apostles themselves did!

Further, what was the attitude of the other apostles to Peter? I believe that the testimony of Paul is especially telling. In Galatians 2, Paul is addressing the failure of Peter to oppose the intrusion of the Judaizers into that church. In verse 11, Paul tells us, "when Cephas ["Peter" in Aramaic] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Paul didn't submit to some supposed supremacy of Peter. Rather, he opposed him to his face, and explicitly states that Peter was in error! Earlier in this same passage, Paul also mentions another point that throws a major monkey-wrench into Papal claims. One time each in verses 8 and 9, Paul refers to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, while the other apostles worked among the circumcision, i.e., the Jews. Logically speaking, that is not consistent with a supposed bishopric of Peter in Rome. While a strong tradition supports the belief that he was martyred there, it would not have been an obvious place for Jewish evangelism and discipleship.

The claim that Peter then left his authority to his Papal successors is made of whole cloth, supposedly on the tradition of apostolic succession. That is, Rome claims that the evidence for their succession to Peter is authoritative because the popes have always held it to be. Such circular reasoning and self-aggrandizement is self-evident.

Of course, I would add a more-fundamental objection: as I have said before, the Bible knows nothing of the monarchical bishop, as practiced in the Church of Rome, the Eastern Churches, and the branches of the Church of England. If the office of bishop is a fiction, then any supposed authority passed through it is a moot point! I believe that the Bible vigorously and unequivocally maintains the Protestant view of Papal Supremacy, which is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."

Lamentations 3:37, the Lord Needs No Reason in Us for His Decrees

2011-01-18T22:58:00.005-05:00

"Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?"

A common error, even among professing Reformed Christians, holds that God's predestination of His people is dependent on foreseen faith on their part. Or worse yet is the Roman error that predestination is based on foreseen righteousness.

However, here we see God's own inspired answer to that error: election derives from God's command, and our faith - and the righteousness it receives - follow from it. As Paul also affirms, in Ephesians 2:8, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God..." The Word echoes with the refusal of God to yield to the pride of men: Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other..."

Revelation 8:8, An Interesting Parallel!

2011-01-13T09:51:00.003-05:00

"The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood."

I am sure that we have all read this verse a hundred times. I am also sure that we have heard the pop ministers spout their apocalyptic interpretations of what this verse refers to, the pop eschatology which has become so popular among professing evangelicals. However, I am struck, not by wild-eyed interpretations, but rather by the parallels this verse has to other portions of scripture.

I have written before on Matthew 21:21, especially the latter portion, "even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen." This is virtually an exact quote of the Revelation passage! And, as I point out there, He doesn't refer to some generic mountain, but rather to this specific mountain. i.e., the Temple Mount. if those words mean the Temple Mount there, is it not logical to expect the exact same words to apply to the Temple Mount here?

Consider also the words of the Prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 51:25, he wrote, "Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain, declares the Lord, which destroys the whole earth; I will stretch out my hand against you, and roll you down from the crags, and make you a burnt mountain." Here he is prophesying the doom of Babylon. In Revelation, spiritual Babylon is a major theme. One plausible interpretation is that spiritual Babylon is apostate Israel, again lending credence to the interpretation of this passage as referring to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70AD.

While I am not a consistent preterist, i.e., I still expect the resurrection and the Second Advent, I do generally interpret the prophetic portions of the New Testament as pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. I think that this verse from Revelation, compared to its parallels in both testaments, is strong support for that perspective.

Mark 7:24-30, The Over-Flowing Goodness of God

2011-01-07T22:12:00.004-05:00

"And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, 'Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she answered him, 'Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.' And he said to her, 'For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.' And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone."

In 1924, a controversy broke into schism over the teaching of the Christian Reformed Church regarding "common grace." The CRC advocated a providential favor of God toward all, whether reprobate or elect. In opposition to this position, the minority, which eventually seceded to form the Protestant Reformed Churches, while not denying the benefits God gives to all, denied that this was properly grace, which, in their view, could only be particularly given to the elect.

Like the PRC, I am uncomfortable with referring to God's "grace" to the reprobate. Afterall, the very definition of reprobation is that God's wrath has been sovereignly determined for a particular individual, as in Romans 9:11-18. It strikes me as incongruous to refer to God's grace and sovereign wrath toward the same person.

However, I would say that God is infinitely good, whether from the perspective of the elect or of the reprobate. The difference is that God is actively good to the elect, i.e., the "children" in the story above, while His good passively overflows to the reprobate, i.e., the "dogs" in the passage. We also see this in the rain on the unjust (Matthew 5:45), and food and gladness (Acts 14:17). It is even seen in His restraining His wrath for as time (Nehemiah 9:17). I do not understand the PRC position well enough to say whether this is also their view.

Another reason I would distinguish between the grace and the goodness of God, as I have here, is because I believe that the goodness of God experienced by the reprobate actually increases His wrath against them. Think about it this way: they have experienced the goodness of the living God, yet choose to hate Him anyway. How can he not punish them all the more?

Job 9:28-32, Our Condition Outside of Christ in the covenant of Works

2010-12-31T20:20:00.006-05:00

"I become afraid of all my suffering,
for I know you will not hold me innocent.
I shall be condemned;
why then do I labor in vain?
If I wash myself with snow
and cleanse my hands with lye,
yet you will plunge me into a pit,
and my own clothes will abhor me.
For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him,
that we should come to trial together."

Job here gives utterance to a concept also found in Isaiah 64:6, comparing our nature to rotten and filthy clothes that must be put off. He goes further, describing the efforts of the unregenerate man to cleanse himself, seeking the purity of snow (contrast Isaiah 1:18), and the cleanliness of harsh lye soap (against Psalm 51:7). This is man under the covenant of works, striving by works to achieve the eternal life first offered to Adam for his perfect obedience (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:17), In Adam's transgression, we all became sinners (Romans 5:12), and under judgment for breaking God's commandments (James 2:10 and Galatians 3:10). And Job warns us, that the shifty arguments that we offer in defense do not sway our divine judge (verse 32). That covenant is broken and there is only judgment, not hope, therein.

So, where can we be made clean? Only by being washed in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:5).

Titus 1:5-9, Bishops or Elders? Does the Bible Really Say?

2010-12-26T12:19:00.004-05:00

"This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it."

One of the sharpest conflicts between Presbyterians and Anglicans in Great Britain was over the issue of church government. Presbyterians held - and still hold- that Christ, as Head of the Church, did not leave her to develop a government by accident or by tradition, i.e., that presbyterian government is according to jure divino, divine law. In contrast, most Anglicans believed that church government is not prescribed by scripture, and that the episcopal system developed organically, and should be maintained as an ancient tradition.

However, some supporters of prelacy hold that it, instead, is jure divino. They cite the use of episkopos in the Greek text as a command to have bishops. In their understanding, since both words are used in the Greek, episkopos ("bishops") and presbuteros ("elder", and transcribed into English by some as "priest"), then they must be separate offices, and both necessary to the Church.

However, in the text from Titus above, both words are used, presbuteros in verse 5, and episkopos in verse seven, as referring to the same person! It is on the basis of this passage that presbyterians hold that "bishop" ("overseer" in most modern translations) and "elder" actually refer to the same office, the two terms used merely for the sake of literary variety. In fact, Paul's words to Titus here would make no sense if the two terms were not equivalent.

I think that this text makes it incontrovertible that presbyterian church government has exclusive claim to the status of jure divino, and prelacy is exclusively a human invention, in rebellion against the Head of the Church.

I do not attempt here to deal with the Roman doctrine of apostolic succession.

Ezekiel 29:17-20, The Lord Rewards Unbelievers for Their Unwitting Service to Him

2010-12-18T20:25:00.005-05:00

"In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre. Every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare, yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against her. Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he labored, because they worked for me, declares the Lord God.'"

The background here is that God had declared His judgment against the pagan city of Tyre. In the execution of that judgment, He had called the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, an unbeliever, and his army to conquer and destroy Tyre (see Ezekiel 27).

Even though Nebuchadnezzar was unwitting in his God-given role, and would certainly have rebelled against it if he had been conscious of it, God acknowledges this role, and gives him suzerainty over Egypt as a reward.

I think that there is a part of every man's soul that recoils at the thought of God giving a blessing to a rank unbeliever, even if it is far short of salvation. And even more so, the heart of natural man recoils at the thought of even an unbeliever serving the purposes of God! The natural man loves to believe that he is self-sovereign, unless he chooses to submit to God. This view is shared by free-will versions of professing Christianity, as well. Yet, Ezekiel reveals the error of human self-sovereignty!

