POTTER'S CLAY - Loose Canon: Laveen

"I'll take supremely intense and confusing eschatalogical prophecies for 500, Alex..." (or, Thoughts on the Book of Ezekiel, part 1)

2010-05-21T17:48:00.000-07:00

I began reading the book of Ezekiel because of a conversation I had with one of my elders at church. The conversation began with me asking him if the elders had decided on a way eschatology would be taught at our church, and it ended with him and I sharing thoughts on Old Testament prophecy (it was more listening on my side and talking on his side...he knows the later prophets better than me!). Specifically, Jacob (The elder I am referring to. I posted a paper he wrote about apologetics earlier), who I believe would identify himself as a premillennialist, shared with me that the book of Ezekiel was a pivotal book for him in deciding what the Bible taught about the end times.

By God's grace, we love our elders at Grace Bible church. They are men of God, and are a strong means of grace in our life. They serve our body lovingly and immaculately. They know the scriptures incredibly well and are able to teach with purpose and precision. One of our goals as members is to submit to them, pray for them, and honor them in a Biblical manner.

I appreciated my conversation with Jacob because the entire exchange was done in love. I had the strong sense that even as he shared his thoughts with me, which disagreed with mine, I was recieving earnest ministry from my elder. He reccomended that I read Ezekiel and see for myself what he was referring to. He also reccomended that I read a book called "The Millennium Debate" to hear a premillennial perspective on the millennium. So, as soon as I could, I turned to the resources in question. These prisuits were interrupted temporarily when I joined a several month long men's Bible study called BUILD (Becoming United in Leadership Disciplines). One of the requirements of BUILD was that each member be on a yearly Bible reading schedule. Unfortunately, I was not prepared to examine Ezekiel, which many would place in the top three most difficult books in all of scripture, while in the midst of a yearly three-or-four-chapter-a-day reading plan. So I simply put Ezekiel aside for a while. While yearly reading plans are fantastic, I was not then, and am still unable, to begin to understand the book of Ezekiel and at the same time commit to reading three or four chapters of scripture a day, even within that book. Especially when my goal was not only to know what the book said, but to rightly understand it to a point where I might be able to interact with the thoughts of others about it, and make complex interpretive decisions.

Reading Ezekiel turned out to be an amazing ride. I started reading it because of a reccommendation of an elder, and ended up being thrust into a harrowing journey that revealed God, His nature, His character, and His interaction with (or, more accurately, shaping of) human history. It was in total heartbreaking, gut-wrenching, saddening, encouraging, uplifiting, awe-inspiring, and confusing journey.

Having completed the book, I realize that while I understand it now much better than the last time I read it, I need to read it again just so I can really assemble all the massive pieces of Ezekiel's (God's) thematic puzzle. I plan to do so, perhaps right away, or perhaps after reading Ezekiel's contemporary, Jeremiah.

In the following blogs, I plan to record many thoughts I've gathered on the book. I am still not fully confident in my interpretation of many of the things I've read, although now I sense that I have some momentum and direction in interpreting the various interconnected episodes of the book. For me, there are many important questions that are still left to discover about this book, namely:

--What is the exact nature of the repeated individual asides and episodes in the book related to God's restoration of Israel? Are they all directly related to the final restoration vision, or can some be understood as referring to other, less complete restorations?
--What's with the detail in many of the visions?
--I understand that Israel was in exile during the writing of the book, and that there was a kind of puppet regime set up in Jerusalem, and that it was later in Jewish history, maybe between 1000 and 0 BC? But what, exactly, was the political situation in Israel and the surrounding nation at the time? Where exactly does Ezekiel fit in in the Jewish timeline? And how would this situation have effected the way those people read the book? In other words, how would the original audience have understood the book?
--...and the biggie...While many of the orthodox views on eschatology place the temple vision in the thousand years of Revelation 20, what precisely does Ezekiel's restored vision have to do with the thousand year reign?

Besides the more standard aspects of the book (which are spectacular nontheless), some of the more difficult points that I have settled on, and feel fairly confident about, are:

--The book is a unified work that builds upon itself; one should take all the major visions and prophecies of
the book into account in order to interpret each successive episode.
--The book assumes much of its readers; since it was intended for God's people in a time that did not exist in a vacume; it will not do to interpret the book in a vacume either.
--I think Ezekiel definitely has something to say about God's New Covenant people in this period after Christ.
--Ezekiel presents difficulty in interpretation no matter who you are...a-mil, pre-mil, or 5th century BC Jew.
--...and the biggie...I do not believe that there is any compelling, hermanutically-based reason to insist that the final vision in Ezekiel is literal...for many reasons...which I will blog about later.

One of the most difficult aspects of Ezekiel, for me, is the amount of Hebrew literature baggage the book expects the reader to be dragging. Genesis is a different story; it literally starts in the beginning; the beginning of space-time, and the beginning of God's people. Ezekiel drops a major prophetic H-bomb in the mielu of political upheaval, military turmoil, and judgements of many nations, Israel included, based on their long history. Not only this, but the visions expect the reader to already be familiar with many Hebrew prophetic symbols, religious practices, military history, and judgement themes that are scattered throughout the scriptures.

In the future, I plan to blog about:

--Ezekiel's inagural vision and comission.
--Ezekiel and hermanutics.
--Heart-wrenching episodes in Ezekiel.
--Ezekiel and restoration.
--Ezekiel and the final vision.

For today, that's all!

Latest Blog Posts?

2010-05-21T16:33:00.001-07:00

Ha! It's been a while since my last blog posts. Betwixt these blogosphere appearences I attended two composers conferences, participated in a writing-intensive men's Bible study, and dealt with life as a father of three. But! Summer is coming. I am currently working on blogs on Ezekiel, a review of a book called "The Millennium Debate," a (more positive) review of a children's Bible, and I plan to post thoughts on various scripture passages, and disciplines of the heart, the home, and other ministry.

How to Listen?

2010-03-30T12:04:00.001-07:00

One major element of my life that sets my aesthetic personality apart from many I know is my taste for classical music, and specifically, 20th century and contemporary classical music. And I just don't mean the schmoozy stuff, either, I mean that I actually love a lot of the hard-core, intense, dissonant, music that might initially appear strange or incomprehensible, from composers such as Schoenberg, Carter, Webern, Berg, Nono, Corigliano Stravinski, etc.

First, I need to share some qualifiers. While dissonant "atonal" music might be the most obvious kind of "difficult" 20th century music, there are others that are not so overtly dissonant that are just as deep, or, "challenging." This is true for a lot of music written by the composers above ranges broadly in styles. I've gotta say that I am not interested in dissonant music just because it is dissonant.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy rock music, Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, etc. That kind of music gives me a lot of enjoyment too. But to me, the kind of music this blog is about is in a special category. Not that one kind of music is superior to the other in every sense. While I love filet minon, I wouldn't want to eat it all the time every day. Pizza is great for some occasions, sometimes just eating veggies hits the spot. I think of kinds of music in the same way.

But as for contemporary music, I'm interested in it because of what it achieves...

First of all, I love the abstraction that is possible when music isn't bound by traditional rules of tonality. To me, music seems more natural, more ideal, and more perfect when it isn't accompanied by a traditional set of aural rules.

Second, I love the cooky array of "musical characters" that becomes available when the tonal scope of music is wide open. It's like going from a set of movies that only has a varied set of well-adjusted real-life characters to a set of movies that has normal characters, crazy characters, alien characters, characters with amazing abilities, and even wacky charichature kinds of looney tunes characters. While traditional music does provide variation in "musical characters," I have always felt like the scope of 20th century music is much wider. Think about it: while both styles can portray emotions such as happiness, sadness, frivolity and pensiveness, which is more capable of an accurate portrait of something more extreme, like madness?

Along with this large emotional pallate comes a sense of transcendance. I'm not trying to sound melodramatic here, I really feel like I'm listening to something that has an elegant logic that I feel, yet I don't fully understand. So many musical forms (or orginization through time) are possible here...from the extremely simple (one composer liked to write music (effective too!) that simply was an increase in the extreme sounds coming out of an instrument), to the complex, some with emphasis on pitch, some on tone color, all on artistry. Contemporary classical music often seems to me to reach down from some mysterious etherial dimension and touch me in an otherworldy way that combines my emotions and my intellect.

Finally, while I don't listen to dissonant music "just because" it's dissonant, it's often true that I simply get aesthetic enjoyment out of listening to that crazy crunchy sound. It's kind of like how lots of people like the sound of a distorted guitar...truth be told, though it's simple to produce, it's a big, powerful effect.

The reason I share my experiences here isn't just blogarific indulgence. I want to tell people what it can be like oncee someone gets past their immediate natural reaction to atonal music. I don't consider myself exceptional at immediately discerning the in's and out's of all music I hear. It took me a while to adjust to contemporary music. Maybe you are different and contemporary music is your thing. But whatever you think, you should know that it is possible for all kinds of people to understand and enjoy unusual "atonal" music. In fact, being an elementary school music teacher, I can comment that the kind of people I have seen react the best as a whole to contemporary music is children, who have active imaginations and less preconcieved notions about what "good music" is.

Mind you, not all of contemporary music is good. Just think of all the music that is out there in the pop or traditional classical world. How much of it is really good? The same is true for 20th century classical and contemporary music. You've gotta be careful what you choose to represent this kind of music.

Liking "atonal" music doen't mean that you have to change the way you feel about other kinds of music that currently pulls on your heartstrings, either. It just means you're discovering a new style that has its own unique set of attributes and expectations. If you ever find yourself listening to a piece of music that is unusual, remember that there is an array of aspects to consider:

--Listening for the artful control of large and small sounds, of intense and more relaxed chords!

--Listen for how the instruments are "talking" to each other, that is, interacting, or how much they are "ignoring" each other!

--Listen for the wild moods the music can create!

and the big one...
--listen for the basic, overall sound that the music produces. Musicians often call this "texture." Contemporary music can offer a captivating array of musical textures. Americans are so used to listening to the logical progression of pitches on a tonal scale that they often miss this, the simplest musical effect of them all. Often, much of the confusion over contemporary music is caused by the fact that we are generally used to musical texture being a subordinate force in musical structure.

Think of all the different ways there are to listen to things in life. Would you listen to rock music the same way you listened to wind in the desert? Would you listen to traffic the same way you would listen to the your favorite TV program? Would you listen to Radiohead the same way you listened to Mozart?

Sometimes appreciating contemporary music is just a matter of stepping out of your mind.

Where is David's Throne? (The Davidic Covenant and the Kingly reign of Christ, Part I)

2010-03-27T08:18:00.000-07:00

Where is David's throne?

This question might seem odd at first, after all, the Old Testament clearly records that David sat on a throne in Jerusalem during his reign. However, when answering this question, it is important to keep in mind the rich prophetic context of David's tipological kingship.

As previously discussed on Potter's Clay, the Old Testament saints understood that their scriptures were tipological; that is, that the Psalms, Oracles, and historic narratives in their scriptures often had two functions: one contemporary, and one eschatological (for more on this, see previous blogs on the Abrahamic Covenant, Psalm 24, and Psalm 2).

The vast majority of the interpretive guidance Christians today draw from is found in the inspired writings of the apostles. One important example of this is found in Acts 2, where Peter, on the day of Pentecost, gives a sermon that highlights the Lordship of Jesus, applying David's words in Psalm 16, Psalm 110, and God's promises about an enthroned, reigning King, to the Messiah Himself:

Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--this man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. For David says of Him,

"I saw the Lord always in my presence;
For He is at my right hand, so that I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted; moreover my flesh also will live in hope; because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of gladness with Your presence."
Bretheren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on His throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having recieved from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:

"The Lord said to my Lord,
'sit at My right hand,
until I make Your enemies a footstool
for Your feet.'"

Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified.

--Acts 2:22-36

Thus, Peter, in the midst of establishing the Lordship of Christ in order to call those in Jerusalem to repentance, teaches that the enthronement of the future King promised in the Davidic covenant was fufilled in the ascension of Christ. Shortly after this narrative, the theme of the enthronement of Christ continues as Stephen, about to become the first recorded Christian martyr, confirms that Jesus is enthroned in Heaven by citing Psalm 11:

David found favor in God's sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for Him. However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands,; as the prophet says:

"Heaven is My throne,
And earth is the footstool of My feet;
'What kind of house will you build for
Me?' says the Lord,
'Or what place is there for My repose?
'Was it not My hand which made all
these things?'"

--Acts 7:46-50

Both Peter and Stephen apply messianic Hebrew literature to show the enthronement of Christ in order to call their audiences to repentance. When considering the eschatological promises from God and what we as 21st century Christians should still be anticipating, we should carefully consider the teachings of the apostles.

The book of Acts teaches that the enthronement of Chist is not tied up in physical land boundaries. Instead, it is tied up in His victorious ascension, His inheritance of an everlasting spiritual Kingdom, and His dominion over all of creation, as Christ Himself says in John 18:36, "My Kingdom is not of this World."

Considering Christ's victory and ascension, one is reminded of Philippians 2:5-11: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being foudn in appearance of a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God ighly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under teh earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father."

The book of Hebrews also reveals that Christ's enthronement, His being seated in Heaven, is also representative of the finality of His work on earth, namely, His work on the cross, and His ongoing rest from atoning work:

Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, "sat down at the right hand of God," waiting from that time onward "until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet." For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them," and then He says, "And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

The Old Testament citations are Psalm 110 and Jeremiah 31:33, respectively.

It is wonderful to consider how, all along throughout redemptive history, God designed His promises to magnify the immense glory of Christ's atonging sacrifice on the cross. The rest that the Isrealites had desired for so long in their earthly kings would only be fufilled in the One good and wise King. Now that Christ is reigning, we are living as members of a "golden" kingdom, that is everlasting. It is no wonder where the apostles in the book of Acts found the inspiration to proclaim God's Word with boldness everywhere they went, and to live transformed lives among the members of their body and out in the world.

(For more on the Kingly reign of Christ, see previous blog, "That's Right, it's Psalm 2 Again...")

Reformed Theology Accurately Defends the Nature and Rights of God Over Creation

2010-03-22T08:00:00.000-07:00

"The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil [or, calamity]."
--Proverbs 16:4, NASB

Over the last few years I have greatly benefited by listening to the teachings of other Biblically Christian men older than me via podcast. My favorites have naturally drifted somewhat since I started listening...I've benefited from Matt Slick, Way of the Master, Fighting for the Faith, and others. Currently, my #1 favorite program to listen to is The Dividing Line, with James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

Alpha and Omega Ministries is a reformed, presuppositionally grounded ministry based in Phoenix, Arizona. They mainly seem to apply thier apologetic work to Roman Catholicism, Atheism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Liberal Christianity, and to defending reformed theology from within and without the church. Their website is http://aomin.org/.

On the 12/31/09 episode of the Dividing Line, the final caller was an athiest. I thought the exchange was fantastic, because it was an excellent demonstration of how reformed theology A) Gives God all the glory during an apologetic conversation, providing a properly God-honoring perspective from which the Christian can defend his faith, and B) Functions properly from an apologetic standpoint to provide the most cogent and effective presentation of Christianity to the unbeliever.