Psalm 74:2, the Eternal Intention of Redemption in Christ

2010-12-18T20:08:00.003-05:00

"Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old, which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage! Remember Mount Zion, where you have dwelt."

One of the many errors of Scofieldism, or classical Dispensationalism, is that history consists of a series of plans of salvation set up by God, failed in by men, to be replaced by a new plan. Dispensationalists hold that redemption in Christ was a new plan, unforeseen prior to the actual coming of Christ.

Yet, we see in this verse from Psalms that, not only is the Atonement foreseen, but it is actually seen as so certain as to have been already accomplished!

It is in this same sense that the Apostle John refers to Christ as the "lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).

In contrast, covenant theology holds that all of history, though under varying administrations, has always been directed toward the Atonement, the Old Testament looking forward in time, but with a faith in its certitude, and the New Testament looking back.

Amos 3:2, Election and God's Disciplining Love

2010-12-10T06:21:00.004-05:00

"You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."

Addressing His own chosen people, God declares that His discipline arises from His special love for us. The same principle appears across the Scriptures, in both testaments. For example, Moses writes in Deuteronomy 8:5, "Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you." That is quoted almost word-for-word by the author of Hebrews 12:7. Proverbs 3:12 in the Old Testament, and again, John in Revelation 3:19 in the New.

Paul gives the explanation for this discipline in I Corinthians 11:32, "When we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world." The discipline of the Lord is directed toward the effectual goal of separating those who are His from those who are not (Matthew 25:33).

When His discipline seems so hard, and it certainly can be, remember one other exhortation from Proverbs 3:11, "My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof." His discipline arises not from tyranny, but from the love of His fatherhood.

John 3:16-17, The Universality of the Gospel and the Particularity of the Atonement

2010-11-28T21:25:00.005-05:00

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

It is amazingly predictable that this passage will come up in any discussion of the extent of the atonement. As I have stated before (such as here and here), I hold to the classic Reformed view of the Atonement, called "limited" or "particular" atonement, i.e., that Christ died effectually and exclusively for a certain number of particular individuals given to Him by the Father before the Creation. This is in opposition to the Arminian view of universal atonement, i.e., the Christ died generically for all, and ineffectually for most.

However, look at what these verses actually say. Because God loved the world, i.e., His Creation, He gave His Son for those who believe in Him. This is particular atonement! Because the Father created this world as good (Genesis 1:10), He saw fit to redeem a race from it, lest it all be condemned for Adam's sin.

The theologian John Brown of Haddington referred to this as "an ordinance of salvation." Brown vehemently maintained that the Father truly and unreservedly proffered Jesus Christ as the way of salvation (Acts 4:12). Any who would be saved must flee to Him, and there can be no other salvation. Thus, Christ holds the office of savior for the whole world, which is a separate issue from either election or atonement. Think of this analogy: the sun is given as the primary source of light for the whole world. However, the blind do not benefit from its light. Yet, their lack of benefit in no way negates the action of the sun. In the same way, while the reprobate receive no eternal benefits from Jesus as savior, that in no way negates his work as Savior, which is effectual for all those whom He chooses. Remember, He Himself said that many are called (i.e., in the proclamation of the gospel), but few are chosen (i.e., in the effectual power of election), Matthew 22:14 (cf. also, Revelation 17:14).

My point here is that there is no conflict between the universality of Christ's saving office and His particular saving power. They are distinct things with distinct purposes.

I John 5:7, The Johannine Comma

2010-11-18T09:06:00.005-05:00

"For there are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one." -Geneva Bible

This verse, technically referred to as "the Johannine Comma," has been controversial for a long time. However, it is important to recognize that orthodox Christians are unanimous in holding to the substance of the teaching of the verse. Most modern Bible translations, including my preferred ESV, leave it out. Older ones, such as the Geneva Bible and KJV include it. That is because the editors of the critical versions of the Greek New Testament have concluded that it isn't supported by the manuscripts. I am not qualified to address that. The following is from the Systematic Theology of John Brown of Haddington. He was a mid-18th Century theology professor for the Burgher Associate Synod in Scotland. I reprint it here simply as a contribution to the discussion.

"The Socinians, modern Arians, and some others, contend that the last-mentioned text, I John v. 7, is spurious; because, 1. 'Many Greek manuscripts want [lack] it.' But many of these want other texts: and the similarity of the 7th and 8th verses made a careless transcriber apt to overleap one of them. 2. 'Many of the ancient translations want it.' But none of these translations are of great weight in this matter, for they want much more of the New Testament. Nor are any of them, except the Syriac and Jerome's Latin one, much worth. 3. 'The ancient Fathers do not quote it, when, in their disputes with heretics, it would have been much to their purpose.' But that might be because they had deficient copies, or cared not to adduce a text which their opponents might have rejected. -Let it be further observed, 1, The orthodox had no temptation to forge it, having plenty of proof for their faith concerning the Trinity beside. But the Antitrinitarians had strong temptations to drop it out of their copies, which is also more easily done. And yet perhaps it originated from no design, but from the hurry of a transcriber, amidst the rage of persecution. 2. About 1400 years ago [i.e., before Brown's time], we find complaints of some Antitrinitarians attempting to corrupt the Scripture; but never, till of late, that the orthodox had done so. 3. This verse is referred to by Tertullian about AD 200, quoted by Cyprian about 250, and by Athanasius, or one in his name, about 350. Jerome hath it in his translation about 400, and admitting it to be in all the best Greek copies, he severely blames the want of it in the old Latin version. Soon after, it is quoted by Eucherus and Vigilius. In 484, the African bishops quote it in the Confession of their faith which they presented to Hunneric their Arian king; and about thirty years after, Fulgentius, when required by an Arian king to produce his objections against the Arians, quoted it three times. When the Vulgate Latin translation was solemnly, and with great care, corrected from Greek and Latin manuscripts, by order of Charles the Great, about AD 800, and again by the famed University of Sorbonne, about two hundred years after, this text was retained. Erasmus, who inclined to Arianism, first suspected it, and dropt it out of his first edition of the New Testament: but restored it in his subsequent editions, upon the credit of an old British copy. It is said that nine of Stephen's sixteen manuscripts from which he printed his excellent edition of the Greek New Testament, had this text. No doubt, many of the manuscripts, from which other principal editions were formed, are now lost. A printed copy is even more authentic than almost any manuscript extant, the oldest of which were written some hundred years after all these of the apostles were either worn out, or lost: for, more learning and care have been exercised to render some printed editions correct, than perhaps was taken on all the manuscripts written for a thousand years before the Reformation. 4. The passage appears deficient and unconnected if this verse be dropt. Mill and Bengelius have therefore honestly retained it, in their excellent editions, notwithstanding they have fairly. and with much more candour than Michaelis, represented the objections against it."

In contrast, Free Church of Scotland Theologian William Cunningham, 1805-1861, stated in his Historical Theology (1862, Vol. 2, p. 216), "most Trinitarians now admit that there is a decided preponderance of critical evidence against the genuineness of I John v. 7, usually spoken of as the three heavenly witnesses." This sentence appears in the section in which Cunningham sets forth the errors of the Socinians and Arians on the Trinity and divinity of Christ.

Gensis 37:23-28, God Uses Even the Wickedness of Men to Serve Him

2010-11-17T08:39:00.003-05:00

"So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the robe of many colors that he wore. And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it. Then they sat down to eat. And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. Then Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.' And his brothers listened to him. Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt."

We know the story: Joseph had told his father and brothers of dreams in which they bow to and serve him. As might be expected, they resented the idea. Also, their father Israel had exacerbated the conflict by playing favorites, clearly preferring Joseph over his other sons. In their own wickedness, the brothers first plan to murder Joseph, then nervously back off, choosing merely to sell him into slavery to their kin, the Ishmaelites.

What neither Joseph nor his brothers understood was that this was in the purposes of God. Go over to Genesis 45:4-8, especially verse 7, "And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." God had used the wickedness of Joseph's brothers to bring him to a place from which he would save the lives of the covenant people years later.

However, notice that God never rewards the brothers for their wickedness. While they had planned to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, he is instead found by the Midianites, who then sell him along. God's purposes are fulfilled, but the brothers are frustrated in their expectation of blood-money. How can anyone read this story and not be convinced of the sovereign decrees of God?

Genesis 31:1-3, Evil in This Life Drives Our Hearts to the Blessedness of Eternity

2010-11-11T17:43:00.005-05:00

"Now Jacob heard that the sons of Laban were saying, 'Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and from what was our father’s he has gained all this wealth.' And Jacob saw that Laban did not regard him with favor as before. Then the Lord said to Jacob, 'Return to the land of your fathers and to your kindred, and I will be with you.'"