The athiest that called in brought up an objection to Christianity that went something like this:

1) Christians assert that the world was created, yet there are obvious imperfections, un-ideal "designs," and outright nasty problems that exist in nature, from the genetic code on up to the larger organic structures.

2) A: Even if one grants that God created the world and nature to be less than perfect, there are still complex structures that exist for no other "purpose" than to severely corrupt destroy other organisms in nature.

2) B: Consider the structure of hemoglobin, which creationists assert must have been created, since it is a complex structure that for all intents and purposes has the distinct appearance of being created for a specific purpose(s) (transporting oxygen in the blood, etc.). There exist other structures in nature, such as parasitic chromosomes, that appear just as specifically created for thier purposes, which in this case is destructive corruption of a healthy organism.

3) Therefore, the Christian must abandon at least one of two arguments that are common in Cristendom:
        --That there are structures, such as hemoglobin, that have the distinct and unmistakeable appearance
        of being created. (Because then the Christian would have to say that structures such as parasitic
        chromosomes were equally created by God).
        or...
        --That God is not actively involved with the evil and calamity we observe in the world in some way.

In a friendly exchange, Dr. White responded to the athiests' points thus:

1) The reason that nature is not all perfectly designed [in other words, the reason that all of nature is not of some kind of ideal, 100% efficent engineering design], is simply because perfection is not a necessary attribute of God's creation [I add, i.e., the kind of locomotion humans use must not be necessarily perfect, the organs of animals must not necessarily function with abesolute perfection, etc.]. The initial creation of God was simply designed to reflect the character of God, [but not in an abesolute way. Through inferrance in the conversation, in the same way that one can pick up a Blackberry Storm and understand generally that it was made for some kind of purpose by an intelligent being, the purpose being something other than to ]. As for imperfections and problems in nature, those are a result of the corrupting nature of sin and God's physical and spiritual judgement on mankind in the fall of creation. Man in this current age is no longer meant to live to be 1000 years old, or whatever the case may be.

2) Here is where the soverignty of God really came into play. White responded to the next part of the argument by freely acknowledging that God actively uses everything to accomplish what He desires. He referenced Exodus 4:11, which reads, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" White said that God had control of diseases, and that he actively used even them to carry out His purposes.

3) As for the two arguments, White had no need to abandon one, and he argued that Biblical Christianity would not assert the other. The following is my summary (I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, but I do want to try to summarize what the listener got out of the conversation):

--All organic structures, whether hemoglobin, or parasitic chromosomes, are controlled by God for His purposes. God either created them directly, or used inderect forces to bring them about. Regardless, by God's general designing of all of creation and His active soverign participation in history, God is responsible for their existence.
--The scriptures clearly teach that God uses the evil actions of men, the imperfections, problems, and disasters in creation for His purposes, as well as the "good," or beneficial aspects of creation to accomplish what He desires. While God Himself is not evil, and does not create evil directly in the sense that an evil man creates evil by lying, He does allow even evil to exist and for His purposes. The scriptures teach that God often actively creates calamity and destruction of various kinds in order to bring about His purposes. Surprise! While mankind is important to God as His creation that bears His image, mankind is not the center of God's focus--His own glory is.

The reason I bring this exchange up is not only for the Biblical nature of the response that was provided to this more "scientific" variation on the problem of evil, but also because I am not sure how a Christian could respond to this athiest's reasoning consistently and Biblically, if not reformed. Does God rightfully control all things for His purposes as creator, or not? Is God in control of everything, including the means of life and death and the salvation of His people, or does His freedom bow the knee to ours? If God is not free to save those whom He chooses, then neither can He be free to use the rest of creation for His purposes, because the scriptures give the same justification for God to do both.

As Paul says, speaking of mankind being created by God, and God being free to save whom He desires: "...So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make rom the same lump one vessel for honarble use and anotehr for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Romans 9:18-24, NASB.

The fact that God has soverign control over all of His creation is all the more reason to bow in reverent submission to Him. How amazing and Holy is a God who rightfully maintains has this kind of right, and how wonderful that He would purpose in His plan to save sinners out of His fallen creation!

Buried by Christ (The death of Moses as a brief summary of a few themes from the Pentateuch, Part II)

2010-03-15T08:00:00.001-07:00

...continued from the previous blog about the death of Moses, please see the scripture passage (Deuteronomy 34) quoted in the previous blog for context!

continuing with the themes of the Pentatuch:

Foreshadowings of Christ, the Pre-Incarnate Christ, and the Plurality and Oneness of God
Even as Israelites fall, (and here, even as arguably the greatest Israelite falls), in the wilderness, we hear faint but clear echoes of God's redeeming Messiah. Praise God that on this side of time, after Jesus' completed work on the cross, we can understand those echoes even better than the Israelites could. Studying God's Holiness in the Old Testament tells about the complete wonders of the Christ we study in the New Testament. As the author of Hebrews says, "...because God has provided something better for us, because apart from us [God's church] they [God's "men of old] would not be made perfect [or, complete]."--Hebrews 11:40.

Even as the author of Hebrews tells us, the rock that Moses struck twice on that fateful day in the wilderness was more than a mere rock. The rock, once again, was a subtle but rabinnically recognized (during the time of the composition of the New Testament) theme in the Pentateuch, showing that God's presence was following His people in the form of a tangible, yet supernatural rock. (Here, I disagree with some commentators that Paul believed that the rock in Exodus and Numbers was not real. Although Paul identifies the rock as being "spiritual" and "Christ" in 1 Corinthians 10, this doesn't preclude the rock from also being physical, as long as the rock was "Christ" in a spiritual way, and not the sense that Christ here has same physical type of being that a real rock does). Understanding that God did many physical things in the Old Testament to teach Israel a spiritual lesson (many don't give the Old Testament enough credit for being saturated with spiritually didactic, yet physical symbols), Paul identifies the gracious, life-giving rock of the Pentateuch as Christ. But, this should not surprise us, given that Christ Himself told many that the was the "bread from heaven," that he was "living waters," and that He was the ultimate priestly fellowship (that is, fellowship with God) sacrifice, telling the Jews along the same vein, with words that He Himself identified afterwards as spiritual, "unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

But the Pentateuch’s teaching on the presence of Christ doesn't stop there. Consider now the amazing way in which God is revealed to His people just in the first five books of the Bible. Although the Trinity is not clearly revealed until the coming of Christ (and, as some say, at Christ's baptism), there is certainly a curiously obvious plurality expressed when speaking of God and His nature:

--"Elohim," a common name for God in the Pentateuch, is a plural form of God. Many in the past speculated as to the significance of this plurality. Could it refer to His glory, which was so great that our languages could not express it in the singular form? Or perhaps it refers somehow to heavenly host as well (although Elohim is simply the name of God)? Now Christians understand the reason for the plurality of "Elohim."

--This theme of plurality is felt in many passages, such in the very beginning of creation, when God says, "let us make man in our image...", or in Genesis 19:24, in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when the text, using the divine name twice, clearly states, "YHWH reigned fire from YHWH from heaven." The New Testament would later reveal that Christ Himself was active in this ancient, 100% divine judgment.

--God is spoken of as a Spirit often, such as in Genesis 1, when God's spirit hovered over the waters of the deep (requiring disembodiment); yet, shortly thereafter, God is described with physical human characteristics, such as when God walked in the garden when Adam and Eve resided there.

--God clearly says, "no man can see me and live," (Exodus 33:20) and therefore, is unable to let even Moses see Him fully. (John confirms this in John 1:18, "no one has seen the Father at any time.") In Exodus 33, God places Moses in the cleft of a rock and permits him to see His "backside" rather than His full glory, in order to give Moses a glimpse, or idea, of His glory, and still spare Moses' life by keeping him from seeing all of God's glory.

--Yet, there are many recorded events of God's personal interactions with His people, presumably as a man. Abraham had a visit from the pre-incarnate Christ before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18, three men (later, the reader understands that one was God, and two were angels) visit Abraham. Abraham immediately hails one as "lord" and treats the men with unexpected reverence. Shortly, we find out why, as the author of Genesis refers to the man hailed as "lord" using the divine name, YHWH. In this very passage, the Lord Himself has descended to earth, to speak with Abraham about the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, speak of His previous promise to Abraham about his descendants, and to communicate His promise to Sarah that she would carry a son, even in his old age.

--In Genesis 32, Jacob wrestled with a man, an angel (in the Hebrew, messenger) of God, that he later identified as God Himself, saying, "I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been preserved."

--Exodus 33:11 says, "...Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to a friend."

--Finally, Deuteronomy 34 records that God Himself buried Moses, and shortly thereafter references again the fact that Moses spoke with God face to face, implying that God had in the same kind of form, buried His servant.

At the same time, although God is described as having omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent traits in the Pentateuch, and He is recorded as visiting earth, presumably as a man, God is clearly one. We need only look to Moses' famous words in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"

Thus, God is expressed as a plurality, and as one.

Moses as a Type of Christ

As Moses expounds on prophetic predictions, he offers Israel hope in the form of prophets of God, and offers a singular hope in the future, saying in Deuteronomy 18:15-16, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to Him you shall listen--Just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.'" The Israelites, recognizing that they, as unholy people, could not stand to be in the fiery presence of a holy God, cried out for a prophet. Ultimately, these cries of God's people would be fulfilled in the coming of the messiah, as Acts 3:22-26 records in Peter's second sermon, "Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed to everything he says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that propet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.' And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announce these days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' For you first, God raised up His Servant [Christ] and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Acts 7:37 reads, "This [Christ] is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren.' This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you."

Buried by Christ...God's Striking Finale to These Themes, as Treated in the Pentateuch

In light of this, it is amazing to consider how God was personally and physically involved with the death of Moses. Just like God had personally ended the earthly existence of those such as Enoch and would end Elijah's in a supernatural way, here, He ended Moses' life, except it was not in a guiltless manner. Instead of being caught up to heaven, Moses was in effect killed by God in an act of righteous judgment, for, as the text tells us for clarity, Moses was healthy, he was in no physical shape to die. And after his death, this Christ, who was with God's people in many manifestations, buried His servant, a precursor for Himself, in a place in the valley of Moab that only He knew of...

It is an unexpected, yet fitting end to five books of God's saga with His homeless people. Major themes of the Pentateuch: God's Holiness, human death, the pre-incarnate Christ, and Moses as a type of Christ, reach a quiet culmination as the Lord Himself finishes the life of His servant, in the same way He walked with Him...face to face, as one speaks with a friend.

Deuteronomy 34 (The death of Moses as a brief summary of a few themes from the Pentateuch, Part I)

2010-03-08T08:00:00.000-07:00

"What the What??? God Himself buried Moses? "...this literary exclamation is literally how the idea for this blog began. How could anyone read something as bodacious as this and not write a blog about it:

"Now Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land, Gillead as far as Dan, and all Naphtall and the land of Ephriam and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, and the Negeve and the plain in the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees as far as Zoar. Then the Lord said to him, 'This is the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, "I will give it to your descendants." I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.' So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows his burial place to this day. Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated. So the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses came to an end.

Now Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hand on him; and the sons of Israel listened to him and did as the Lord had commanded Moses. Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent to him to perform in the land of Egypt against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land, and for all the mighty power and for all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel."

--Deuteronomy, Chapter 34, NASB

..Thus closes the great inspired Hebrew Pentateuch, with the death of God's famous servant, Moses. This passage, when read casually, seems benign. However, in light of the implications of its simple statements, Deuteronomy 34 is revealed as a spellbinding summary of so many of the themes in YHWH's Pentateuch. We serve a glorious, mysterious, and wonderful God!

God's Holiness and Human Death

It seems fitting that Deuteronomy, dispite its theme of law-giving (although Deuteronomy was of course written in Hebrew the word in our english Bibles for the book, "Deuteronomy," comes from the Greek nomenclature for "Second Law;" i.e., its traditional name basically means, "the second giving of the law."), would end with one of the most commonly interwoven themes of the Pentatuch: death and burial. Indeed, wherever themes of God's revelation, God's plan, and God's law appear in the Hebrew scriptures, the theme of death and burial is not far behind. Consider the first portion of land any Hebrew ever had rights to in the promised land--it was Abraham's tomb, which he initially purchased for his wife, Sarah. Or what about Nadab and Abihu, who, almost immediately after God gives his directions about sacrifices, are consumed and killed before God for offering improper sacrifices to God, or the many in the exodus who were swallowed directly into the ground, "Sheol," as it were, for their rebellion against God? The list goes on. Notably, Moses' own promise of death comes a full book previous, in Numbers 20. Here, Moses strikes a rock in the desert twice instead of once, revealing his mistrust and frusturation with God's continued and patient provision for His people in the desert. This occasion should have been just another common occurance of God providing life-giving water from a rock for His people. A rock which provided water for God's people had been with the Isrealites ever since the beginning of their journedy, in Exodus 17. Always, Moses was under the command to strike it (once), and subsequently enough water would come out to satisfy Israel and all of its livestock. Yet, of Moses' impatience and striking the rock twice (Moses was also busy rebuking the congregation for a similar in this process, saying, "listen now, you rebels; shall we bring foth water for you out of this rock?"), God says, "Because you have not believed Me, to treat me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore, you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them." Here at the end of Israel's journey, the implication is strong; Moses will soon die, before Israel crosses into the land of Caanan. Christians know God's perscribed system of animal sacrifices for sin atonement. It is a strange, uncomfortably macabre, but fitting fact that all though the Old Testament, the interaction of God's Holiness with the nation of Israel is follwed by the stench of human death as well.
In light of this, one might wonder, how exactly does this theme of death show us that, as this blog says in the introduction, "We serve a glorious, mysterious, and wonderful God!"? The answer is in the question: in God's revealed scriptures, what does the theme of death say about Christ?

Tune in one week from today for the conclusion...

Thankfulness

2010-02-25T10:13:00.016-07:00

This is a little ditty I wrote on Thanksgiving. I decided to post it on my blog because it is a nice, simple reminder to me of how wonderful life is, and how kind the Lord is, for his prevenient grace and his applied atonement to sinners. As a person with a creative personality, I tend to focus on enjoying things when I have my hands in the middle of them. Often, the way that I gain appreciation for something is through interaction, rather than passively considering its intrisic qualities.

I also need to learn to be more passively appreciative of the world as God has made it and of His soverign work; this is a small part of me trying to make that happen.

Five Common Earthly Sounds I am Thankful For:

I: Wind in the desert.

II: Livestock.

III: Top of a high mountain.

IV: Water Soaking Into the Pores of Cinder Block and Soil.

V: Children Playing.

Five Common Earthly Smells I am Thankful For:

I: Jasmine Blossoms.

II: Creosote in the desert after a rain.

III: Coffee beans.

IV: Crushed assorted herbs.

V: Orange blossoms.

Five Common Earthly Experiences I am thankful for:

I: Good times with family.

II: Good times with friends.

III: Curled up at night watching a good movie.

IV: Participating in music.

V: Creating anything.

Five Specific Spiritual Blessings I am Thankful For:

I: Being in Christ.

II: The complex, mysterious, painful, pleasurable, and wonderful process of sanctification.

III: Being brought into God's true church.

IV: Supremely valuable atonement for my sins and the sins of the church around the world.

V: The work of the Holy Spirit in my life and the lives of others.

Notes on: The Doctrine of Hell is Unreasonable.