Perhaps you recall the context of these events: Isaac had sent Jacob back to Padan-Aram, to Laban, Rebekah's brother, to find a wife among her kindred, as was the custom of that time. Falling in love with Rachel, Laban's daughter, Jacob agrees to work for Laban for seven years as bride-price for her hand in marriage. However, Laban treacherously slipped Rachel's older sister Leah under the wedding veil. Jacob then agrees to work an additional seven years to gain Rachel. He thus works a total of fourteen years for his two wives (and later also their two hand-maidens).

In the passage quoted here, Rachel's brothers are jealous of the prosperity that Jacob had received from Jehovah his God, while their own father diminished, thus dissipating their inheritance. They turn their resentment against Jacob, and he is inspired to return home.

As I read that this morning, in spite of having read it many times before, I was struck both by the presence of God's electing hand, and the pattern it represents for the life of most, if not all, believers. God had a covenantal plan for Jacob, the heir of the promise, to return to the Promised Land and invest himself there. While He certainly could have simply ordered the move, He instead creates circumstances under which Jacob and his family are happy to do as He intends.

We often hear the question of how a good God can allow evil in the world. While this passage doesn't cover that exhaustively, I think it certainly gives a partial answer. Our citizenship is not in this world (Philippians 3:20); it is in the spiritual kingdom of God. For most of us, the experiential aspect of that is in the world to come. So God makes this world bitter and contemptible, so that we long to be with Jesus. For some people, minor difficulties are sufficient; for others, it may take a larger nudge, such as a horrible disease.

Remember Jacob, and do not allow yourself to focus on the bitterness of this world. Rather, turn your eyes to Jesus, and the time to come when we will no longer know suffering, but only joy (Revelation 21:4).

Five Reasons to Celebrate the Reformation!

2010-10-31T20:08:00.003-04:00

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg. That event is considered to be the official beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

The controversy between the Reformers and the Church of Rome boiled down to what are often called the Five Solas of the Reformation.

Sola Scriptura, "scripture alone", i.e., the belief that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith and life, in opposition to the Catholic advocacy for an equal authority for church tradition.

Solus Christus, "Christ alone," i.e., the belief that salvation is in Christ alone, not in the church, not in Mary, not in the sacraments, and not in any saints.

Sola Gratia, "grace alone," i.e., that salvation is a free gift from God, not the reward for any works on our part, much less the supererogation of the saints or the indulgences from the Pope.

Sola fide, "through faith alone." Our faith is the response created in us by his grace. That is, we aren't saved by faith, per se, but rather through faith.

Soli deo gloria, "for the glory of God alone." God doesn't need to save us. God isn't obligated to save us. In fact there is nothing within us to inspire Him to save us (Isaiah 64:6).

Also, as a Presbyterian, I celebrate this year as the 450th anniversary of the Reformation of Scotland, under the leadership of John Knox, a converted Catholic priest.

Amos 3:6b, Is It the Responsibility of a Sovereign God to Make Us Happy?

2010-10-21T21:39:00.004-04:00

"Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?"

Portions like this one are why ignorance of the Old Testament is almost a sign of superiority amongst American Evangelicals. Consider that popular song: "At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light, and the burden of my heart rolled away, it was there by faith I received my sight, and now I am happy all the day!" Charismatics, especially the Prosperity Gospel peddlars, are well-known for claiming that illnesses are "lies from Satan!" But is it biblical to expect to be "happy all the day" or free from illness, simply because one knows Jesus?

Consider another verse, Isaiah 45:7, "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things." Speaking of Himself, God certainly makes no claims of being the bringer of only sweetness and light.

Or what of the testimony of Job? In 2:10, he says, "But he said to her, 'You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?' In all this Job did not sin with his lips." And the text even makes explicit that it was no sin for him to say this!

God does indeed bring suffering into the lives of even the strongest Christians. the reasons are many. It may be to expose hidden sin or overblown pride. Suffering also helps us to loosen our grasp on material things in this life and to focus on the life to come. But the issue is his sovereignty: He does, because He can. It is our place to receive His purposes in our lives. To put it simply: we must learn more and more that He is God and we are not!

The reason American evangelicals avoid passages such as these is that evangelism and worship in most churches have changed God from our sovereign king to Santa Claus, lifestyle guru, or the candyman. Do you remember the candyman in "Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang"? He was a wicked man who enslaved children with promises of sweets from a pretty wagon. However, when the children responded to his charms, the candy wagon was suddenly revealed as a cage, as the children were carted away to enslavement. I think that provides an excellent analogy for Satan in the deceptions of American popular evangelicalism!

Isaiah 30:10, Even Easy Religion Is Just Too Hard!

2010-10-18T22:06:00.003-04:00

"[They] say to the seers, 'Do not see,' and to the prophets, 'Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions...'"

The hypocritical believer continues his attachment to the Covenant of Works, believing that his own righteousness will carry him to heaven. Yet, such persons clamor for a lowering of God's standards. Picture the pole-vaulter in the Olympics, assuring everyone that he can overleap the bar at its competitive height, yet still begging to have it lowered.

I think this is part of what Paul talks about in Romans 2:15. From the rankest unbeliever to the purest hypocritical professor, a man's conscience knows that he has not lived without sin. But the fallen man seeks that righteousness which was forfeited by Adam in the Garden. Finding that he cannot live that righteousness, he seeks to have the standard lowered to his own level. And he rebels against that true believer who testifies against his unrighteousness. We have all heard the codewords: "puritanical," "intolerant." He is inventive in exalting himself over the believer, because the truths that he hears from the believer prick his conscience and trip up his self-righteousness.

The Covenant of Grace holds forth God's way of salvation by free grace alone: "“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1) How hard it is for fallen man to receive what is free, because he has deceived himself into believing that he has wealth. It is as Jesus said to the Church at Laodicea in Revelation 3:17, "You say, 'I am rich. I have everything I want. I don't need a thing!' And you don't realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked."

Speedy Gonzales Ain't Got Nuthin' on This Universe!

2010-10-10T22:12:00.003-04:00

According to astronomers, the Big Bang happened 15 billion years ago. However, the matter of the universe stretches 156 billion light years across. In order for the matter at the edge to have reached its current position, i.e., a radius of 78 billion light years, it would have had to travel at five times the speed of light. According to the accepted physical laws, as explained by Einstein, it is impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light. So, how did that happen?

Romans 2:14, the Law Written in Our Hearts

2010-09-30T10:21:00.004-04:00

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law."

To my mind, one of the strongest evidences that Man is a special creation of God is morality. We do not talk about morality in animals, because it requires a choice and a value system, which only humans have. Paul talks about that inherent morality in the verse above. Even those who have never seen or heard the Law of God have an inner voice that speaks to them on certain fundamental moral standards.

The first objection that comes to mind is those individuals who commit the most horrific acts, seemingly with no twinge of conscience. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy come to mind (pictured here, starting from bottom to top). What of the pillaging of the Vikings or the predations of cannibals? And in our own time, there seems to be a rising number of amoral individuals who prey on their neighbors like wolves among sheep. Do these not indicate that morality is only learned from the threats of outside punishment?

I thought about that question. It certainly seems to be a strong rebuttal. However, a thought occurred to me: even the most hardened gang member, child molester, or schoolyard bully, while he may have no twinge of conscience for abusing his victim, certainly would claim to be wronged if those actions were perpetrated against him. That indicates that he does have a moral conscience; he merely exempts himself from it. He certainly understands what is moral for everyone else.

A Logical Deadend for Evolutionism

2010-09-29T10:28:00.003-04:00

A fundamental assumption of secular science is uniformitarianism, i.e., the expectation that the way things work at one point in time will be the same at another point. However, I notice that scientists only apply it when it serves their purposes, and ignore it when it works against them.

The main example that comes to mind is the supposed spontaneous beginning of life. If a random collection of chemicals can spontaneously become capable of self-replication, why can those same chemicals not do so repeatedly? That is, if life arose spontaneously at one place and one point in time, why did it never again do so at another place at another time? Shouldn't it be a continuous process, with new cells popping up every epoch?

If human sapience is the result of evolutionary pressures, have those pressures now ceased? Logically, that must be so, if sapience never developed again. And why just in a particular line of primates? Do those evolutionary pressures not apply to felines or canines or reptiles? In fact, that last creates a real problem for evolution, to my mind. If birds are the remnants of the class of dinosaurs known as raptors, as is the dominant theory, then their advanced forms have been around millions of years longer than have the higher mammals. Why did sapience never develop an ornithoid version?

Here is the issue: the secularist must find a naturalist alternative to Deity. Since that is impossible, he blanks out the holes in his logic and proclaims victory. It reminds me of the little boy playing pirate who vigorously insists that his stick is actually a sabre!

Job 1:21 and the Christian Attitude toward Material Possessions

2010-09-25T22:56:00.004-04:00

"And he said, 'Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.'"

Presbyterians can honor a little-known figure, Charles Colcock Jones, Sr., of Liberty, Georgia. Born to a plantation family, his spiritual convictions led him to a ten-year career of evangelizing the African slaves on both his own plantation and those of his neighbors. He believed that the spiritual uplifting of blacks would lead to a peaceful end of slavery. At the end of that time in 1848, he became a professor at Columbia Theological Seminary (which actually was in Columbia, SC, during that time). Shortly after his installation there, the family home was destroyed by fire. While the family escaped unharmed, all his material goods were lost, including his pastoral library, acquired over his professional lifetime. Of that loss, he had this to say:

"My mind has been and was calm. It was the hand of the Lord! It was mine to use, not to hold nor keep. He took but what He gave - but what was His own. It all resolved itself into a question of time only. The time was coming when I must be taken from all that was consumed. It pleased God to take all from me and leave me alive." [emphasis in the original]

I Chronicles 15:1-15, Shall We Be Guided by Feelings? Or by God's Word?

2010-09-21T22:40:00.007-04:00

"David built houses for himself in the city of David. And he prepared a place for the ark of God and pitched a tent for it. Then David said that no one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, for the Lord had chosen them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him forever. And David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem to bring up the ark of the Lord to its place, which he had prepared for it. And David gathered together the sons of Aaron and the Levites: of the sons of Kohath, Uriel the chief, with 120 of his brothers; of the sons of Merari, Asaiah the chief, with 220 of his brothers; of the sons of Gershom, Joel the chief, with 130 of his brothers; of the sons of Elizaphan, Shemaiah the chief, with 200 of his brothers; of the sons of Hebron, Eliel the chief, with 80 of his brothers; of the sons of Uzziel, Amminadab the chief, with 112 of his brothers. Then David summoned the priests Zadok and Abiathar, and the Levites Uriel, Asaiah, Joel, Shemaiah, Eliel, and Amminadab, and said to them, 'You are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites. Consecrate yourselves, you and your brothers, so that you may bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel, to the place that I have prepared for it. Because you did not carry it the first time, the Lord our God broke out against us, because we did not seek him according to the rule.' So the priests and the Levites consecrated themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. And the Levites carried the ark of God on their shoulders with the poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord."

The background of this passage is a prior attempt by David described in chapter 13 (and the parallel in II Samuel 6) to move the Ark of the Covenant from Kiriath-Jearim to Jerusalem. In that effort, the procedures of the Law for handling the Ark were ignored in the enthusiasm of king and people. As a consequence (verse 10), "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God." this was occasioned by the failure of David to follow the procedures specified by Moses in Exodus 25:12-15 and Numbers 4:15. In a renewed respect for God's holiness, David commands the second effort to proceed "according to the rule."

Paul makes a similar point in II Timothy 2:5: "An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."

How often have you heard a Christian justify his decisions with sentences that begin with "I feel" or "I think"? Or perhaps the more spiritual form, "I feel led." Rarely are choices made with an explanation that begins with "The Scripture says," or "God has said..." It isn't a matter of the lack of sincerity or enthusiasm, but rather an error of authority. As David discovered to his chagrin, God is not compelled to honor our sincerity. Rather, He honors His word, because He is God and we aren't. As He says in Isaiah 48:11b, "My glory I will not give to another."

Luke 5:1-11, The Remnant Shall Become a Great Harvest

2010-09-19T09:31:00.002-04:00

"On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, 'Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.' And Simon answered, 'Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.' And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, 'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, 'Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.' And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him."

This narrative was used by Jonathan Edwards as an analogy for his own ministry. During his long ministry in the church at Northampton, he was discouraged by the lack of spiritual fruit in the congregation. He was like the apostles who toiled all night and took nothing. Then came revival, and he saw many congregants turned into vigorous believers, just as the Lord directed the apostles to a great haul of fish.

I think that we have the same hope today, when biblical spirituality seems at such a low ebb. The faithful fishing now, by the Lord's remnant, will become again a great harvest! And it's not because of our skills as fishermen, just as the fishing skills of the Apostles failed them, but by the divine power of our Head and Redeemer.

Revelation 17:1-6, Backpedaling the Reformation: England Caters to the Great Whore

2010-09-17T21:06:00.005-04:00

"Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, 'Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.' And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: 'Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.' And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."

On a state visit to the United Kingdom, where the queen was crowned with an oath to uphold the "Protestant Reformed Religion", Pope Benedict XVI has been received by Queen Elizabeth II, the secular head of the Church of England, and by Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of that Church. In fact, the Pope was to be honored with the office of Archbishop for a day.

A joint worship service was touted by the website of the Westminster Abbey, the setting of the writing of the Westminster Standards in the 1640's. In those Standards, the Confession of Faith (XXV:6) says of the Pope (generically, not of a particular Pope), "[he] is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." According to Westminster Abbey, the service included the Pope, the Archbishop, "together with church leaders from many denominations." This is on top of being officially welcomed by the Queen.

Let us remember that the Church of England broke from the Papacy under Henry VIII. While that king's motives may hardly have been spiritual, England remained a Protestant country, except for a bump under his daughter Mary, to modern times. This breaking away left many martyrs to the revenge of Rome, including Henry's Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer. We still await the repentance of Rome for the murder of such spiritual men (and a few women, too). Yet, the Head of the Church of Rome is received as a head of state and spiritual leader.

Psalm 22: 27-31, Jesus, from Suffering to Triumph!

2010-09-16T22:40:00.004-04:00

"All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
shall worship before you.
For kingship belongs to the Lord,
and he rules over the nations.

"All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
even the one who could not keep himself alive.
Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
that he has done it."

This Psalm is such a mighty witness to the triumph of Christ through His death and resurrection. It begins with that familiar appeal from the depths of His suffering, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The Lord quotes that verse in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. Then the Psalm ends with His Messianic triumph in the conversion of the nations, from the poorest to the richest, and continuing through their generations (which proves that this cannot be a reference to the post-Second Advent era).

Isaiah 29:13-14, By What Standard?

2010-09-08T22:08:00.003-04:00

"And the Lord said:
'Because this people draw near with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
therefore, behold, I will again
do wonderful things with this people,
with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.'”

One of the five Solas of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. In contrast, the Church of Rome held to an equal authority for church tradition. The Catholic Encyclopedia states it this way: "Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere." And the First Vatican Council was even plainer: "Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith, everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal teaching.”

But what does the text above say? "Their fear of me is a commandment taught by men." In Mark 7:6-7, Jesus quotes this text, then adds in verse 8, "You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And Paul warns of the attraction of such traditions in Colossians 2:23a, "These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion ..."

So, we have the prophet warning against man-made doctrines, quoted and reinforced by our God and Savior Jesus Christ, and repeated by the Apostolic author of much of the New Testament. If the Catholic Church taught that the Bible is wrong, to be corrected by Church teachings (actually the position of Mormons), at least they would have a consistent apologetic. However, when one standard that they acknowledge condemns the other, their error becomes obvious! The Reformers got it right!

Isaiah 25:6-10a, The Lord Lifts the Veil from the Nations

2010-09-06T09:46:00.005-04:00

"On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the Lord has spoken.
It will be said on that day,
'Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the Lord; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.'
10 For the hand of the Lord will rest on this mountain..."

There were a few passages of Scripture that affected me deeply in the early days of my Christian profession, some thirty-odd years ago. For example, my first reading of Ephesians made me a Calvinist. And later, my first readings of the Old Testament Prophets, especially Isaiah, made me a postmillenialist.

Many of these prophetic passages start with this reference to "this mountain." Which mountain? I take it to refer to Mount Zion, the physical location of the Temple, but also a frequent symbol for the Church (see Hebrews 12:22). Related uses of the word can be found in Isaiah 2:2, 11:9, 56:7, Daniel 2:35, Joel 3:17, Obadiah 1:16, Micah 4:1-2, Zephaniah 3:11, and Zechariah 8:3.

In our passage here, Isaiah prophesies a time when God would remove the veil from the nations. This obviously is neither a literal veil over the face, nor the veil of the Temple, though both are biblical uses of the word, since neither fits the context. Compare the uses of the word in successive verses of II Corinthians 3:13-16. Paul begins with the placing of a literal veil over the face of Moses, then changes to the figurative meaning of spiritual blindness. Considering it the same way in Isaiah, we have a promise that a time will come when God will lift the blindness from the hearts of the nations. Not each individual exhaustively, but over the nations as a whole. This is expressed more literally in Isaiah 56:6, referring to "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord," and Micah 4:2, where "many nations" shall come to be taught the word of God.