2010-02-23T10:35:00.001-07:00

Objection: The doctrine of Hell is Unreasonable

I have started compiling introductory apologetic notes on various topics with my kids and young believers in mind. When my children are still in the house, I want to have trained them to think critically in their faith, and hopefully they will be equipped enough to articulate the ideas found below. I think that it is important for Christians to be introduced early on to dealing with objections in a Biblical manner, in a careful, logical way that gives evidence and treats God's Word as true. For many, the doctrine of Hell is one of the most taboo doctrines that Christians believe. It is important to address objections from within and without honestly and carefully--in the end, this is the kindest way to treat anyone the Christian is speaking to on the subject. When it is viewed as an integral part of Christian theology, and not treated as an emotional red herring, explaining the doctrine of Hell magnifies the greatness of God and elucidates the wonderful gospel of our Lord:

I will openly say that for me and many other Christians, the doctrine of Hell is by far the most emotionally uncomfortable doctrine in all of Christendom. If the Biblical account of Hell is accurate, then everyone who does not die “in Christ,” with their sins atoned for by Jesus’ death on the cross, accessed by faith alone, will enter into the most severe wrath of God immediately and eternally upon death. One common illustration in Christian tradition goes something like this, “Since the punishment of Hell is forever, then if every grain of sand on the earth were ten thousand years of suffering, and a person were to suffer as long as the sum of all grains of sand in all the beaches and the deserts in the world, their punishment would have just begun.” Thinking about this illustration for any length of time causes severe discomfort. However, this is what we find in the scriptures. In Revelation Chapter 14, a vivid description of those who are symbolically “burning” under God’s wrath says, “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever.”

Although the process is uncomfortable, a further examination of Hell is necessary. As Christians, let us proceed with love for God and people, and with reverence, as we are reminded of God's Holiness by examining His punishment for rebellion.

Ultimately in the book of Revelation, the unsaved are given bodies in which to suffer for eternity under God’s wrath. Drawing from the Old Testament scriptures, Jesus Himself compared being under God’s wrath to being in a dark and lonely place of misery where the “worm does not die,” and the “fire is not quenched.” Jesus also said that in that place there was “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He also compared the suffering of the afterlife to a place called Gehenna, which was a disgusting trash heap that always had smoldering fires that fed off of the garbage and refuse left there. When considering these illustrations, it is important to remember that, while they are intense, these words (Gehenna, a lake of fire, fire and brimstone, a place of darkness, etc.) are mere symbols of the actual spiritual reality of Hell. Even though it is very uncomfortable for even the Christian to consider, it is important first to have a reasonable grasp of this doctrine if one is to discuss it.

The doctrine of Hell, while terrifying to comprehend, is nonetheless perfectly defensible. It is important to have a grasp of the doctrine of Hell in order to properly administer to unbelievers and believers alike. If we love the unsaved, we will not be ashamed to care for them by sharing the complete revelation of Heaven and Hell, when it is appropriate. If we want to administer to believers by helping them understand God’s full range of attributes, a grasp of the doctrine of Hell can help make this understanding complete.

The doctrine of Hell can usually be explained by helping someone understand two things: 1) God’s full range of attributes, including his justice and holiness as well as love, and 2) man’s utter sinfulness.

1) God’s full range of attributes

Unfortunately, in our time, it is uncommon for a Christian to have a proper knowledge of God’s full range of attributes. Most of American Christian theology erroneously makes love the preeminent attribute of God. In other words, the sentiment among many Christians is that, while God is just and holy, God’s love is so powerful that it overrides all of God’s desires, and all other aspects of His personality. So, although God is just, His love is so powerful that He is forced to in some way compromise his justice or holiness by loving everyone equally. Not only this, but often the error goes farther: many believers and unbelievers, assume that God has only one kind of love. Consider for a moment how humans have many kinds of love: a man loves his wife differently than he loves a parent or a coworker, and a man loves his favorite hobby differently than he loves his children, and a man loves his friend differently than he loves a person who breaks into his house (even a burglar is a kind of person we are called to love, despite being permitted to stop with severe force). In each example given, it is proper and good for this man to love each person or good thing in his life with different kinds, and different degrees of love, and yet to exercise justice and restraint when necessary. How much more should God Himself express full ranges of degrees of love?

The scriptures teach just the opposite of both errors: God is love, but He is also Holy. No one will ever find a record of God compromising his Holiness in any way in the scriptures. When Isaiah has a vision of God seated gloriously on His throne, the Cherubim are repeating one characteristic only of God, “Holy, Holy, Holy…” God is other, God is perfect, God is clean, God is untarnished, God is supremely valuable, God is all good, God is morally perfect, God is Holy! God’s Holiness is one of the main reasons that the punishment of Hell must be eternal (Christians have theorized as to other reasons, such as the inference from the scriptures that the committing of sin does not cease in Hell); a sin against a perfectly Holy and eternal God must be met with appropriately severe punishment.

There are degrees of punishment in our society for greater and lesser crimes in our societies, sins against God are of eternal significance. Every picture of God’s judgment, from the physical judgments of the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, to the military judgments recorded throughout the Old Testament and described of Jerusalem itself in the New, to Jesus’ words, to the spiritual judgments depicted symbolically in the book of revelation, is utterly severe, uncompromising, powerful, and terrible, and, in many cases, it is literally described as eternal.

God is also just. God asks this very question in the scriptures: Is it good for a judge to let a man go, when the judge knows that he is guilty? And is not God worthy as a supreme judge over all of creation? God is seen in the scriptures as exercising different kinds of love: the love that exists between the three members of the Trinity is different than the love that God has for His redeemed people, which is different from the love that He shows to all of mankind by restraining his wrath on an unrepentant sinner while they live on the earth. Many unbelievers are allowed to see sunsets, to enjoy good food, to have friends, and so on, for five, ten, twenty-five, or sixty, or a hundred years before they are brought under God’s wrath…and all the while they were on earth God was revealing his invisible attributes to them through what He has created.

2) Man's sinfulness

Now, consider the sinfulness of man. A simple examination of the Ten Commandments will show that no one on earth is clean or holy, no one is able to stand before God justified. Even though just one sin is enough to make a person unclean before a perfect and Holy God, every human being’s life is characterized by a lifestyle of sin. Even though God reveals Himself and His invisible attributes through creation, mankind chooses to go its own way, and instead their consciences become seared by their sinful activities. Next, the pathway of a natural man will lead to idolatry. Something must take the place of God, whether it is themselves, or some kind of external idea of who they judge that God is, or who God should be. Remember, an idol doesn’t have to be carved out of stone to be real! The reality of mankind’s sin is internal and external; outside, his actions give evidence of his sinfulness, and deep inside is a heart that hates the One true God. Thus, even upon their judgment after death, unbelievers will not be repenting before God. Instead, they will be screaming out their hatred of God as they are thrown into Hell.

There is no way to bribe God with good works; God will not be corrupted by any attempt to release someone from a just punishment. It is often the person who appears the most righteous that is guilty of the gravest of sins. Consider the Pharisees, who appeared morally good on the outside, but who desired to earn righteousness on their own and prop themselves before God, thus appropriating one of God’s most precious attributes, Holiness, for themselves, in an idolatrous fashion. Ultimately, the actions of the Pharisees, that appeared so proper and clean, revealed a deep, dark, hatred for the One true God. There are many figures throughout history who appeared very good in one way or another, and yet in their hearts they hated and rejected the lordship of the One true God.

A common objection to this kind of Biblical teaching sometimes comes in at this point: “Why does He [God] find fault [in an unbeliever]? For who resists His Will?” After all, if mankind’s moral plight is this deep, why does God not choose to save everyone, or intervene in some way so that this condition of mankind will be quenched? If you encounter this objection, you are in good company; it is the very objection (among others) that Paul raises and address in the book of Romans. First, an illustration to answer, then, specific scriptural passages.

Many will use an illustration that goes something like this to try to argue the unreasonableness of Hell: “God is like someone who finds puppies in a box and brings them home to raise them, only, because he is displeased with them and their behavior, he chooses to burn them.” Another illustration goes something like this: “God is like a farmer who has a pond in his field. He doesn’t want anyone swimming in it, so he puts up a fence and also a sign that reads, ‘no swimming!’ Later, he comes and finds that several neighborhood boys have hopped the fence and ignored the sign: they are swimming in his pool! And not only this, but they are bad swimmers, and they are drowning. But instead of saving them, the farmer becomes angry and says, ‘the sign was there, you were warned, and now you are going to get what you deserve!’ he saves one boy because he has a strange and twisted sense of mercy, and then he lets the others drown.” Sadly, these illustrations are actually used by some Christians to argue against the doctrines of Grace. But no matter who it is that presents these illustrations, the errors are the same.

A much more accurate illustration given by reformed Christians is the following: “Instead of being an average Joe or simply a farmer, God in this illustration would have to be a righteous King, deserving of loyalty and praise. And in this illustration, the unbelievers are not good ol’ innocent country boys, but they are subjects of the King. This King is kind to his subjects, giving so many food and places to live, and allowing them to enjoy the pleasures in life. One day, the King returns from doing good to find that his subjects have rebelled against him and have broken into his castle. Not only this, but they are seeking hatefully to destroy everything that would represent the rule of this king. They desire to be King, and despite the kindness of the King, they hate him so much that they will stop at nothing to destroy him. They are even so reckless in their hate of the king that they are setting fire to the castle, and are gravely endangering themselves by ransacking the castle while the flames continue to spread. Even more surprising is that when the king sends servants to rescue his subjects from the flames, they scream their hatred of the king, kill the servants, and return to ransacking and destroying the castle.” As one can see, the natures of God the unbeliever, and the sins of the unbeliever are represented in a drastically different way. Only from this perspective can the reality of God’s judgment of mankind be properly represented.
Paul says, “Who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?” As sovereign Lord over a creation that is consistently rebellious under its own volition, God has the right to do what He pleases with what He has made. Where our freedom and God’s freedom collide, God’s freedom prevails. Thus, God makes some vessels to display His wrath, and others to display His mercy. However, there is nothing cold about God’s salvation of sinners, it is a result of God’s foreknowledge between the members of the Trinity in eternity past, when God lovingly chose to bring a people to Himself that would please Him, for His own glory.

Fortunately for us, the “King returning to the Castle” illustration doesn’t stop there, because the King sends his only son into the flames on a rescue mission that, despite the efforts of the rebellious subjects in the castle to fend the son off, succeeds. Christians, then, are the rebellious subjects who were dragged out of that burning castle. Thank God for the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit! Thank God that we have been given a new heart that desires to please Him!

Concluding Remarks

Obviously, any discussion of Hell is intimately connected with the message of the Gospel. As Christians who are trying to evangelize to unbelievers and edify believers, we should go out of our way to make the gospel the focus of any discussion on Hell. Many unbelievers think that Christians believe they will escape the punishment of Hell by being righteous through their own good works. Unbelievers need to hear that this misconception could not be farther from the reality! Only through Christ’s atonement, an independent action of God, can we be justified before Him. The doctrine of Hell, while frightening, does not exist to scare unbelievers into submission to God. It is to demonstrate God’s Holiness and Justice, and to inform believers of the natural consequences of their lifetime of sins against a perfect, holy, and just God. The real reason to repent is in the same agent that necessitates Hell: the invaluable righteousness of God. imputed by grace through faith in the atoning death of Christ. Although this section is about the doctrine of Hell, it should be noted that mercy and grace are independent actions of God from Him carrying out His justice. The scriptures teach that God has the freedom to exercise both His justice and His mercy. It is important to point out to an inquirer that God’s mercy, or grace, or, unearned favor, is greatly magnified and clarified by its juxtaposition with a proper understanding of God’s justice and the doctrine of Hell.

Apologetics Grab Bag!

2010-02-17T10:49:00.000-07:00

I recently had an apologetic exchange with a friend and former colleague of mine about a variety of Christian issues. I appreciated his candor, and the knowledge that he brought to the discussion. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction against Christianity, my friend demonstrated that he was interested in respectfully discussing the actual issues. It was almost flattering to see that he properly understood the teachings and purpose of the council of Nicea and that he was familiar with the Bible.

The issues he brought up centered around objections to modern Christian doctrine. As far as I could best understand it, he asserted that 1) Modern Christianity was the end result of political struggles throughout church history, and that it therefore couldn't be trusted as true, 2) That while the Biblical writers taught that Christ was divine, the New Testament was inconsistent in this teaching, and with applying this teaching to Jesus' relationship with the Father (citing Jesus' words in Mark 10:28, "why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."), and 3) The Trinity is illogical, (objecting, "it sounds like three gods that are all divine")

I wrote quite a lot for a simple response to my friend, so I ended up cutting it back. However, the following is the full response, with his name omitted (just to be safe...he's an easy going guy though!).

Finally, at the end of the message, I wanted to direct the conversation towards the gospel, because I believe that any apologetic conversation should involve the gospel. After all, teaching on the Trinity leads directly to a much clearer understanding of the gospel. The atonement is impossible without the Trinity, because the Father must be distinct from Jesus in order to pour out His wrath on Him; at the same time, Jesus must be divine, because only He could fufill all righteousness and be God's spotless lamb, and have a right over all of His people, sharing equally in the Father's glory, to inherit all righteousness, rule, and dominion. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is necessary to carry out the regenerative work in a person's heart, as Christ is making intercession for them before the Father, in heaven.

I hope that my friend continues our conversation. Not only is it enjoyable, but I hope to be able to witness to him about the truth and legidimacy of Biblical Christianity.

Here is the response:

About different versions of Christianity in church history:
As far as the 1st-4th century church “at large” goes, yes, there were definitely a lot of different factions. It seems like you are trying to say that there are a lot of different views on the Christian scriptures in the early church; therefore, the modern day version of Christianity is simply a result of the random juggling of doctrines in power throughout time; therefore, modern Christian doctrine cannot be trusted as true. I hope I have understood your point well enough here.

One of the problems that I have with this argument is that it only makes sense if you assume that all of Church history can be summarized as a political struggle. Yes, politics were definitely involved, as with any significant idea throughout history. But there is a lot more going on here than just people manipulating religion to gain power. Not only that, but your argument assumes that God cannot act in history to foster and build a church from the 1st century on. A false doctrine about God could only “come to power,” as it were, and wipe out all other doctrines, if God were not acting in history to preserve a remnant of His people. That’s not to say that false doctrines don’t exist, or that there cannot even be a majority of false Christians in the world. But true Biblical Christianity has always existed throughout history, which is what I would give as evidence to this fact.

In general, I think knowing church history is good because it can teach you a lot, especially when you look at the inspiring works of Christians and how they interacted with heretical ideas throughout the ages. But I don’t think that studies of church history should be used to guide someone to the truth. A study of church history always has to be informed by a Biblical framework in order to be edifying. And the same is true today: Imagine that you and I walk into a big general Christian bookstore together. Unless the bookstore is specifically geared towards one denomination, it’s going to have a huge range of ideas expressed there, from heretical ideas about Christ to liberal theology that treats the Bible like any other piece of ancient literature to Your Best Life Now (that book is terrible and heretical in its own right) to what I would consider good literature by Calvin and Luther, John MacArthur, etc. Hopefully you and I would not consider all of those ideas as equally valid representations of Christianity. So, when I read about Arian or the Gnostics or when I hear Joel Osteen teach, I don’t evaluate the validity of their “Christian-ness” based on how many people are following them or whether or not they are official in some way or if they are in political power. I have to use the objective standard of God’s Word. And in God’s Word, we find explicit doctrinal requirements for someone to be considered a Christian. For example, in John 8:24, Jesus said to the Pharisees, “unless you believe that I Am, you will die in your sins,” showing that to have your sins forgiven, i.e. be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus is divine.

About the Trinity being illogical

When it comes to the Trinity, it is important to take into account all of what the Christian view of the Trinity is. It sounds like you have a view of the trinity that is three separate gods who all possess their own divinity, perhaps in the same way that the Greek gods were divine. So, you could have, say Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, three persons, all divine…by some accounts, here is a Trinity, right? Actually this view of the Trinity is not far off at all from the trinity of Mormonism, that says that the Trinity is three separate gods that are united in purpose.

In contrast, the Christian doctrine is that there is only one God, that is revealed in three persons who share the very same substance of divinity. Remember the distinction I made between “being” and “person” in the last message. This is important to remember, because a “being” and a “person” are not the same thing. A “being” denotes an entity’s identity and substance, or nature. A “person” has a mind, will, and emotions. So, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, each having a mind, will, and emotions, and they are all the one true God, because they share the same “being.” Here is a link to a short article that I believe summarizes my position well: http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html
Also, if you are curious, there is a book by a Christian author I would highly recommend on the subject, called The Forgotten Trinity by James White. I haven’t read the book myself but I have heard a lot of the content of the book explained by the author, and it seems like a great work on the subject.

Getting back to my description of the Trinity, I realize that the language I just used might sound unusual; and in many ways it should. After all, we are talking about the very make-up of almighty God. But I want to repeat here that while the Trinity might sound a bit unusual on the surface, I can’t find a logical contradiction in the doctrine. For a contradiction to exist, we would have to have “a” be “a” and “not a” in the same place at the same time. In other words, we would have to have something like “one person and three persons,” or, “one being and three beings.” But “one being, three persons” is not a contradiction.

Not only that, but the doctrine I’ve described above is the one that I am convinced comes right from the Christian scriptures. The reason that we don’t find an explicit description of the Trinity like the one I just gave to you in the Bible is because there was no cultural, apologetic, or didactic need at the time to describe it as such. The articulation of the Trinity that we use today is simply the most convenient form for us at this point in history. What we do find in scripture, however, is the following:

-The scriptures (Old and New Testaments) teach unanimously

that there is only one God.

-The Father is identified as God

-The Son is identified as God

-The Holy Spirit is identified as God

-Each member of the Trinity is described as having a mind, will, and emotions

-Each member of the Trinity is described as having the essence of deity

It is important to keep in mind when evaluating these teachings that the writers of the New Testament were writing from a monotheistic, Jewish mindset. This mindset is explicit and implicit throughout all their writings. So it won’t do just to guess that the New Testament writers would be so openly incoherent as to assert the Jewish kind of monotheism (with the God who insisted that there were no other Gods, nor were there ever any other kind of Gods, that He doesn’t even know of any other Gods, and who doesn’t share His glory with anyone) and then in the next breath take back what they said by, say, calling Jesus God or the I Am of the Old Testament. You have to take the time to unpack what they said and to get down to what they were really trying to say.

About the deity of Christ

The doctrine of the deity of Christ is directly related to the Trinity. I am going to concentrate on getting detailed just in this area in the interest of time.

I am going to argue that the scriptures are cohesive when it comes to all of their teachings, especially the deity of Christ. Let me start off by saying that just because Jesus draws a distinction between Himself and the Father, this should in no way be seen as contradicting the idea that Jesus is God. There are a great many examples all over scripture that draw the distinction between Jesus and the Father. In fact, I’m not even sure that Mark 10:18 is where you want to go to show that Jesus drew a distinction between Him and the Father. I would argue that by making the statement in Mark, Jesus is simply saying that the rich young man should not address Him as “good teacher” until he is ready to acknowledge Him as God. It seems to be a corrective assertion of Jesus’ true identity, not an offhand remark that means something like, “Jesus is not good, so therefore He is not god.” I think that the former interpretation flows more from the context of the entire book, which brings out a theme of Jesus being the Son of God, who is more than just a “good man.”

But about this business of Jesus being distinct from the Father, (again, I agree with you that the distinction is in the Bible), it actually fits with exactly what we would expect to find if Jesus is a distinct person from the Father that shares the same divine substance. I think what we see in passages where Jesus is distinct from the Father is not a contradiction; it’s actually the Trinity in action. But let me bring up a few examples from the scriptures on the subject of the deity of Christ:
First, John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” to John 1:14: “…and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory…” This is an explicit statement that Jesus is God. Here is another from the same book, where in dialoguing with the Pharisees, Jesus identifies Himself as the I Am of the Old Testament. John 8:58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am.” The Pharisees knew what he was saying, because immediately after He said this, they picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy!
In Colossians 1:19, Paul, a monotheistic Jew, in talking about the relationship between Jesus and the Father, makes the assertion that “it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.” Paul further develops this argument leading up to 2:10, where he says, “in Him, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.” This to me is an excellent description of the deity of Christ, how Jesus can be distinct from the Father, and yet be God at the same time.

Well, I am going to call it quits at this point because I see that I am already reaching an unreasonable length. There is a lot more that I want to say about the Trinity, but I think for now I think it is best to leave the focus on the 2nd person of the Trinity. Thanks again for taking the time to read this stuff and respond. I look forward to hearing your response to what I’ve written. But I do have one question before I go. I’m always curious when I talk with people who know a thing or two about Christianity: in Christian teaching, the message of the gospel is often regarded as first importance. The funny thing is, the gospel is often the message that gets muddled the most…

That's Right, it's Psalm 2 Again! (The Messianic King and modern evangelistic attitudes)

2010-02-09T13:02:00.000-07:00

Why are the nations in an uproar
and the peoples devising a vain thing?
The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers take counsel together
against the Lord and against His
Anointed, saying,
'Let us tear their fetters apart
And cast away their chords from us!'

He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
Then He will speak to them in His anger
and terrify them in His fury, saying,
"But as for Me, I have installed my
King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."

I will surely tell of the decree of the
Lord:
He said to Me, "You are My son,
Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your
posession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like
earthenware."

Now therefore, O kings, show
discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
Worship the Lord with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not
become angry, and you perish in the
way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in
Him!

-Psalm 2, NASB

Not to keep harping on Psalm 2, but my wife and I, having finished James, just started a tour of the first book of the Hebrew psalter. I couldn't help but be inspired once again by Psalm 2.

I'm often amazed by the Kalidescopic nature of God's Word, on a large and small scale. Last time I looked at Psalm 2, it was an awe-filled journey through the dual nature of Hebrew messianic literature, about how in the same passage God could reach down to earth and describe the blessings betowed on the kings of Israel, as a type of Jesus, and reach all the way up to heaven by showing how glorious God's plan will be, describing the One King of Israel, who has a unique position before the Father (for a brief discussion on the messianic nature of the Psalm, see previous blog).

This time I was struck by the evangelistic nature of the first two Psalms. The Biblical vision of the psalmist stands in stark contrast to many attitudes expressed today about how Christians should present the gospel of salvation to the lost.

Although Psalm 2 is made in part to address the unbeliever, the psalmist makes no effort to woo the unbeliever into submission. The unbeliever is certainly not the center of this gospel presentation. Instead, the unbeliever becomes a fortuante bystander to this celebration of God's reigning messiah. The unbeliever experiences Psalm 2's gospel presentation (Psalm 2 presents man's sin, God's wrath, and offers refuge in Jesus, the reigning benevolent King) as a part of the unaltered, completed worldview of God's soverignty over the entire globe. As the text jumps fiercely from dialogue to dialogue, addressing the rulers, then the singular true King and Messiah, then the congregation in turns, the evil, self-decieved, and ultimately impotent rulers of the earth serve as a foil for the true savior and ruler over creation. And why is this Messiah such a ruler? Because God almighty has bestowed this title on Him. The Messiah rules from an unattainable position of Holiness and righteousness, mount Zion (ultimately, we learn in the New Testament that beyond the significance of the symbols used here, Jesus actually rules enthroned from heaven, God's ultimate Mount Zion).

Notice also, the submissive role that politics plays in the gospel presentation. Politics is not a seperate issue from describing the Messiah's reign in Psalm 2 to be avoided entirely. Nor is it a rabbit trail that distracts the psalmist into sub-gospel ethical banter. The psalmist avoids these two extremes. Instead, the rulers of the earth are shown no special favor in God's judgement. They are held responsible for their actions before God, as people, and additionally, as rulers of mankind. The political rulers and their policies are merely another facet of man's actions in God's creation, and are treated as such.

As a side note, this also helps me to understand how I should follow God's command to pray for our political leaders. Yes, I pray for effectiveness and for good policies to be enacted, good decisions to be made. But mostly, I pray for their repentance (no matter which party they belong to! It doesn't make a difference). Undoubtedly, this is what would glorify God the most, and do them and our nation the most good.

Finally, when the furious presentation of God's judgement is done, the invitation comes, to "take refuge in Him," and to "do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way." The benevolent Lordship of Jesus is offered in place of His wrath. Homage to Jesus is offered in place of homage to the world (the ESV reads, "Kiss the son, that He not become angry..."). While men of the world express their alliegance to this policy or that group of men, or to their own devices, the Lord Himself offers a far greater and lasting alliegance, a blessed and loving relationship with the eternal, omni-ruling, and singular divine King.

How to Make Yoghurt at Home

2010-02-05T08:00:00.000-07:00

That's right, it's time for another "other stuff" blog...

Let's face it: Yoghurt is an awesome and nutritious snack. It is one of the best ways for acquiring fast protien in your diet. It tastes good, and it has a nice texture. I love yoghurt, and I love making it.

Yoghurt is about 40 cents for a small cup at the store, if you find a good deal. Making yoghurt at home is easy, and far less expensive than even the best deals a grocery store has to offer.

Time needed for prep, cooking, and serving: About 10-15 minutes.

Total time until yoghurt is ready and chilled: About 12 hours.

What you need:

Ingredients:

-One or two (two if you're making a gallon) small cups of yoghurt from the store. They should have as least obtrusive of a flavor as possible. I like to get vanilla instead of plain because it adds a tad bit of sugar to the final product without making the whole batch taste strangely of a hint of guava, or something like that. Important!!!: Make sure it says somewhere on the container "contains live and active cultures."

-Milk. I like to use 2% or 1%. I make up to a gallon of yoghurt at one time. I would probably make at least a half gallon for this process to be worth it.

Materials:

-A large pot and lid.

-A big spoon for stirring.

-An oven, preferrably with a light inside.

-A big serving spoon.

-Sealable ontainers for storing the yogurt.

What to do:

1: Bring all the milk to a near boil at medium heat on the stove (bubbles are coming up and a foam is forming on top of the milk). You can stir constantly to keep a small layer of burnt skin from forming on the bottom of the pot. I almost never do, because it makes the process go from a fair amount of effort to no effort at all. Plus, I can usually seperate the skin from the yoghurt at the end of the process with ease.

2: Once the milk has reached a near boil, take it off of the heat. Let it cool at room temperature for about an hour, uncovered. The milk has to cool down until it is lukewarm but NOT hot (this would kill all the cultures you need to work in the milk!)

3: Once the milk has cooled significantly,stir in a small cup of store-bought yoghurt. Make sure the yoghut has mixed thuroughly with the milk. If you are making a gallon of yoghurt, you may want to stir in two cups.

4: Cover the pot, and place it in a warm place for about eight hours. The ideal place is in the oven, with the oven off but the oven light on. You may want to insulate the pot with some hand towels. In case you didn't know, yoghurt is formed by bacteria (good bacteria) eating through milk and transforming it into yoghurt. The bacteria is good for you; that's why yoghurt is also probiotic. So, you want to give those little probiotic bacteria critters optimal conditions to do their thing.

5: After about eight hours, you can open the pot. You should see the entire pot of milk transformed into yoghurt, with a layer of watery fluid on top. Don't be grossed out...it's just yoghurt and water! Now take the big serving spoon and dish the yoghurt into your sealable containers. If you didn't stir the milk constantly while it was heating, there is probably a thin skin on the bottom of the pot. Don't worry about that, just don't scrape it off the bottom while you're dishing the yoghurt up.

6: You can eat the yoghurt warm, but you probably want to chill it first. It will also solidify more when it chills.

7: Plain yoghurt will have a mild, pleasant dairy-like taste and a slightly liquid pudding-like texture. It might be a little sour. Don't worry about that-it's how plain yoghurt usually tastes (although it seems that if you let the milk cool for about an hour after it boils, it somehow helps the sour taste...).

8: I often enjoy yoghurt plain; however, you can now add any other ingredients you wish to the yoghurt to sweeten the taste. Some good ones include:

-honey
-jams & jellies
-fresh fruit
-granola
-vanilla extract
-cereal
-diced cucumbers, a squirt of lemon, and dill (Common in Mediterranean food for a refreshing dip for fried food such as fried zuchhini, breaded cheese (OK, that one's more American), or filafel).
-use your imagination!

Enjoy God's creation!

I'm Bad, Shammow! (James 2, the Sermon on the Mount, Faith, and Works Part II)

2010-01-30T10:00:00.001-07:00

...continued from previous post...

Paul, also intimagely acquainted with Abraham's life, also writes in discussing the nature of how one is saved by God, defines justification as the blessing that David describes in Psalm 32, "Blessed are those who lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account." According to Paul's thesis, how could justification come any other way? After all, as the scriptures before Christ clearly state, "there is no one righteous, not even one," and Abraham had nothing to boast of before God when it came to his deeds.

And notably, dispite James' assertion that Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar, Abraham was declared righteous before God in chapter 15, before Isaac was even born, and again, the reason that Abraham was declared righteous (Abraham offers Isaac on the altar seven chapters later after he is declared righteous before God)? Belief.

Enter Michael Jackson's "Bad," as a fun-filled and funky example of the plasticity of language. Here again, an adventure in the book of James has reminded us of a basic hermanutical principle that is not to be overlooked: the plasticity of language. A good instruction manual for a new Christmas gift will always use the same word in the same way throughout the entire booklet, where it is a two-page document about putting a tricile together or a multi-volume Bowflex assembly and workout manual (at least, I'm guessing they have something like that...).

However, many genres of literature don't follow this rigorous instruction manual-like method of word usage. When Michael Jackson sings, "I'm bad!" he doesn't mean that he is bad like food is bad, or like a murdurer is morally bad. While Jackson's lyrics are indeed tinged with these ideas, what he means is, "I'm cool!" As I said, Michael Jackson's "bad" is related to other usages of the word "bad," namely, that people who are "bad" are generally known as convention breakers, or radicals, or those who engage in shocking behavior. But to say that Michael Jackson is personally identifying himself with any real, "non-Hollywood" immoral criminal when he jams away on that classic tune is to miss the point.