The promise that the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord is a repeated one: Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14. One wonders two things; first, why is a repeated promise overlooked by so many? and second, why is such a happy promise rejected and opposed by so many?

Job 14:21, Is There Help in Saints?

2010-09-01T20:59:00.006-04:00

"His sons come to honor, and he does not know it; they are brought low, and he perceives it not."

Among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Anglicans, believers are encouraged to pray to Saints for their intercession.

However, here in Job, we see that the deceased aren't aware of the conditions of those, even of their kin, who remain in this life. In fact, in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31), the very inability of the rich man to effect his surviving kin in part of his torment in Hell!

Furthermore, we have the witness of the Apostle John in Revelation 14:13, "“that they may rest from their labors." The blessed dead are free from labor. No strain, no burdens, no hardship. Yet saint-praying Christians are encouraged to bring their living burdens to those same departed saints! The Catholic doctrine seeks to bring the saints under the very bondage that God has removed from them in glory!

As I have said before about the adoration of Mary (here and here), saint worship is a form of idolatry, forbidden by the First and Second Commandments. here, we also see that it is an abuse of the departed dead. Let us instead devote ourselves to the purity of strict Protestant worship.

Isaiah 63:17, the Active Decree of Reprobation

2010-08-30T21:39:00.003-04:00

"O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage."

I am not sure which of the doctrines of grace are most hated by the lovers of free will: reprobation or particular atonement.

The doctrine of reprobation is the biblical understanding that God actively hardens the hearts of some, to the glory of His justice. We see it in the verse above. While this quote is from the ESV, it is closely parallel to other Protestant translations, such as the KJV and NASB. Young's Literal Translation reads, "Why causest Thou us to wander, O Jehovah, from Thy ways? Thou hardenest our heart from Thy fear, Turn back for Thy servants' sake, The tribes of Thine inheritance."

However, opposition to it is so strong that other translations avoid such wording. For example, in the God's Word Translation, the verse reads, "O LORD, why do you let us wander from your ways and become so stubborn that we are unable to fear you? Return for the sake of your servants. They are the tribes that belong to you." In the New Living Translation, the first sentence reads, "LORD, why have you allowed us to turn from your path?"

Notice how the more-literal translations give active verbs, "make us wander" and "harden our heart." In contrast, the looser translations water it down to "let us wander" or "allowed us to turn." The pride of the human heart turns them from biblical truth to self-empowering error.

I say, Let God speak, and all men keep silent!

Hebrew 12:29, The Law for the Believer

2010-08-29T21:09:00.004-04:00

"[F]or our God is a consuming fire."

From a sermon by Robert Traill, a Covenanter minister in Scotland during the 17th Century.

"It is true that there is a change in the state of believers in their justification and adoption, which is a begun change in their natures in sanctification; yet still they are creatures - still there is much unholiness in their hearts and lives, and all sin in itself is equally hateful to God, and contrary to his holy nature; still they are under his holy law, and bound to obedience, though not as a covenant of life, yet as the rule of their life; still they are in hazard of his anger (though not as an unappeased enemy, yet as an offended father), and of the fruits of it, upon their breaking of his laws."

Ezekiel 46:18, The Property of the Family Before the Needs of the State

2010-08-21T18:01:00.004-04:00

"The prince shall not take any of the inheritance of the people, thrusting them out of their property. He shall give his sons their inheritance out of his own property, so that none of my people shall be scattered from his property.”

Such a simple verse, yet it strikes at the root of tyranny, i.e., the greed of power. The inheritance of the family in the land is not to be set aside or undermined by the civil magistrate. Whether this applies to any act of eminent domain, or simply to the wholesale confiscation of property, such as to create state or federal parks, I don't know. However, the implication for the balance between the rights of the people and the authority of the magistrate is obviously weighty. Think about persecutions under supposedly "Christian" kings, such as the Covenanters under the Stuart kings, who faced confiscation of property for refusing to take loyalty oaths. And the Kelo decision in our own Supreme Court.

It flows out of the verse in the previous chapter, Ezekiel 45:8, in which a portion of the land is set aside to the royal family, while the rest is preserved to the people, "so My princes shall no longer oppress My people" (NASB). This, of course, is an application of the VIIIth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

Numbers 35:30-34, Criminal Justice According to God

2010-08-17T21:46:00.004-04:00

“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death. And you shall accept no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest. You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

There are a number of professing Christian groups that work against capital punishment in the United States. The most prominent is the Catholic Church. However, it is most-closely associated with churches of the pietist and anabaptist tradition, such as Mennonite statements here and here.

I suggest that there are two hermeneutical errors involved. The first is placing sentiment ahead of obedience in approaching Scripture. The second is a disparaging of the Old Testament. The first is a matter of obstinacy, not reasoning. However, the second is based on faulty reasoning. After all, when Jesus quoted Scripture, what did He quote? The Old Testament, of course, such as Deuteronomy during His temptation (see Matthew 4:1-11). When Paul commends Timothy for his knowledge of the Scriptures, at the knees of his mother and grandmother (II Timothy 3:15), for the knowledge they give of salvation in Jesus Christ, the New Testament hadn't even been written yet. This is especially telling in verses 16-17, the classical statement of Scriptural inspiration and infallibility. When Anabaptists disparage the Old Testament, they go against the examples of both the apostles and of Christ Himself!

Even their sentiment speaks against the Catholic and Anabaptist attitudes. They place victim and perpetrator on a level, something that Scripture testifies against. Isaiah 5:20 anathematizes the one who equates good and evil. Jesus in Matthew 12:35 tells us that actions come from the nature of the heart, whether good or evil. Good people and evil people are not the same! (This is a different issue from fallenness, by which all men are sinners.) And Amos 5:15 and Romans 12:9 give a testimony in both testaments to the requirement of justice in order to true love! Sentiment is hatred; justice is love!

In Numbers, we see God's standard of justice. The unlawful taking of life creates an imbalance of injustice that exposes both land and people to the judgment of God. To restore the balance, the blood of the guilty must be shed. This is required by the very presence of a holy God among His people. The importance of this principle is so great that even the inability to convict a murderer does not dispense with the requirement. Deuteronomy 21:1-9 establishes a procedure for dealing with an unsolved murder. According to Moses here, a virgin heifer is to be killed, and the blood poured out in symbolic judgment on the actual human murderer. That is, the shedding of guilty blood is so important to God's justice, that He even commands the symbolic shedding of blood when actual guilty blood cannot be determined.

The standard isn't man's love, but God's holiness!

Does First Thessalonians Teach a Rapture of the Church?

2010-08-15T10:34:00.006-04:00

There are three verses here that I want to consider.

First, 4:17, "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." This is the classic verse used by certain strains of premillenialists to prove that the church will be "raptured," i.e., taken out of the world, before the Second Advent.

However, two verses prior to that rule out that literalistic interpretation.

Look at 3:13, "[S]o that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints." Notice that Jesus isn't taking away His saints. Rather, He is leading them here. Paul is instructing the living Thessalonian Christians to be prepared for the return of the blessed dead at the Second Advent!

Also, 4:14, "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." Again, Jesus isn't taking believers there, he is returning with the saints in heaven to here!

Not only does the immediate context rule out the rapturist interpretation, the language used in 4:17 cannot possibly mean what the rapturists impose on it. The Greek word translated "meet" is used in only two other places in the New Testament. In Matthew 25:1-12, we read Jesus's own words in the Parable of the Ten Virgins. In verse 1, we read that the ten virgins "took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom." The other is Acts 28:15. "Meet" in all three verses is the translation of a Greek diplomatic term, referring to a delegation sent out to greet a VIP, such as an ambassador, and escort him back to the city. It cannot mean to greet him and then leave with him. The word simply doesn't mean what rapturists teach it to mean.

Deuteronomy 20:1-9, Rousas Rushdoony on Biblical Warfare

2010-08-13T20:46:00.004-04:00

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. And when you draw near to the battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people and shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, today you are drawing near for battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint. Do not fear or panic or be in dread of them, for the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.’ Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. And is theren any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.’ And the officers shall speak further to the people, and say, ‘Is there any man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own.’ And when the officers have finished speaking to the people, then commanders shall be appointed at the head of the people."
[Note that this is from The ESV, while Rushdoony originally used the KJV. The passage below is from Rushdoony's commentary on Deuteronomy. I reproduce it here because of my fear of the current support among conservative American Christians for imperialistic wars around the world.]