The scriptures are no exception to this principle. Indeed, many terms are used in related but unequal ways. "Firstborn" is used to denote inheritance, preeminence, and being the literal first child to be born. It can be one, two, or all three simultaneously.
"World" is used to denote literally the whole world, and to mean all peoples and nations, or, all kinds of people.
"Faith" is used to denote reliance on God (a la the book of Romans), and it is also used in the context of "easy beliefism."
The list goes on...

Such is the case with the term "justified." Since James is talking about faith being evidenced by good works, it is aparrent in the context that James means "shown to be righteous" by the term "justified." Additionally, as I said in the previous blog, James' audience would have been intimately acquainted with the life of Abraham and they would have immediately recalled that Abraham was counted righteous through belief far before he offered Isaac on the altar. But God's words to Abraham echo James' when after testing Abraham for His glory, He says in Genesis 22:12b, "...for now I know that you fear God, since you have not witheld your son, your only son, from me." Abraham was evidencing the righteousness that he posessed from God all along (a result God expected). So, as James said, "faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected." (in the greek made complete, or mature).

Indeed, how much was God glorified as His servant's loyalty was displayed through the earthly offering of his son? And how much was Abraham instructed in this glory? Not only this, but as Hebrews 11 tells us, Abraham recieved Isaac back as a type of Christ, after which Abraham considered God's abilities, and anticipated the resurrection of his son in light of God's promise to make his descendants so numerous.

Similarly, Rahab, a harlot living in a pagan city, justified by works, evidencing a faith in the people of the one true God. By hiding the Hebrew spies, she also evidenced her belief in God through the performance of good works at great personal risk.

My family and I live on a teacher's (charter school) salary in Laveen, AZ. The life we lead is downright luxurious compared to so many in James' churches. Personally, I identify more with the rich in the congrigation that James instructs to "glory in their humiliation," simply because I have never been persecuted for my faith or been in any real situation of want. Upon considering Abraham, Rahab, and the fool's false dichotomy, and the actions that drive our outward proclimations, James' visceral words. from a visceral time, are just as urgent for my family, and church members everywhere, whether persecuted or comfortable, "for just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

My Two Cents on Disasters, Disaster Evangelism, and Relief Orginizations in Haiti

2010-01-24T10:39:00.010-07:00

A Caveat...

The following are my personal convictions about Disasters, Disaster Evangelism, and Relief Orginizations in Haiti. I want to let my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ that I love them and I respect them, regardless of how they choose to spend their time and resources.  Also, I don't believe that donating to any one of the many popular Christian or creed-less sites is a sin, in and of itself. I have to watch my own heart for signs of sin just like anyone else would when I consider how to spend my time and resources.

My intention in writing this blog is to share my ideas (yes, some are strong) from scripture regarding these issues, and maybe to provoke some dialogue. Again, please, if you are reading this, do not interpret this is any kind of personal attack. We all have our opinions about these things. Feel free to voice yours, and exercise your freedom as a member of the body of Christ to share your convictions from scripture.

Intro...

I form the light and create darkness,

I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7

Hearing of the horrifying disaster in Haiti, arguably the poorest country in the northern hemisphere, has provoked the imprinted image of God in so many--young, old, secular, religious, etc., causing them to send help, or to help themselves.

The previous blog"My Two Cents on the Manhattan Declaration," addresses this same basic question as this blog: when the situation is physically desperate, what should be our priority be for ministry, as Christians? What movements should we endorse, where should we donate our resources? And, when we are able to actively participate in ministry, who should we work with, and for what ultimate purpose?

To answer this questions, I think that Christians have to keep in mind the following:

Man-Centered Explanations of Disasters

Why do disasters occur? What is God's role in disasters?

1) Is He a deistic God, who winds the universe up and simply lets it go? Is He removed from creation in some (allegedly) dignified manner? Some Christians, as well as other religious groups, have asserted this kind of theology when it comes to disasters in an effort to exonerate God from having responsibility in these matters.

2) Another common assertion given in an effort to exonerate God's responsibility in disasters is that God does not know the future. Surprisingly, there is a number of people in the Christian camp who would assert that God has prevented Himself from knowing the future for a set of philosophical reasons. One of the main purposes for this seems to be an attempt to solve the problem of evil. When the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed in 2007, many religious leaders were quoted as saying something very similar to, "God was as surprised about this as we were."

3) Yet another common assertion is that disasters are part and parcel of living in a world where God has allowed free choice to occur. This argument says that even though God loves everyone, He desires to give us (in this case, autonomous) freedom, and so he steps back and allows human beings to be the primary causes for evils and unpleasant facts of life. Many Christians give this explanation to justify a broad range of evils and unpleasant elements in the world, from all kinds of disasters to the evil of men to injustices, to people being sent to Hell.

The Biblical Purpose of Disasters

In contrast, Biblical Christian theology:

First of all, let's remember that, ultimately, the only way that any disaster of any scale has any purpose is if God is soverign. Consider the following scenario, which is on a much smaller scale, but in other ways is equally disastrous: one night, coming home from a friend's house, a man's daughter is driving home and obeying all the traffic laws when she is killed in a collision with a drunk driver.

Was God's hand active in this terrible tragedy? Did God use this terrible accident to accomplish His soverign plan, or was He somehow removed from it, unable to prevent it, or indifferent? A knee-jerk reaction might be to declare that God couldn't have anything to do with something this horrible, or that He did what He could to stop it, but He failed. But consider: if God did not allow this accident to occur or, in a secondary sense, cause it to occur, then this action was ultimately purposeless. If this accident was simply a product of God allowing free will, then this young woman just died in order to preserve the drunk man's free will, nothing more, nothing less.  In fact, it would follow that all the tragedies we hear about are not for any greater purpose than preserving the free will of the morons around us. This is ultimately a worthless purpose, because it cannot glorify God, since it takes His hand off of this aspect of history and puts the control in ours.

More than that, God in His wisdom and power would have an obligation in this scenario to stop the accident, while at the same time finding a way to preserve the drunk man's free will, or the way of the universe. Maybe a tire could have blown out at the last second so that the young woman didn't have to be involved, or maybe his car didn't have to start. Whatever the case, almighty God is suddenly beginning to appear quite impotent.

However, if God did allow this accident to occur, or, in a secondary sense, cause it to occur by using the sin of the drunk man, then the accident, while a tragedy, serves the greatest purpose possible: the soverign plan of almighty God. The fact that God's hand is involved in the good and the bad of history, and that He is guiding it to accomplish his present and future will, is indeed a comforting and satisfying thought to the Christian. Moreover, and most importantly, it gives the glory to God.

While it is impossible to know the specific reasons behind the suffering people experience in the world at large, scripture gives plenty of prescedent as to how we might interpret various kinds of evil and calamity throughout history. Just a few examples:

God used Pharaoh's own sinful dispositions to accomplish His will, by hardening Pharaoh's proud heart (Exodus 1-14).

Natural earthquakes are prophesied as coming signs of eschatalogical events and judgements from God, namely in the book of Isaiah (29), the gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) and Revelation (11, etc.).

Jesus clearly saw the hand of God in the collapse of the tower of Siloam (Luke 13), using the event as a tool for evangelism, saying that there was nothing especially sinful about those who died in the disaster.

Perhaps the most striking example of God ordaining evil to occur is found in the book of acts, when Peter and John reported of Jesus' crucifiction in Jerusalem, "For 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 andthe peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Acts 4:27-28).

So, we can see from these and many more examples throughout scripture, God has a fixed plan, for the salvation of His people, and for the course of events at large on a small and large scale. However, instead of literally embodying Pharoah and acting out the evil of the Egyptian King, or literally coming down to earth and physically pushing the tower of Siloam over, God is able in His wisdom and omnipotence to utelize primary causes (Pharoah's own wicked heart, the bad construction or design resulting in the poor structural integrity of the tower of Siloam) to achieve His own ends (Pharoah's wickedness and subborness resulting in God's glory being displayed in and out of Egypt, the tower of Siloam collapsing, in order that Jesus might preach about it, that God could judge the wicked in the accident, and that God could call home any righteous in the accident, and in order that God's further and ultimately unknown ends might be achieved), through what is called "secondary causality" in Christian circles. Mankind is free, but not totally, autonomously free without any bias like God...after all, as Romans 1 and many other passages clearly teach, mankind is biased by the nature of the choiceshe makes, by the existence and warping effect of his own sin. Just like Adam and Eve who sinned in an effort to become autonomous like God, mankind turns to all various and sundry forms of idolatry and sin in general that honors a humanly perverted version of the clearly revealed divine attributes of God. Amazingly, according to Christian theology, the attempt to do what many in the world champion most, that is, obtain perfect personal freedom (truly, a God-like freedom) and build a character of personal moral attainment, mankind chooses to persue an incomplete version of life apart from God, and to embrace the very sin that encapsulates his innately sinful identity. This is why only through the work of the Holy Spirit believers can be brought to new life; this is how God causes all of mankind to serve His purposes. Thus, God is in total control, but the tools he uses to accomplish His will are in His creation as well as His direct person.

The Gospel is "first importance"

The majority of the money we give doesn't go to big charities...we believe that it's Biblical to support your local church (and missionaries from your church) before you give to other orginizations, and although we would like to give more, we usually don't have the leftover resources to spread ourselves out in that way. But in times of great need, when a donation is necessary, it is important to consider several factors:

The Most Immediate
Who is at the scene first to provide for the physical needs of the people in Haiti?

The Most Physically Effective
What orginization will provide the most needed equipment or personel at the disaster site?
The Most Gospel-Centered
Certainly, while our God directs the world according to His plan, He remains a compassionate God. After all, He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous, His grace allows many sinful human beings to exist on the earth, and to enjoy the blessings of life, sometimes for a very long time, waiting with patient endurance until they have had ample opportunity to repent, all the time revealing Himself to them through His creation.

It is Christian (and, since people are made in the image of God, it is also human) to be immediately filled with an impulse to give unreservedly to the efforts in Haiti. I am convinced that the preeminent factor for choosing an orginization to donate to is its gospel-centered-ness (sure, it's a word!):

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul calls the gospel he delivered to the Corinthians the message of "first importance"; in the context, it is the message that is preeminent over all Christian virtues, over prophecy, over love, over the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Consider Stephen ("full of faith and the Holy Spirit") and Phillip ("a prosthelite from Antioch [perhaps he brought the Holy Hand Grenade with him?]"), who, in Acts chapter 6, were chosen to serve bread to hungry widows in the congregation. By the end of the book, one can easily surmise that not only were these men of good faith and character, but that their entire recorded lives were characterized by evangelism in the midst of their service.

Romans 10:14-15 reads: "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!"  Going in order to preach the gospel, not just to aid unbelivers physically, is called beautiful.

One of the worst sermons I think I have ever heard in my life was a sermon on child slavery. Don't get me wrong, I hate child slavery. It is wrong and sinful, and those who practice it will be punished for their sins by the infinite wrath of God almighty. And, for the record, I do think that Christians should do whatever they can to stop child slavery, and all kinds of slavery for that matter. Don't get me wrong about the sermon either, it was well-crafted, and it contained emotionally moving and inspirational content. The pastor also urged the congregation to do a good act-to fight against child slavery. But what was so twisted about the sermon was that the pastor preached the entire sermon, to a congregation of church-goers, as if physically freeing these slaves was the extent of what Christians were supposed to do. The gospel was completely absent from this (approximately) 45-minute message. It could have been preached by an athiest, a muslim, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness. The pastor was constantly directing his congregation to what he insisted was the most dire situation these children were in, and implicitly taught that the gospel was not important at all in his call for action: not important for motivation, for direction, for deed, or for speaking. To a mixed congregation of believers (undoubtedly some strong, some weak) and unbelievers, this message is a deadly poison when is preached as Christian material in place of a legidimate word of exortation from the scriptures. Implicitly, Pharisee-level works righteousness was taught as gospel truth. In fact, at several points the pastor mocked the practice of giving gospel invitations at church [albiet flawed gospel invitation practices], and instead taught that it was far better to sign up Christians to be abolitionists.

The reality that was continually screaming out silently in the echoes of that sermon was that it didn't matter whether these children were free or slaves, whether they were chained to sewing machines in sweatshops or riding limousines around sipping champagne in downtown New York; they would always, always, always be slaves to their sin and to the Devil if they did not hear the message of the gospel. To ignore the reality of impending eternal, spiritual destruction brought on by their slavery to sin in favor of simply and pragmatically caring for their physical needs would be brash, unbiblical, and ultimately purposeless.

More than that, to ignore the importance of the gospel would be to withhold the utimate, most supreme level of God's revelation of His own graciousness (this is speaking of, of course, Jesus' atoning work on the cross), and the power of that graciousness to act in a person's life.

And if we free child slaves without telling them the gospel, not only are we missing out on a nearly perfect gospel opporunity, but we have just taught that Christians have no sense of urgency with the gospel, that the gospel is not important for everyone to know, and that they do not need the gospel to escape the worst fate of all.

As it turns out, we can surmise from reading the Bible that, from a spiritual standpoint, the money we might give to missionaries sharing the gospel with healthy sinners on their way to Hell goes to (in a real sense) just as urgent of a cause as helping the disaster workers in Haiti. I think the difference is that in Haiti, Christians have a more rare opportunity to physically and publicly demonstrate God's compassion as a model for His spiritual forgiveness, and the destruction of many lives is more obviously impending. Without the Christian God, the world has no coherent justification for helping those in need. While it is true that there are many unbelievers in the world who hold to a form of compassion, this compassion can be justified by no transcendant values. Ultimately, without God, compassion becomes nothing more than the desires of a delusional bag of cells and chemicals.

Disaster Evangelism, or, the Problem of Evil as the Evangelist's Ally

The truth is that as Christians, we provide for the total needs of people in desperation because of who God is.  The preaching of the true gospel while in the midst of disaster will accomplish the communication of this message, and fufil the Christian purpose of caring for those in need.

In a previous blog, I said the following about disasters, and I think it applies here: Injustices and suffering in the world should bring us to our knees before God in acknowledgement of our frail nature as fallen human beings, and of Him as our only steadfast hope. They are reminders for us to remove our trust from the things of this world and place them in God. When the tower of Siloam collapsed, Jesus did not attempt to make excuses for God in what had happened. He didn't feign that God was surprised by this event. Instead, He used it as a picture of judgment, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them, do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:2-5).

The Secular Objection to a God in Control of Tragedy

And what of the objector, who might say, "that's fine and dandy for you, but you're comfortable here in america sitting at your computer. There are real people out there, lots of people, who are dying in Haiti. You think you are so spiritual for preaching this stuff about God being in control, but I simply can't accept a God who would use suffering for His glory, who would put His message above the best kind of world for mankind."?

The response:
"In love, I would like to tell you that regardless of who you or I are, the truth of God remains the same. The reason that you cannot accept a God who would use human suffering for His glory is not because you are good. In fact, it is because you are in rebellion against the one true God. You do not know Him, and have never known Him. Even though you rely on Him every day to live (you breathe His air, you drink His water, eat his food, you assert and use values such as logic and morals that He created to show Himself to you and for your benefit), you deny Him and rebel hatefully against Him, the author of these things, thus cutting yourself off from Him and removing any rational basis for holding to these things within your worldview. You prefer your own irrationality to the freedom of God to act as He pleases according to His nature. Not only do I know this is true from His Word, but I have experienced it--this is exactly how I was before God converted me, and I still have to fight by His grace against these desires within me.

Unfortunately, you have not yet come to grips with the mere idea of a God that is so Holy, good that he would be worthy of using utterly sinful human beings to accomplish His good plan. You should submit to Him, and in so doing, you can acknowledge the real reason for doing good and helping people in this world, and come to know what real goodness is in Him. Your presumptuous self-goodness is an idol; you should acknowledge that this thinking is wrong, that you cannot please God apart from being in Him, and embrace Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins."

Ecuminism, Bigotry, and Other Natural Disasters...

As a postscript to this Blog, I want to add some thoughts from an experience I recently had when I was working through this disaster in Haiti, and my convictions go give to a gospel-preaching charity. I realized quickly that with tensions so high, I needed a lesson from James on my communication of my opinions:
James 3:5
So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life,and is set on fire by hell. For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God.

In an effort to avoid ecuminism, which kills the unified power of the gospel, and to learn all I can about various charities that use the name "Christian" (I knew nothing about any charity, now I know next-to nothing). I mistakenly communicated what looked like theological and doctrinal bigotry to a large group of people. I share this as a word of caution to others...could there have been a worse time to let one's conduct slip? Talk about a natural disaster...

A Caveat...

And, in the spirit of guarding the tongue, I want to offer a caveat. Please understand what I have said as applying to broad messages about the general stance of a Christian when participating in ministry, not on small, individual acts. I realize that my opinions might seem a little intense. I respect Christians who give to carity, no matter what charity they give to.

Conclusion

--God is good. He deserves full recognition and worship for all of His attributes.

--The gospel must be first importance in every ministry we do as Christians.

--Gospel communication is crucial in times of safety as well as disaster.

--Let's unite under this banner to serve Haiti!

Justified by Works (James 2, the Sermon on the Mount, Faith, and Works, Part I)

2010-01-22T10:06:00.000-07:00

"What use is it, my bretheren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the scripture was fufilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she recieved the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

--James 2:14-26
NASB, quotes on "you have faith and I have works" from ESV

My wife Sarah and I have been slowly working our way through the New Testament canon in occasional devotional times together. We have just finished the book of Hebrews, and Sarah's recent increased immobility with our new wonderful child Ayden has created many excellent opportunitites for me to read, speak, and pray with her while she is tending to our new little (big!) chunk of a baby boy.

For me, James and other more "practical-oriented" books like it are of great use for helping maintain a well-rounded theology and to understand the many perspectives that important doctrines such as justification can be viewed from. The passage quoted earlier from James 2 got us thinking afresh: what does James mean by "justified by works"? How does James' statement here mesh with Paul's statement in Romans 4:3 that Abraham's faith was "counted to him as righteousnes" (i.e. that Abraham was justified by faith)? What's with James' use of Abraham offering Isaac on the altar, vs. Paul's use of Abraham's belief in God's promise to give him an heir?

I found that I am so used to thinking about this passage from an isolated, apologetic perspective (quickly defending this passage from saying that you have to have a self-generated righteousness in order to please God) that I was not initially prepared to examine this passage with the thuroughness that it demands.

First, to understand this passage in its appropriate context: a church undergoing rough times. There were pressures from those within the church who held an attitude of personal favoritism with those of high economic status. All the while, the poor members of the church endured difficult times. James begins his letter by providing contrasting words of spiritual advice to the rich and the poor within the church, saying, "But the brother of humble circumstances is to glory in his high position; and the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away." (James 1:9-10). So, whether one is rich or poor, there is an appropriate response towards God, to be lifted up (if poor), or humiliated (that is, to be humbled, if one is rich). The result is that the economic status of both groups ceases to be a distracting idol and instead becomes a constant devotional tool to direct glory towards God. Later, James addresses additional sins within the church , such as the sin of an unbridled tongue and misuse of personal resources.

Besides the pressures within, there were pressures from the outside--persecutions, trials, sicknesses, fraudulent business deals that left families destitute...the list goes on.

Thus, as the opening passage of this blog coroborates, James is addressing a rather mixed group within the church (that is, the church at large, most likely groups of Jewish Christian churches outside of Palestine). Some members are not actual Christians at all, although they would testify they were; some were believers fighting the good fight and enduring trials, some were believers who were wavering under the pressures of wealth or poverty. This simple hermanutical object is important to keep in mind, for James, and indeed for all of the New Testament.

We should always ask ourselves--who is the audience? It's the same principle that works intuitively in normal conversation, and in all kinds of religious teaching. My pastor, Scott Maxwell, speaks of salvation and the gospel in one way when he is in a close group he knows well, and he assumes that everyone in the group are in Christ. There, he speaks as though everyone in the room has already been redeemed and is being ministered to by the Holy Spirit. But when he addresses the congregation at large, different idioms are used when speaking of the gospel, and those idioms can even change from time to time within the course of one service, when he addresses believers in the audience, then speaks of those who may not be in Christ, then the entire general assembly at the service. So, he could say that we are secure in Christ one moment, then address some that are under the wrath of God, then speak of God's universal soverignty over everything. And rightly so--we would expect as much from a pastor like Scott, who does a bang-up job to provide a useful and well-rounded (yet entirely Biblical) sermon to serve his congregation.

With this in mind, the concepts and examples James brings up in the passage from chapter 2 are fascinating. In the midst of what is often labled as one of the most "practical" books of the New Testament, James begins a fiery series of redirections for the churches around Palestine with a distilled discourse on the nature of true saving faith. The purpose of the discourse is primarily twofold--1) It is to warn unbelievers within the congregation of their hipocracy, and 2) It is to encourage and stimulate the Christians within the congregation to good deeds with an increased understanding of their true faith.

Drawing from the struggles of his audence, James begins this passage in distinguishing false faith by comparing it to an empty well-wishing for a brother in need. Just as wishing a fellow church member to "go, be warmed and filled" without any action is meaningless and fruitless, so is false faith; it is an "easy belifism" that is dead, i.e. stagnant and hollow, without an action to validate its testimony.

Next, James rebukes the idea that faith and works exist in opposition. "You have faith and I have works," boasts a proverbial fool. (Here, I believe that the ESV has it right with when the fool's quotation marks end. The NASB has the fool's statement running all the way to the end of verse 18. The ESV cuts the fool's statement off as I have written it above. The ESV's version makes sense because if the fool continued to say, "I will show you my faith by my works," he would be agreeing with James' overall point). But the answer from James reinforces his previous argument, "Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe and shudder. But are you willing to recognise, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" The foolish critic of "easy belifism" thinks that the answer to the church's cop-out problem is works righteousness, i.e. separating faith and works, indicated by the statement, "you have faith, and I have works."

Undoubtedly, there were many unregenerate who believed that their works should in contrast to the church's creed. Perhaps they thought that the Christian message interfered with doing real good, perhaps they thought the Christian message was unimpotant, or that it was an imposition on those they needed to help. The sinful desire of unregenerate mankind is often to place good deeds above creed, making good works soverign and creed unimportant.

Others in the congregation, who were truly regenerate but struggling, might have experienced conviction at the reading of this letter, realizing that the answer to the church's problem was not, "church on Sunday, good deeds during the week.," so to speak. Or perhaps, they realized the sin of considering "good deeds" more important than their creed in ministry. Instead, the function of good works is to point to the Christian faith.

Other Christians probably felt vindication upon hearing this authoritative letter confirm their desire to glorify the God of their Christian creed through their good deeds, as the works generated by God's church are displayed to Him, the world, to God's people, and to angels.

The examples of Abraham and Rahab also stand in contrast to the fool's false dichotomy.
James' many citations of Old Testament passages inidicates his audience's deep familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures. James' audience, would have been intimately acquainted with Abraham's biography, recorded in the book of Genesis. So what of the point that Paul makes in Romans 4:3, that Abraham recieved righteousness with God simply by believing (and therefore, Paul points out, he was justified by faith)?

more to come...

My Two Cents on the Manhattan Declaration

2010-01-13T11:35:00.003-07:00

While I have a lot of respect for many who have signed the Manhattan Declaration, I believe the document comprimises the gospel. Briefly, here are three reasons why:

1) The declaration plainly identifies catholics, evangelicals (or protestant Christians), and eastern orthodox religions as all being Christian and all having the same gospel. This is simply not true. While I recognise that the purpose of the MD is not to difine Christianity or the true church or what the gospel, the MD nontheless comprimises the gospel by (at the very least) making these false statements.

2) Authorial intent. The three main authors who drafted the document come straight from the heart of the big ecumenical movement in America, and the authors are known for doing extensive work on uniting evangelicals and catholics together under the explicit teaching that there are no major differences between catholic doctrine and evangelical doctrine. No major differences in creed, in salvation, or in gospel statements. I just don't see how anyone could sign a document that was obviously authored as part and parcel of this movement and contained such strong ecumenical language. A lot of the Protestant leaders seem to have signed the document based on what they think it means or what they think the document in some way leaves room to the imagination for. This to me is dangerous and avoiding the plain intent of the document. I can't picture Dr. Greudem endorsing a book that had strong ecumenical language and intent like this. I dont' really see how the MD should be taken differently, because when you sign it you are endorsing the language and intent of the document itself.

3) I think that the gospel must abesolutely be definitional of what Christianity is and how it works. Obviuosly the trinity and the deity of Christ are important too. But the gospel is just as essential. Not only does the MD rhetorically marginialize the definition of the gospel, but it also implicitly teaches that the actual meaning and definition of the gospel is not important when it comes to identifying who is Christian and who has a true gospel. When I think about how carefully and dearly the New Testament authors protected the message of the gospel, I can't imagine any of the Apostles fellowshiping with catholic and eastern othodox leaders and signing a statement that defines them all as being Christian and having the same gospel. To me that would be like if Paul signed a statement that identified the Judiazers as being Christian and having the same gospel. Paul wouldn't even associate with those people except to share the gospel with them and rebuke them, because unlike unbelievers who were honest professors of their unbelief, the Judiazers were tarnishing the gospel by claiming to be Christians. And I think there are NT commands to not even eat with people like that, except to share the gospel with them. It just doesn't make sense to act like Trinitiarianism is the only definitional aspect of Christianity.

I know that positive reasons exist for signing the decliration, but I have to consider the gospel as central and first importance. When Christianity is viewed from that perspective, I don't think anybody can justify signing the declaration. From what I've heard from those who signed it, they recognise that the document actually does marginalize the gospel in some way, but they have gone ahead and singed it because the document doesn't focus on difining the gospel and because they view the issues of life, conscience, and marriage as being so important that they can set other issues aside. Personally I can't see the justification of approaching anything so pragmatically when the gospel is involved.

Reactions to The Jesus Storybook Bible (Or, Bill is a big fat Theological scrooge. Baah, Humbug!)

2010-01-11T08:00:00.006-07:00

Reactions to:

The Jesus Storybook Bible

By Sally Lloyd-Jones
Illustrated by Jago
Published by Zondervan (Zonderkids)
350 Pages

Brief Reaction:

When read with caution, The Jesus Storybook Bible (the subtitle is: Every Story Whispers His Name) is a useful tool for sharing God's Word with your children. Essentially, it is an entire paraphrased Bible with an abbreviated canon.  Each narrative also contains commentary by Sally Lloyd-Jones. It is well written and understandable for children of a young age (each narrative has about six pages of text, each page containing 40-100 or so words). The illustrations are great (every page is a full-page illustration)! In my opinion, by far the best thing about The Jesus Storybook Bible (JSB) is that Jones goes out of her way to explain how every narrative from the Bible either points to Jesus or is all about Jesus. In this way, the book highlights some important Biblical themes. However, I believe that parents should be cautious when they read the JSB to their children, because the JSB gives the distinct overall impression that the main reason that God saves sinners is to make their lives better, because sin makes our lives worse. The JSB seems to confuse God's people and the world when it teaches about atonement and God's love, and I believe it comprimises teaching on God's holiness and wrath.

Full Reaction:
The Good

When read with caution, The Jesus Storybook Bible (the subtitle is: Every Story Whispers His Name) is a useful tool for sharing God's Word with your children. It is well written and understandable for children of a young age (each narrative has about six pages of text, each page containing 40-100 or so words). It is a compendium of paraphrases of Biblical narratives from Genesis to Revelation. Selections include narratives most would expect (the creation story, the Ten Commandments, David and Goliath, Jesus' birth, Jesus calms the storm, Jesus invites the children to come, the crucifiction, the resurrection), and more--the compilation is surprisingly thurough. The Jesus Storybook Bible is notable for the extra effort Sally Lloyd-Jones goes through to provide commentary on each narritive. Also, every page of the book is a full illustration with text set against it. The illustrations are fantastic and appealing to kids. Some of them are downright gorgeous. I love the scene of Abraham and Isaac resting in the evening after they sacrificed the ram caught in the thicket, of David and Goliath, of baby Jesus in the manger, Jesus and His disciples after He calmed the storm, and of Jesus on the cross.

The main value in Jones' commentaries is that Jesus is the focus, from Genesis to Revelation. In fact, Jones goes out of her way to explain to the reader how, as the subtitle of the book says, "every story whispers His name." Jones speaks often of God's "secret rescue plan," and highlights many important themes related to Jesus, such as God's general love for the world (here, meaning every single person and all of creation) and God's prevenient grace. Jones explains how sin makes people miserable, and how it has corrupted the world. She explains that God has an anger against sin and mentions this in several places throughout the book. Just a few examples:
About Adam and Eve and the fall:
"...before they left the garden, God made clothes for his children, to cover them. He gently clothed them and then he sent them away on a long, long journey--out of the garden, out of their home. Well, in another story, it would all be over and that would have been...The End. But not in this story. God loved his children too much to let the story end there. Even though he knew he would suffer, God had a plan--a magnificent dream. One day, he would make the world their perfect home again....One day, God himself would come."
At the crucifiction:
"Even though it was midday, a dreadful darkness covered the face of the world...until it seemed that the whole world would break. That creation itself would tear apart. The full force of the storm of God's fierce anger at sin was coming down. On his own Song. Instead of his people. It was the only way God could destroy sin, and not destroy his children whose hearts were filled with sin."
The final page of the book:
"For anyone who says yes to Jesus, for anyone who believes what Jesus said, for anyone whil will just reach out to take it, then God will give them this wonderful gift: To be born into a whole new life, to be who they really are, who God always made them to be--their own true selves--God's dear child."

Before I get into this next section, I have to mention one more thing: we have three children's Bibles, and we read the JSB to our children the most (sometimes paraphrasing, since they're still young). It is my favorite children's Bible that I've found, and my children seem to like it the best. I definitely think it is worth buying and reading to your children.

The Caution...

That having been said...
Although I love a lot of what the JSB has to say, I have to offer two points to consider for parents who want to read the JSB to their children. I believe that the JSB deserves a more critical eye than most children's Bible, because it weaves commentary in and out of every narrative.

Reading the Jesus storybook Bible, one gets the distinct impression that the main reason God saved sinners is to make their lives better. The true meaning of redemption is comprimised. Jones goes out of her way to explain the overarching meaning of each narrative in the JSB, but when all is said and done, I believe too much is left unsaid:

1) God's is consistently presented as having only one kind of love, the same kind of love He has for all of mankind, who are aparrently all His children. The group of God's people is never differentiated from the whole world.