J. A. Thompson has cited the biblical texts governing godly warfare. First, no such war could be conducted apart from God's word or orders (I Sam. 28:5-6; 30:7-8; II Sam. 5:19, 22-23). Second, there had to be a consecration to the task by the men of Israel (I Sam. 21:5; II Sam. 11:11; Isa. 13:3). All that would offend God must be separated from them (Deut. 23:9-14), because God dwells in the camp with His people (Deut. 23:14; Judg. 4:14). Third, the Lord can deliver His people by many or by few (Judg. 7:2ff; I Sam. 13:15ff; 14:6, 17). Fourth, God can and does send panic into the ranks of the enemy, and thereby bring about their defeat (Josh. 10:10; Judg. 4:15; I Sam. 5:11; 7:10; etc.). Fifth, the spoils of the war belong to God, not to man. [J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, IV Press, 1978, pp. 2187-219]

One of the Dead Sea Scrolls is entitled, The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Its concern was with the great war with God's enemies at the end-time. These laws had their influence. Throughout the Christian era, much has occurred in the way of efforts, both successful and unsuccessful, to limit injustices in wartime. Although the history of Western warfare is not good, it still is different from the ferocity of most pagan conflicts, until recently.

In v. 1, God stresses through Moses that He is with them: therefore, "be not afraid of them." This is a command: to believe in God means to trust in His word.

As a result, two kinds of exemption from military service are granted. First, all those whose minds are distracted and preoccupied by their affairs at home, i.e., a new house as yet not dedicated nor used, a bride betrothed but not taken, or a new vineyard finally producing but as yet unharvested. All such men, however willing to fight, are to be sent home, both as a merciful act and also to eliminate distracted minds (vv. 5-7). Second, all who are fearful and fainthearted are to be sent home. Their presence in the army is a threat to their fellow soldiers.

These exemptions are to be declared by a priest. They are religious exemptions and are therefore to be set forth by a priest. According to numerous texts, a campaign was to be preceded by burnt offerings (Judg. 6:20-21, 26; 20:26; I Sam. 4:3; 7:9; 13:10ff; 14:18; 23:4, 6, 9; 30:7ff). These verses also tell us that attempts to replace obedience with the presence of the ark led to disastrous results.

The exemptions applied to all ranks of soldiers. If, therefore, clan leaders dropped out because of some kind of exemption, then captains of armies were to be made out of the remaining men. The officers were thus named by the men of courage.

The army must then trust in God, not in the size of the army. Wars are not outside of God's providential government, and the most necessary equipment for battle is a trust in God.

It is clear from all of this that military service was voluntary, not compulsory. The covenant people were to place their hope in God, to use godly soldiers, and to eliminate from the ranks of the volunteers all men who might be for any cause double-minded.

[Joseph] Morecroft noted, "When wars are fought in the defense of justice, in the suppression of evil, or in defense of the homeland, they are godly, and are part of the work of restoration. Such wars are 'wars of the Lord," Num. 21:14.'" [A Christian Manual of Law]

Again citing Morecroft, v. 2 indicates that the priest accompanied the army; this was the origin of chaplains. Moreover, the exemptions make it clear that the family has priority, together with exercising dominion over the earth under God.

Deuteronomy deals with warfare in chapters 20:1-20: 21:10-14: 23:9-14; 24:5, and 25:17-19. Even a modernist like Anthony Phillips has called the laws "humanitarian." [Deuteronomy, 1973]

In v. 9, the officers speak "unto the people." Instead of a drafted army, the soldiers are the people, come together to defend their cause or their homes. This is basic in Deuteronomy. Instead of a state decreeing war as a matter of policy, we have a people ready to fight for their cause. Instead of men drafted, made soldiers by compulsion, we have a gathering of the clansmen to defend their cause. The first step before battle is to send home some of these men.

The captains or commanders were, according to A. D. H. Mayes [Deuteronomy, 1981], apparently chosen on the same basis as were elders in cities and in the temple life of the people, captains over tens, twenties, hundreds, and thousands. The original commandment for this in cited in Deuteronomy 1:9-15.

P. C. Craigie's [The Book of Deuteronomy, 1976] comments on this text are very telling. He states, "Israelite strength lay not in numbers, not in the superiority of their weapons, but in their God. The strength of their God was not simply a matter of faith, but a matter of experience." The legitimate wars were godly wars because their purpose was to remain secure in their possession of the land and their exercise of godly dominion therein. Again quoting the admirable Craigie, "The basis of these exemptions becomes clearer against the background of the function of war in ancient Israel. The purpose of war in the early stages of Israel's history was to take possession of the land promised to the people of God; in the later period of history, war was fought for defensive purposes, to defend the land from external aggressors. The possession of the promised land, in other words, was at the heart of Israel's wars, and the importance of the land, in the plan of God, was that Israel was to live and work and prosper in it. The building of homes and orchards, the marrying of a wife, and other such things were of the essence of life in the promised land, and if these things ceased, then the wars would become pointless. Thus, in these exemptions from military service, it is clear that the important aspects of normal life in the land take precedence over the requirements of the army, But this somewhat idealistic approach (in modern terms) was possible only because of the profound conviction that military strength and victory lay, in the first resort, not in the army, but in God."

Israel's military muster included all men between ages twenty and fifty, but not all were used. In Judges 7, we see how Gideon reduced his army in terms of this law. Our Lord applied this in selecting His army, the apostles and other disciples, and He sent home all who were not totally dedicated (Luke 9:57-62). In Luke 14:18-20, our Lord makes it clear that the law of exemptions from military service did not apply where men are summoned into the Kingdom.

Verse 4 states that "God is he that goeth with you." This has also been rendered as "God who marches with you."

We see here as elsewhere that there is nothing outside of God's government. Work, worship, war, eating, sanitation, and all things are subject to His laws. He is totally the Governor of all things. The marginal note to this text in the Geneva Bible tells us, "God permitteth not this people to fight when it seemeth good to them." We are in all things totally under His government.

God's laws of warfare view legitimate warfare as the defense of the family and the land. Modern warfare is waged for political, not covenantal, reasons. Moreover, nonbiblical wars are waged more and more against civilians, as were pagan wars. Thus, there is a great gap between political wars and those permitted by God's law.

Jeremiah 22:3 and Illegal Immigrants

2010-08-11T21:35:00.005-04:00

Picture from Dallas Fox

"Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place."

I generally do not address political issues. The only other time I have done so is when I have written on abortion (such as here). However, it is time to reveal my heresy: I am not a Republican. There, I've said it! I know that many people believe that Christians must reflexively join the Republican Party. But I am a Libertarian. And the current persecution of Hispanic immigrants is one example of why.

God commands us not to persecute the resident alien (KJV "stranger," ASV "sojourner"). Are conservative Christians in America obeying this commandment? I suggest not!

Other verses to look at include Genesis 23:4 and especially Exodus 23:9.

A Covenantal Hermeneutic

2010-08-10T20:44:00.004-04:00

This article is by the same guy. He's giving me an inferiority complex.

Four Insurmountable Arminian Errors

2010-08-09T22:02:00.003-04:00

I think that this article is so well-written, that I will simply link to it, rather than to attempt to express the same things myself.

Zechariah 8:20-23, 9:8-11, The Savior Shall Reign Prosperously!

2010-08-08T22:40:00.007-04:00

"Thus says the Lord of hosts: Peoples shall yet come, even the inhabitants of many cities. The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, 'Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the Lord of hosts; I myself am going.' Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'"

I am fascinated here by the parallel with the Apostle Paul, in Romans 11. Zechariah here prophesies a time of the prosperity of the Gospel among the Gentiles, and predicts that this time will be a great blessing to the Jews. In contrast, Paul in Romans 11:25b-26a ("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...") prophesies a Gospel revival among the Jews, and predicts that that time will be a great blessing to the Gentiles. Thus it appears that the two passages are describing the same event, but one from a Jewish perspective and the other from a Gentile perspective.

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
righteous and having salvation is he,
humble and mounted on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
and the war horse from Jerusalem;
and the battle bow shall be cut off,
and he shall speak peace to the nations;
his rule shall be from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you,
I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit."

A couple of direct quotes connect this passage to Christ. Riding on the foal of a donkey is quoted in Matthew 21:5, when Jesus does literally that. And Jesus also refers to the blood of the covenant, that is, His own blood, in the institution of the Lord's Supper, in Matthew 26:28. Thus, Zechariah now prophesies the benefits of the coming Redeemer for both Gentiles and Jews, combining the Jewish emphasis of Zechariah with the Gentile emphasis of Paul. The two kindreds together shall experience the blessings of the reign of King Jesus!