2) Teaching on God's wrath and holiness is comprimised. While God's anger against sin is explained, the JSB teaches repeatedly that the reason God is angry is because it makes people miserable. God's holiness and Justice, the chief reasons for His punishment of sin, are almost never mentioned (the single most explicit place that God's wrath is discussed was quoted earlier). Furthermore, while death is mentioned in passing as a consequence of sin, the JSB does not clearly teach that God's infinite wrath abides on sinners who have not repented, and are not in Christ.

I hate to be this critical of a children's Bible. It makes me feel like a big Scroodge. But, sorry, these are my kids I'm reading to. Johua, Isaiah, and Ayden. I wouldn't feed them food that was "a little" bad (well, OK, at least I woudn't do it on purpose!). I don't "almost" want the best teaching for them. And hopefully, I wouldn't tell them something that was just "a little" false, either.

So, while this doesn't mean I'm going to completely throw out the JSB, it does mean that I am going to be extra-careful about what I'm putting in my children's heads.

It would understandable if someone published a single Biblical narrative, say, the account of David and Goliath, and didn't explicitly explain the gospel. It would perhaps even be understandable if someone published a small, simple compendium of Biblical accounts without commentary, and the gospel was never explicitly explained. But when a work as thurough and careful as the JSB appears, and the two elements I mentioned above are absent, the reader is left in want. In a work this large, the gospel is eventually comprimised, not clarified, by the absence of these themes.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find single examples of what I am talking about, because I'm talking more about a lack of teaching than the presence of bad teaching. But here are a few quotes that may show what I believe is left unspoken:

The closest that I could find the JSB to describing God's wrath on sinners As Jesus prays in the garden before his arrest.  The consequence for sin is described entirely as "not being close to God." While this is tecnically accurate, it fails to do justice to the Biblical account of the eternal breadth and agony of God's wrath. To an adult, and especially to a child, this simply sounds like the result of sin is feeling blue. "When people ran away from God, they lost God--it was what happened when they ran away. Not being close to God was like a punishment. Jesus was going to take that punishment." But what does that mean? Simply lonliness in this life? Or eternity in Hell? The terms used here seem evasive when compared to Jesus' own words about eternal Hell, where there is "grinding and gnashing of teeth," and the "worm does not die." In other passages, such as the Noah's Ark narrative, where God's wrath against sinnners should be described, Jones writes "God's strong anger against hate and sadness and death would come down once more--but not on his people, or his world. No, God's war bow was not pointing down at his people." God's anger is against sadness and death, not against those comitting the sin. Again, while I agree that the result of sin is "loosing God," and that God hates sickness and death, I believe that in a 350 page document, these brief glimpses fall too far short of explaining God's wrath against sinners.

In a narrative on the Lord's prayer, Jesus tells everyone, "...it's not because you're so clever, or good, or so important, that God will listen to you. God listens to you because He loves you." The way this passage is worded, it sounds to me like God loves everyone just the way they are. In the same narrative, the commentary explains that this love is the same love that sent Jesus to the cross. This is dangerous ground--while God has a general benevolent love for the world, He has an entirely special relationship with His people...while He does hear the prayers of His people, He does not hear the prayers of the world at large in nearly the same way. While Jesus did indeed speak of the love of God for some present at the Sermon on the Mount, and of prevenient grace, the Biblical authors were careful to distinguish between those who had the love of God, and those who would be cursed by God in the very same passages. Instead, in the JSB, everyone is thrown into the same group by the exclusion of a distinction, such as in the JSB's paraphrase of Revelation.

In the paraphrase of Revelation, the new heavens and the new earth are described, but the lake of fire and the sinners within it are completely left out. It appears that everyone on earth has gone to heaven, as Satan is the only character in the narrative "left out" of heaven:
"There are loud cheers and clapping...and everyone bursts out singing a new song...'This is our King! The Lamb who died, so we don't have to-our rescuer'...and I see Satan-God's horrible enemy-thrown down, defeated. I see a sparkling city shimmering in the sky: glittering, glowing--coming down! God's city is beautiful...and the King says, 'Look! God and his children are together again'...and a voice like thunder in the sky says, 'Look, I am making everything new!'" John's narrative ends here, and the commentary resumes. Next, the JSB ends with the passage I quoted earlier (back in the positive section) that begins, "For anyone who says yes to Jesus..."

The Atonement

Note for this next section: I am a five-point Calvinist, not because I follow John Calvin, but because I believe the five points of Calvinism are a useful articulation of doctrines that flow directly from scripture. I am not going to defend Calvinism in this next section, I'm simply going to apply a little more Biblical theology to this review. If you want, message me and I'd be happy to write a little about limited atonement, or at least provide some links for you to check out.

Reaction resumes!
I don't want to make any comments about what Sally Lloyd-Jones might personally believe about the atonement. In the JSB, it seems to me that an improper view of Jesus' atonement may be at work, contributing to a muddeling of just what Jesus was doing on the cross. When I read Jones' words, it sounds to me like Jesus just up and took care of the sin problems of all of mankind.

There's the promise at the end of the book given for those who trust in Jesus, but with this many pieces of the puzzle missing, I don't really trust my kids to be able to figure out that Jesus' atonement for their sins must be applied to them personally through repentance and faith in order for them to spend eternity with God and escape His just and infinte wrath by reading the invitation at the end. Theology matters! Was Jesus' atonement for everybody, or was it for His people, a group distinct from literally every single person on the globe without exception?

Generally, I believe that when we share the gospel, we should be careful not to say that "Jesus died for YOU." First of all, if we're talking about Jesus' atonement for sin, there's a strong possibility that simply this isn't true. If you are a Calvinist speaking in an evangelistic (Heaven or Hell) context, then depending on your convictions, to you that is either a lie or at the very least an abuse and bending of sacred words. Secondly, telling someone "Jesus died for YOU" is likely an impediment to the gospel, because it's easy for the person to walk away from a witnessing encounter thinking, "well I don't know about all that, but, hey, they said that Jesus died for me. I've got to be OK then..." I used to listen to Way of the Master Radio all the time, and one of the most common excuses the unrepentant gave for their behavior was, "yeah, I know I'm bad, but I also know that Jesus died for everyone, so I know that God won't send me to Hell."  It is much more congruent with the gospel to instead say, "Jesus died for His people, eveyrone who would repent and put their trust in Christ and His sacrifice on the cross for sins." After all, Jesus Himself made this very distinction many times, calling one group "sheep," and another group "goats," and then teaching that He would lay down His life for the "sheep." According to Jesus, there is no confusion between being a "sheep" in Christ, and being a "goat," whom Jesus does not lay down His life for.

To Sum Up

Wow, this review ended up being longer than I thought. Let me end by saying that dispite the issues I have with the JSB, I still read it to my kids because it has a lot of good teaching, and it has good illustrations. When problems come up, I know that I can make clarifications on the spot if sense the need. Sometimes, the omissions or muddelings in the JSB actually are the elements that provide a springboard for a gospel presentation that includes God's wrath on sinners. I desire to share the full gospel with my children--God's love, and God's wrath. I suppose I took so much care in writing this review because I care deeply about what I teach my children. I grew up confused about a lot of these same issues, and in my sin, I let my lack of knowledge lull me into complacency about God. I was not regenerated for a long time, until I finally heard a full Biblical presentation of the gospel and the Holy Spirit began to work. A book is just one tool in a parent's belt, and as many would testify, it should really take a whole parent's life, full of good words and deeds, to testify of the great gospel of our Lord.

Frickin' Awesome Quote!

2010-01-09T09:12:00.002-07:00

I wish I would have understood this as a young Christian lad. Remember this quote!

We are not justified by the gospel and then sanctified by obedience. The gospel does both. When we don't understand the difference Christian living gets very frustrating.

-Joshua Miles, member, Grace Bible Church, rapper

Testimony

2010-01-05T08:00:00.002-07:00

Here is a brief testimony that I composed as part of my membership application for Grace Bible Church in Tempe, Arizona:

Bill Clay’s Brief Testimony

I grew up as a child buying into the American ideals of self esteem and personally attained righteousness. Although I was never taught the Catholic faith rigorously, I was raised with Catholic values, and attended Holy Spirit Catholic church, where I heard the scriptures read but always heard them exposited in a way that (to my recollection) reduced them to a kind of moralistic silly putty. Consequently, I grew up with a general sense of God and spirituality, but the pseudo-version of Catholic Christianity that I had created in my own life was distorted and centered around (who else but!) myself. I had not encountered Jesus Christ, had not confronted the weight of my own sin, and I had not submitted my life to God.

By His Grace, I had several friends in high school who exposed me to the teachings of true Christianity. I began to attend youth groups and outreach events at a few “non-denominational” churches in the valley while at the same time attending Holy Spirit. Although many of the messages at these non-denominational churches were focused on a kind of decisional regeneration philosophy that I now reject as being non-Biblical, God’s Word was communicated there as well, and He was able to use these events as means of grace. Another means of grace in my life were investigational conversations that I had with my friends and their families. During this time, one friend gave me a Bible, and again, by God’s grace, I began to read it for myself for the first time. At first, to my shame, reading the scriptures did nothing but make me feel more self-righteous.

However, as I continued, I distinctly remember that the Lord revealed to me the true identity of Jesus Christ, in a radical way that I had never experienced before. He was the judge over all the world. He forgave sins. He expressed attributes that no mere man could ever attain. And to my surprise, the scriptures called Him God! Furthermore, I finally understood what His sacrifice on the cross was about. Before this time, I didn’t really think much about what He had done on the cross. I’m not sure, but I may have seen it as some kind of sacrificial example to follow, or some kind of unfortunate end to the ministry of a radical teacher. Or maybe I just didn’t care enough to ever form an opinion. But finally, I saw that those were MY sins that were put on Christ, on the God-man, in order to satisfy the just wrath of God. I deserved God's just penalty for sin- eternity in Hell, separated from Him, in punishment for my crimes against God. But because of the work of the Holy spirit, I realized that I was a sinner, God was Holy, and I trusted Christ had paid my infinite penalty. After encountering this truth, how could anyone remain unchanged by God? By His grace, I turned from my sins and began to follow Him.

After this, I remember a joyful time where I was able to understand the scriptures and learn about the true nature of God. It seemed then (and still does!) like the greatest and most valuable secret that anyone could ever discover was right there in the pages of the Bible. In particular, I remember reading the book of Romans and learning that my faith in Christ had freed me from the slavery of sin, and had made me a slave of God. I remember reading Romans 6:23 for the first time, and being completely amazed at the goodness of God.

Since then, the Lord has graciously continued to grow my wife and I. He has moved us closer to Himself and closer to each other despite our sins. He has shown us the importance of evangelism, the importance of recognizing His sovereignty in everything, (especially in his plan for salvation and sanctification), and the importance of understanding His nature better. Eternal fellowship with Him is the most valuable thing that could ever be given to anyone.

We were finally able to be baptized together in the way that God desires about a year after we had gotten married. Instead of being some man-made ritual that was supposed to somehow seal our “initial redemption” as infants, baptism was a joyful profession of what had already been completed by Christ. Our continued prayer is that the Lord would graciously use us for Himself despite our sins, and that our children can share in His most valuable gift!

A few key sections of scripture that have played a major role in events of my testimony:

Romans 1-9

John 1

John 4

John 8

Hebrews 1

Hebrews 8

Colossians 2-3

Revelation 22

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

Let's celebrate with Ray Comfort of Way of the Master, who is a model for all of us of forsaking his own pride to do whatever it takes to share the gospel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KEHaorFYeg

Christmas, Part I

2009-12-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

A simple blog: Christians, let's bring the historical fact of the birth of Jesus to our family members and friends who are not saved!

Christ came to earth, but why? Why must He be born as a man?

Let's tell them about how Christ came to fufill all righteousness as a man, tempted in all things, and yet without sin, able to sympathize with our weaknesses, yet divine, able to stand before a most Holy God.

Call Upon the Name of the Lord

2009-12-20T08:24:00.001-07:00

In our men's small group, we discussed the idea of praying to different members of the Trinity, and not just "God." This discussion got me thinking of a famous quotation from the Old Testament, "call upon the name of the Lord," regarding that Paul applied to Jesus Himself. The following is a bit rough; it's a message that I sent out to my small group men the same morning, but hopefully, the point will still be clear:

Here is that passage I was thinking of during our discussion today. It's the phrase "Call upon the name of the Lord," which is used tons of times in the Old Testament referring only to God. It appears three times in the New Testament, in Acts 2, Romans 8, and in 1 Corinthians, and there in the context, referring to Jesus:

"To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours"

1 Cor 1:2.

The greek phrase "Call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" is another one of Paul's word-weldings from the Septuagint, where he applies the famous phrase used of the YHWH so often in the Old Testament, to Jesus Himself by sodering His name onto the end of the exact OT greek phrase. What a great example of how we can call on Jesus Christ Himself, not just God!

This is the same phrase that Peter referrs to in Acts 2:

14But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words.

For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the ]third hour of the day;

but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says,

'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;

AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,

............

20'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS

AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,

BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.

21'AND IT SHALL BE THAT (V)EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'

Here in Acts as well as Joel, where this scripture is lifted from, God's national military judgement becomes a picture for a greater spiritual reality. Interestingly enough, Peter is taking a hint from the Septuagint as well and is inspirationally clarifying the more general idea of deliverance found in the Masoretic text of Joel to be referring to salvation from the wrath of God, going out to all the nations.

Anyway in the end I guess it wasn't exactly on topic but I thought it was an interesting New Testament example of specifically praying to (or calling on) Jesus Christ Himself, not just "God."

Essay, Presuppositional Apologetics Defined, Guest Post by Jacob Hantla (Presuppositional Apologetics, Part IV)

2009-12-12T08:00:00.001-07:00

Why write something out when someone's already done a fantastic job for you?

This is an essay written by Jacob Hantla, one of my elders at Grace Bible Church. I thought it was an excellent introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics. It clearly lays the outlines given in scripture for practicing apologetics. I think it shows well that the Presuppositional Apologetic method is not a rigid and specific set of restraints on the Christian, but a systematic approach to discussing all kinds of topics in all different ways with the unbeliever:

Most of the discussions relating to the methods of apologetics are centered around how to do apologetics. However, the most important issues surrounding the methods of apologetics are the character of the apologist and the presuppositions of the apologetic. Christian apologetics must do more than convince one of the plausibility or probability of theism; apologetics must point apologist and skeptic alike to a true knowledge of the God of the Bible and the worldview that flows from that knowledge.

In 1 Peter 3:15, the standard proof-text passage validating the existence of apologetics, the apostle commands the believers facing persecution to "in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν, apologion) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (ESV). Christian apologetics is generally defined as the theological discipline devoted to the apologia-making a defense or giving an answer-of the Christian worldview. Before considering how this apologetic is made, we must consider the apologist himself.