Jonathon Edwards used this same passage as the basis of his famous Humble Attempt.

John 10:34-36, the Testimony of Christ for the Bible as the Word of God

2010-08-05T22:28:00.004-04:00

"Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I said, you are gods"? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came - and Scripture cannot be broken - do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming"?'"

We have three words or phrases used here interchangeably: Law, Word of God, and Scripture. Against the Documentary Hypothesis, Christ gives his imprimatur to the inspiration of the Pentateuch. And against Modernism of any sort, He equates the Scriptures with the Word of God. Thus he puts the lie to those who claim to be Christians while denying the infallible inspiration of His Word. It is as if such people claim, "Jesus is a liar, but we love Him anyway." How can that be considered a saving faith?

Zechariah 5:5-11, Does God Sanctify His People by Transferring Their Sin to the Reprobate?

2010-08-04T21:47:00.005-04:00

"Then the angel who talked with me came forward and said to me, 'Lift your eyes and see what this is that is going out.' And I said, 'What is it?' He said, 'This is the basket that is going out.' And he said, 'This is their iniquity in all the land.' And behold, the leaden cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting in the basket! And he said, 'This is Wickedness.' And he thrust her back into the basket, and thrust down the leaden weight on its opening.

"Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven. Then I said to the angel who talked with me, 'Where are they taking the basket?' He said to me, 'To the land of Shinar, to build a house for it. And when this is prepared, they will set the basket down there on its base.'"

On first reading, this passage is certainly obscure. However, we can pick up several things scanning through it. In the Hebrew, what is called here a basket is the word "ephah," a jar and unit of measure used for flour. See, for example, Leviticus 5:11 and Numbers 15:4. However, when this ephah is opened, it contains, not flour, but a woman! And to compound the oddness, the angel gives the woman's name as Wickedness. And curiously, the lid of the ephah is made of lead. Is Wickedness radioactive? In a manner of speaking, I think one could say so.

This ephah is sealed with the lead cover, and lifted up by two woman with wings. To the best of my recollection, this is the only case where angels are described as female, perhaps to match the anthropomorphizing of wickedness as female. The angels lift the ephah, and carry it away to Shinar, that is, Babylon, where a house is to be built for it. A temple, perhaps? Perhaps using a pagan temple as a symbol of the adoration of sin?

What served to trip my understanding of this passage was a marginal note in the Geneva Bible. Referring to verse 11, the note reads, "To remove the iniquity and affliction that came for the same from Judah, to place it forever in Babylon." In other words, the Geneva editors here are suggesting that God is removing wickedness from His covenant people, and placing it instead in the land, and presumably the hearts, of Babylon.

This isn't about the eternal penalty of sin. Since each sinner has sin of his own for which to atone, then no sinner can atone for another. Rather, some portion of the sinful nature of Israel is being transferred to the Babylonians. Gracious, certainly, but normative? Is the sinfulness of Christians redistributed to reprobate unbelievers? I don't know. I'm intrigued by the thought, and will pursue it the commentaries. However, I know of nowhere else in Scripture that would seem to indicate such a thing.

Isaiah 64:6, Putting on the Righteousness of Christ

2010-08-02T21:19:00.004-04:00

"We have all become unclean like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."

Using clothing as a metaphor for sin is a recurring theme in Scripture. Here, Isaiah compares the best actions of fallen men to filthy garments. The theme continues in Zechariah 3:3-5.

"Now Joshua [the high priest, v.1] was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, 'Remove the filthy garments from him.' And to him he said, 'Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.' And I said, 'Let them put a clean turban on his head.' So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by." Confer also Exodus 28:36-38. The Angel of the Lord represents the presence of the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, the Christ of the New Testament.

The point here is that the filthy garments of sin represent the natural condition of fallen man. In contrast, the clean garments are placed upon him by the external application of Christ. This is the difference between grace and works-righteousness.

In the New Testament, the Apostle picks up the changing-of-garments theme, commanding us to "put on Christ," in Romans 13:14 and Galatians 3:27. What does this gain us? Philippians 3:9, "[that I may] be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." As English Presbyterian Walter Marshall said in his book, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, "The end of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection, was to prepare and form a holy nature and frame for us in himself, to be communicated to us by union and fellowship with him; and not to enable us to produce in ourselves the first original of such a holy nature by our own endeavours."

So, what do you want to wear when you stand before God in eternity: the polluted garments that you have from Adam? Or the clean garments of Christ's righteousness, received by faith?

Jude 1:24-25, That Obscure Little Epistle and the Doctrines of Grace

2010-07-31T21:13:00.003-04:00

"Now unto him that is able to keep you that ye fall not, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with joy, that is, to God only wise, our Savior, be glory and majesty and dominion and power, both now and forever, amen."
-Geneva Bible

I use the Geneva Bible here instead of my usual ESV for two reasons. One is that it simply has a loftier rhythm to it, by my ear, though there is no material difference between the two translations of these verses. And the other is because of the archaic use of pronouns that shows the use of the plural here. Jude isn't addressing a particular person, but rather the church as a whole. And please excuse my use of the chapter number in the reference, even though Jude only consists of one chapter. Just as Matthew 25 refers to a whole chapter, and not a particular verse, I compulsively think the same way for the one-chapter books of the Bible. Just chalk it up to eccentricity.

Of the so-called Five Points of Calvinism, the most maligned is probably Limited Atonement, while the most accepted is the Perseverance of the Saints or, as many Baptists phrase it, "once saved, always saved." Given the pride of fallen men, that should hardly be surprising.

One doesn't hear much about the Epistle of Jude. Not only is it painfully brief, but most of it addresses various eschatological concerns, so it just doesn't get talked about as much as, for example, Paul's epistles. But here it explicitly touches on a doctrine that can be abused, as a justification for spiritual complacency, but should serve as a great comfort to the struggling believer.

Notice how it combines major themes from other books of the Bible. Where Jude reminds us that God is able to keep us, we are reminded of the words on Jesus in John 10:28, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." And to present us blameless before him recalls the words of Paul in Ephesians 1:4, "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." Thus, contrary to most Baptists, our perseverance is grounded in His predestinating of us. Then Jude justifies this perseverance, not for our sakes, even as profitable as it is, but rather because of the glory it brings to God.

This is where I believe that the Calvinist rises above the Arminian: while the Arminian is concerned to preserve his own pride and supposed native righteousness, the Calvinist is concerned only with the glory of God and establishing His righteousness.

Kindly Teasing Baptists!

2010-07-27T22:22:00.003-04:00

"I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea..."
I Corinthians 10:1-2

Referring to this passage, Neil MacMichael, a Scottish Presbyterian minister of the mid-1800's, came up with this light-hearted jab at his Baptist brethren:

"1. The Israelites were baptized, both adults and infants, for the Apostle declares it.

2. They were not immersed, a fact which Moses and other inspired writers testify.

3. The Egyptians who pursued them were immersed.

4. The Israelites had baptism without immersion, and the Egyptians immersion without baptism.

5. The baptism of the Israelites was salvation, and the immersion of the Egyptians drowning."

Augustus Toplady on Creedalism

2010-07-02T21:39:00.004-04:00

"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you."
-II Timothy 1:13-14

Augustus Toplady, a solidly-Calvinist 18th Century Anglican churchman and author of the classic hymn "Rock of Ages," chose this text to defend the use of creeds in Protestant churches. For him, that referred to the Thirty-Nine Articles, but would apply equally to Reformed or Lutheran formularies, as well.

In a sermon preached on Christmas Day, 1770, Toplady interprets the Greek translated above as "sound words" to mean "the copy, pattern, or outline of sound doctrines." It must be recalled that Paul is addressing his protege here before the completion of the New Testament canon. Therefore, it appears that Paul must have provided some form of doctrinal statement, informal perhaps, against which Timothy could test his own teaching.

Toplady explains, "[W]ithout some given model, or determinate plan of doctrine, deduced from the sacred Scriptures, it will be impossible, either for ministers or people, to form just and connected ideas of divine things. Unless the pearls, which are scattered at large in the gospel-field, be marshalled into some kind of order, and reduced in a regular chain, we can never preach, as the apostle directs, according to the analogy of faith, i.e., in exact agreement with that nice connection and mutual relation, which the several doctrines have in common with each other, so as to make of the whole one consistent, uniform, unclashing system..." That is, without a systematic presentation of doctrine, not only can the various preachers not check that their teachings are consistent both with each other and with their predecessors, even just one preacher cannot check his consistency in one point with himself at another. In addition, each preacher would be stuck reinventing the wheel. For example, without a formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, he must explain it anew himself, from scratch. That is an open invitation, not just to theological novelty and innovation, but even to heresy! Come to think of it, that is a pretty good description of the American ecclesiastical scene!

Some Thoughts on Limited Atonement

2010-07-01T10:05:00.003-04:00

My personal view on the matter of the atonement is that of Bible-believing Reformed orthodoxy, that the Father eternally decreed a particular race of people, the Son eternally undertook their redemption in the fullness of time, and the Holy Spirit eternally undertook their regeneration and sanctification in this life.

First, let me point out that the phrase "limited atonement" is a misnomer. It came into popular usage because the "L" fits the TULIP acronym. "Definite atonement" or "particular atonement" better reflect the actual meaning of the phrase. It is the understanding of the Reformed or Calvinists that the atonement in the blood of Christ was intended for the elect, not humanity in general. If anything, it is the Arminian who holds to a limited atonement: while the Calvinist insists that Jesus fully atoned for the sin of the elect, the Arminian holds that He actually only partly atoned for the sins of all.

I am not going to address the biblical support for the Calvinist view of the atonement. That has been handled elsewhere better than I can do. I intend merely to address some logical issues that arise in my own mind.

For example, if Jesus atoned for the sins of all men, then that necessarily implies that there are some who are or will be in Hell for whom Jesus died (I'm passing over those who hold to universal salvation, which avoids this issue, but doesn't enter the biblical discussion). In addition to being a repugnant thought, it would also necessarily imply that the blood of Christ is insufficient for salvation. If that is so, then no one can have any hope of eternal life!

Also, consider the implications for the Person of Christ.

If the Second Person of the Trinity has died for some that the Father has not decreed His purpose to save, and that the Holy Spirit has not undertaken to regenerate, then we set up a war within the Trinity, an obvious impossibility! That would introduce a logical slippery slope to Arianism, depriving Christ of His essential divinity! This is why the Pelagians of the hardest core, the United Pentecostal Church on one end and the Jehovah's Witnesses on the other, deny the doctrine of the Trinity. While their error is greater, one must at least acknowledge their logical consistency!

Logically speaking, I think that one who holds to a universal atonement must acknowledge that he makes either the atonement insufficient or the Person of Christ impotent, or both. No doubt someone reading this will say he believes no such thing(s), but rather that it depends on us. That response in itself concedes my point, as it cannot answer directly this accusation, but rather turns to man, which is my very objection! My salvation is in Christ alone, not myself, nor in any mere man!

Genesis 2:15-17, Thinking about Grace Before the Fall

2010-06-30T22:08:00.002-04:00

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"

This is fleshed out by the Apostle Paul, primarily in the fifth chapter of Romans, and is traditionally referred to as the Covenant of Works, because God promises eternal life to Adam on the basis of obedience. As the footnote in the Geneva Bible puts it, the purpose was "that man might know there was a sovereign Lord, to whom he owed obedience." Before the Fall, Adam had the opportunity, along with the ability, to earn eternal life by his works. The tree was forbidden to him as the test of his works, with the warning that disobedience would bring death upon him. Fine so far. With that understanding, I had never gone on to think what role grace played under this Covenant.

I am reading a book on the federal theology (an alternative name for covenant theology) of Thomas Boston of Ettrick, one of the original Scottish Seceders, a group of particular interest to me.

Boston was concerned to show that grace was fundamental to the covenant of works. First, he pointed out that God, as Creator, would be purely in His right to expect obedience from Adam as creature, with no obligation to offer a reward. To promise eternal life as a reward for obedience was an act of condescension, purely of free grace. I was astounded! That had never occurred to me. Further, he points to the forbidden tree. Boston describes this as an act of grace because it gave Adam a visible warning of the risk and consequences of sin. More subtle perhaps, but a good and edifying interpretation.

In this post, I am not advocating for this particular interpretation. I found it intriguing, so I am presenting it for it's thought-provoking character. I am sure that I will be mulling it for a while.

I John 4:1, Signs and Wonders and Heretics, Oh My!

2010-06-29T23:05:00.005-04:00

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."

The Apostle John here is applying a warning from the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 13:1-3, God through Moses gives a stern warning: "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." So, our God will sometimes allow a false teacher to prophesy or perform miracles, not as an endorsement, but rather as a test of the obedience of His people.

The same apostle himself prophesies of a marvelous wonder performed by the sea beast of the Revelation. In 13:1, he tells us, "One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast." And again in 17:8, "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come." John obviously doesn't believe that miracle-working is proof of divine sanction!

Yet, the astonishing thing is that, in spite of these warnings, every crackpot tent evangelist who can stage a few healings soon has crowds eating out of his (or often her) hands and sending their life savings by return mail. This though they are often Pelagians, Arians, or simply charlatans! Everyone knows that Jim Bakker went to prison for his activities, but others, notably Benny Hinn, are still on the road. Surely thousands are failing the test of faith spoken of in Deuteronomy.

Is God Enforcing the Second Commandment?

2010-06-16T02:07:00.002-04:00

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Exodus 20:4

Out of Ohio comes this story of a sixty-foot statue of Jesus, destroyed by a lightning strike.

While I do not presume to know the mind of God, I find a certain satisfaction in exactly what the insurance company has labeled "an act of God." As I have written before (here and here), I hate the modern tolerance for Christianized idols.

Isaiah 64:6 and the Absurdity of Conditional Election

2010-06-15T09:38:00.004-04:00

"We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."

Some argue that the predestination spoken of by Paul, especially in Ephesians 1, is in response to foreseen faith and righteousness in the particular believer. This position is referred to as "conditional election." This is the opposite of the Reformed view of unconditional election.

However, as the Prophet Isaiah says above, no one (since the Fall of Adam, and excluding Jesus) has native righteousness. Our best deeds are as a polluted garment, a euphemism for a menstrual rag ("filthy rags", KJV). And Romans 3 gives a litany of Old Testament quotes, such as "no one seeks for God " (verse 11) and "no one does good, not even one" (verse 12), and "there is no fear of God before their eyes" (verse 18). So the case of the Arminian is that God's election of His people is dependent on the very qualities that Scripture says we don't have! The Arminian doctrine of election logically would mean that no one is elected, and therefore no one can be saved!

I would go even further: Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 that faith is the gift of God, and in Philippians 2:13 that He works in us to do His pleasure. And he states the same truth negatively in Titus 3:5, "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy." Now, if the faith and good works in a believer are the result of God's work within him, is it then not a tautology to say that they are the basis on which God elects His people? Given that sense, I would even find that doctrine acceptable. Clumsy, but tolerable. But it certainly isn't what the Arminian intended.

The problem here is that Arminians fail to understand Ephesians 2:1-2a, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked." Just as a dead body cannot act to restore its own life, the dead soul cannot regenerate itself. Arminians unconsciously insert "sick" for "dead", because a sick man can certainly act on his own behalf in restoring health. However, the Scriptures do not give them the wiggle-room that their human pride seeks. Before regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the soul is dead, and the faith and works that arise from it are dead and disgusting in God's eyes. It is only by His electing intervention in the heart of the believer that such a one can respond in faith and good works.

Thus we can see that the Arminian doctrine of conditional election depends on false premises, and is contrary to Biblical truth. There is security only in resisting our natural pride and resting in God's merciful election.

Deuteronomy 8:18, Godly Wealth

2010-06-12T21:28:00.004-04:00

"You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day."

I have written before (here and here) about the corruption of godly desire for wealth by the prosperity gospel teachers, but I have been struck again by the simplicity of scripture on the matter.

Moses here plainly repeats God's own self-description as the one who enables His people to gain wealth. Does it involve hocus-pocus or writing a check to a fat-cat TV preacher? No!

I was struck again by the earthy (pun intended) wisdom of Proverbs tonight. 12:11 reads, "Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense." It is the diligent day-to-day labor that a person should do which God blesses in creating wealth. It isn't writing a check to the Mercedes-driving, hair-mousse-addicted TV preacher. Nor is it some get-rich-quick scheme suggested by an infomercial or chat-line psychic. It is simple diligent labor. What a radical concept!

The first half of the next verse is equally telling: "Whoever is wicked covets the spoil of evildoers..." I would suggest that this is an indictment of the one who ignores God's way to covet the lifestyle of the TV preacher. Just read the Proverbs. There are other verses that give good direction on a responsible wealth-building lifestyle. Try chapter 6, verses 6-11 as a start.