The Apologist

Whenever a non-Christian and a Christian interact, there are two totally distinct sets of basic heart-commitments coming into contact . The heart of the Christian-the center of his affections-honors Christ as holy and is committed to living an obedient life to the glory of God (1 Peter 3:10-12; Romans 6:16). The heart of the non-Christian, by contrast, does not honor Christ as Lord or as holy (1 Corinthians 12:3; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 1:21, 29-31) but is committed to only evil (Romans 3:10-18). In 1 Peter 3, the apostle's concern when these worldviews collide in an apologetic encounter is the way in which the Christian behaves in that interaction. Likewise, Paul's concern for the Lord's servant is his demeanor while making an argument for the faith.

Not only does the apologist proclaim truths about God with his mouth, but he also makes a loud and clear statement about the nature of the God he is representing through his conduct. Just as the Christian and non-Christian worldviews are in opposition to each other, so too the character of the Christian and non-Christian will be divergent. It is expected that the non-Christian will behaviorally manifest his opposition to God. In contrast, demonstrating his submission to the Lord and love for his opponent, the apologist must be gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:15), not quarrelsome, kind to everybody, able to teach, and patient in endurance of evil (2 Timothy 2:23-24). Whitcomb writes (1977, 292), "It is clear from [the 1 Peter 3] passage, then, that no spiritually effective answers can be given to unregenerate people by Christians concerning the hope that is in them until they have learned to ‘sanctify Christ as Lord' in their own hearts."

Apologetic Method

God must be glorified in the manner in which the truth is presented, and God must be glorified by the truth that is presented in the apologetic encounter. As has already been said, the apologetic encounter is a clash of worldviews: The Christian submits everything including his rational mind to God; the non-Christian, while in a sense knowing God (Romans 1:21), refuses to even acknowledge God (Romans 1:18, 28) and rather views his own wisdom and not God as the standard (Romans 1:22; 1 Corinthians 1:18-22). These effects of sin-effects on the unregenerate's entirety, including intellect (noetic effects)-must be acknowledged. As Frame writes (Cowan, 2000, 211), "Those who deny God do so, not because they lack evidence, but because their hearts are rebellious." Ultimately the job of the apologist is to do that which the apologist cannot do, change the fundamental way that a person relates to God. The apologist is to argue in a way that the Spirit would use to change one who has a knowledge of God that refuses to honor him as God (Romans 1:21; 2 Timothy 2:25-26) into one who honors God as holy (1 Peter 3:15; Romans 6:16).

Apologetics as Evangelism

We see then that the task of the apologist is simply a subset of the task of the evangelist. In response to demands in Corinth for evidence and engagement with Greek philosophical wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:22), Paul instead gives them the wisdom of God, the word of God, namely the gospel of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:1-7), a wisdom which the world will not understand apart from the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is a wisdom that those who God is saving will recognize for what it is, the wisdom and power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18, 30). This does not mean that the apologist abandons wisdom or argument, but rather preaches a wisdom not dictated by the standards of man, but rather by God. For His glory, God will not be found by the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1:21-31). So while the apologist may receive demands for evidence according to the standards of human wisdom, he must be certain that every word of his apologetic response is presented in submission to God's Word toward the end of his hearers' salvation.

Every apologetic encounter and presentation of evidence must be seen as an opportunity to preach that which God will use to change the hearers' hearts: Christ crucified-the message of God's substitionary, reconciling death on the sinner's behalf (1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21) . The sinner who thinks that he is sitting in judgment over God must be brought into proper relationship to God; he must realize that knowledge obtained apart from submission to God is distorted knowledge. The problem is epistemological, and the non-believer must begiknowledge. The problem is epistemological, and the non-believer must begin thinking apart from his own autonomy. All true thought is subject to God's Word as the final normative standard (Frame, 1994, 51). Therefore, Frame defines apologetics as "the application of Scripture to unbelief" (1987, 87). A presuppositional apologetic-an apologetic that recognizes that conformity to Scripture is the very criterion of truth-is the necessary conclusion of a biblical understanding of the noetic effects of sin and regeneration.

Apologetics and Circularity If the Christian apologist is to argue for the truth of God by presupposing the truth of God's Word, is this not circular reasoning, as the conclusion is assumed by the argument itself? Some apologists like William Lane Craig say that the futility of circular arguing for God by using Christian presuppositions precludes its use in apologetics. Rather, as Craig argues, we must start from common ground and build a case for Christianity. He claims that this common ground is the "laws of logic and the facts of our experience" (2008, 51-57). How is one to argue that laws of logic (rationalism) and sense experience (empiricism) are valid standards by which to measure truth? In its final analysis an argument for rationality reduces to rational autonomy being accepted as the ultimate standard; the same goes for the argument for empiricism. The Christian recognizes the truth that God is the quintessential reference point, or standard, for truth. The non-Christian maintains that God is not the measure of truth, usually substituting the autonomous self in His place. Therefore, again we see that there is no true common ground but rather two mutually exclusive systems that must argue circularly for their ultimate criterion . Even the Christian's circularity relating to the ultimate standard can be used as an apologetic tool. As we have seen, unbelief in God does not find its root in lack of evidence, but in sinfully refusing to submit to God. If the goal of apologetics is faith in the gospel, then recognition (through revealing a presupposition) that the non-believer has been entirely in rebellion to God may be a step the Spirit will use to convict of sin. The apologist is not simply trying to add some Christian values or data to the skeptic's worldview; worldview must change, and that happens by repentance and faith in the gospel. Furthermore, with the universal existence of ultimate presuppositions in view, the apologist can demonstrate the inability for anything other than the God of the Bible to function as this norm. The rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz is irrationalism, as it bases itself on the autonomous thinker and is disconnected from reality. The Humean, empirical understanding of reality that modern science espouses also reduces to irrationalism as it is incapable of describing any necessary or universal truths. The rationalist must be shown the insufficiency of accepting himself as ultimate and instead be directed to the one that makes all logical thinking and argument possible (Frame, 2000, 220), a logical, creator God. The empiricist must be shown that, based on empiricism alone, no universal truths or values can be discerned. "Not a single fact can be known unless it be God that gives that fact meaning" (Van Til, 1997, chapter 11).

The apologist does not then leave the skeptic in irrational despair, nor does he allow him with Kant to say that we must limit our use of reason (rationalism) to the world of experience (phenomenal) and not the noumenal world of things as they really are in themselves. Rather, the apologist should expose this rational-irrational dialectic that is present in all unbelieving thought. He should use that dialectic to point the unbeliever to what is obvious to him but suppressed (Romans 1:18-21) and is necessary for all thinking and knowing-something outside of himself-namely the creator God of the Bible (Frame, 1987, 59-61, 360-361; Frame, 1994, 69-71). When any ultimate standard (morality, laws of logic, validity of sense-experience, etc.) appealed to by the skeptic is valid leads to knowledge of truth, the apologist can expose that the unbeliever is thinking inconsistently with that inadequate standard and actually thinking as if God were the standard. The unbeliever's problem should be demonstrated not merely to be that he has adopted the wrong ultimate standard, but that his embrace of an inadequate and inconsistent normative standard is caused by and evidences his rebellion toward God. The unbeliever is wrong because he does not know how he ought to know.

Apologetics and Evidence

Therefore, the apologist is able to make use of all types of evidence and argument provided that it is valid according to the criteria of Scripture and done in submission to God as Lord. For example, the Paley's classic teleological argument can certainly be used to show that the evidence of design reveals the personal Creator of Scripture. Similarly, so long as the cosmological and ontological arguments are used to argue for the God of the Bible, they are valid. As Van Til asserts (2003, 134), these traditional arguments even presuppose the truth of the Bible, although the skeptic ignores this. Arguments for the historicity of the Bible and Jesus's resurrection should be embraced as well. All true statements can be useful in one's apologetic since all was made by God and is held together in Christ and reveals God in so conclusive a way that all of humanity is without excuse in the face of this evidence (Colossians 1:15-17; Romans 1:18-20). All evidence, when rightly understood, will reveal the God of the Bible and the truth of a biblical Christian worldview.

There are some limitations to argumentations from evidence however. As we have repeatedly seen, the unbeliever's root problem is not a lack of knowledge, but an unwillingness to submit to that which is already known (In a Romans 1:18-21 sense). Therefore, no amount of argumentation, no matter how valid and lucid is sufficient to compel the non-Christian into the kingdom (Habermas, 2000, 96) if it is considered apart from submission to God. Satan knows plenty of propositions about God; he just does not know them obediently; he is therefore the embodiment of irrationality (Frame, 2006, 101). Similarly, the non-Christian knows God; he just does not know Him obediently (Frame, 1987, 44-45 and 58).

Evaluating evidence for God or the Bible creates a very real danger of communicating to the apologist and skeptic that they are neutral, autonomous judges presiding over God and His Word . Reason and empiricism, we have seen, are not valid ultimate criteria for truth; the apologist must avoid reinforcing the misconception that they are. Habermas claims (2000, 115-116) that the apologist is to "meet critics on their own (common) ground, using their presuppositions and their methodology." This is a losing proposition from the start as their presuppositions deny God; to act as if God is able to be known by these presuppositions is to reinforce in the skeptic that neutral reasoning is possible or that autonomous reasoning is acceptable. A proper apologetic must express the truth about God, that He is Creator, Lord of heaven and earth, Judge, and Savior (Frame, 2000, 220).

Apologetics and the Individual

Not all those who "ask a reason" are asking for the same reasons or with the same prejudices and presuppositions. The loving, gentle, patient, and humble apologist will take the time to listen to the skeptic, recognizing that the only difference between himself and the unbeliever is God's regenerating and sanctifying grace. Apologetics must be flexible enough in form and content to be person-variable (Mavrodes, 1970, 42; Frame, 2000, 222), recognizing some differences among unbelievers' objections, concerns, education level, experience, and hardness of heart. The loving apologist will apply Scripture appropriately to each individual's particular unbelief. Schaeffer writes (1983, Appendix A), "If we are to deal with people where they are...we have got to have enough genuine love for them...that we would take seriously what they are preoccupied with . We tend to give a person a prepackaged answer instead of having the compassion of Christ...If people do not have ‘modern' intellectual questions, there is no need of dealing with such questions."

The apologist might never speak of presuppositions; he might not present theistic proofs or historical evidences for the resurrection of Christ; he may simply preach the gospel; or he could do all of these. Of utmost importance is that in all of these things the apologist is submitting himself to God as Lord both in his demeanor and in his reasoning as he obediently pleads with the skeptic as an ambassador of Christ to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-21). The skeptic's biggest problem is not that he does not know enough facts or has not thoroughly considered the evidence. Rather, he has suppressed the knowledge of God he already has and is living at enmity with him. Whatever specifics are used in the discussion, the apologist must argue with gospel in mind and faith as the goal.

Indisposed

2009-12-10T08:00:00.008-07:00

Today is the projected due date for our new son!

I don't know if he has already come or not, as I am writing this post in October. What I do know is that around the time that this post will be read, I will certainly be indispoded, welcoming our new boy into the world. Good thing for this feature that lets you schedule posts. I'd never be able to keep up otherwise.

Praise God for Ayden Michael Clay!

Gospel Presentation

2009-12-07T08:00:00.000-07:00

The following is a presentation of the gospel focused on 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 that I wrote to a loved one a while ago. The personal elements have been removed here. This message was intended for someone who believed in some way in the Bible but may or may not have heard the true gospel, and who showed evidence in believing in a works-based kind of salvation.

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for your sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

- 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

One of the many striking things about this passage is that out of everything that Paul wrote in the New Testament (and he wrote the majority of the books), this is the one thing that he chose to say was of first importance. In the Bible, Paul talks about the dangerous adventures he encountered for the cause of Christ, and about deep theological issues, and about how to structure a church…all important things. Believe it or not, Paul even reported to be caught up into heaven at one point in his ministry, and to have seen things that a man is not even permitted to speak of. Think about that— Paul even saw what heaven was like firsthand! BUT, out of all of those amazing things, 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 was the most important message that Paul could ever deliver to anyone:

The message is simply this: “…that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures…”

Since this is such an important message, I wanted to take some time and unpack the text above, so that we can be sure exactly what Paul meant when he penned these words from God. There are many ideas and interpretations about what the gospel is. Many teachers nowadays say that the message of the gospel is that we should help one another in this world (and this is indeed a good thing). Others say that the gospel is God providing personal fulfillment in this life. Many have their own individual ideas about what Jesus’ ultimate mission was when He came to earth. The thing is, I believe that the truth about the gospel and Jesus’ mission is plainly taught in the scriptures, and I would like to show you that right now.

Let’s jump right in with this super-weighty statement that is the essence of the whole passage: “…that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…”

Jesus’ death on the cross was the pinnacle of all of history. But how, exactly, and why, did He die for our sins? How is it applied to believers? To understand Jesus’ death for our sin, we first need to understand our sin. To understand our sin, let’s look at the Ten Commandments:

1—You shall have no other gods before Me.

God must always be first in our lives.

2—You shall not make for yourself an idol…for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…

We should never form our own idea about what God is like in our own minds. Instead, we should submit to and follow the true description of God found in His Word.

3—You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

We should never treat the idea of God casually, or misuse or abuse His Name, both in word and deed.

4—Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

The New Testament (Hebrews chapter 4) says that Christ has become our Sabbath rest. We should faithfully remember Christ, honor Him, and keep Him separate and sanctified in our hearts always.

5—Honor your father and your mother.

Self-explanatory!

6—You shall not murder.

Even though it is rare to meet anyone who has actually taken a life, Matthew 5:21-22 and 1 John 3:15 teach that anyone who has hated anyone else or simply called them “good for nothing” out of anger is guilty of murder in God’s eyes.

7—You shall not commit adultery.

Although someone may not have an affair in their lifetime, Matthew 5:28 teaches that anyone who has looked with lust has committed adultery in his heart.

8—You shall not steal.

While this too is self-explanatory, it’s important to point out that there is no exception for the size or circumstances behind something that is stolen.

9—You shall not bear false witness.

Again, there is no exception—any lie is a breach of the commandment!

10—You shall not covet.

We must not see what others have and become envious.

Now, that is a lot of heavy stuff. But remember, an understanding of the commandments is necessary to understand the gospel. The word “gospel” literally means good news, and we need to know the problem before we can hear the good news of the solution. So, these are the commands that God gives to us in the Bible and even writes on our hearts (according to Romans 1-2) and commands us to obey.

Now here is the key—the Bible also says that those who break the Ten Commandments are worthy of eternal punishment in Hell, away from the presence of God (Revelation 21, Romans 1 and 2, etc.). To go even further, the Bible says that anyone who has broken even one of the commandments is guilty of all of them (James 2:10 says: “…for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”).

And to go yet one step further, the Bible also says that there is nothing that we can do to make ourselves clean before God. Speaking of Israel’s efforts to be right before God after they had sinned, the prophet Isaiah said, “for all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment.” In this illustration, God, through the prophet Isaiah, is saying that Israel’s good deeds were filthy to Him because they were trying to “clean themselves up” with good deeds when they had sinned before God. And, just like a filthy garment, their good deeds were discarded once they had been used. The rest of the Bible, too, teaches that in order to see God, we must be completely righteous. Speaking of the scribes and the Pharisees, the people who expended the most effort to be good in Jesus’ time, Jesus said this, (Matthew 5) “for I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Imagine a criminal standing in a court of law, condemned as guilty of crimes such as murder, theft, etc. before a just judge. What will the judge do? Will the judge let the criminal off the hook because he is merciful? Certainly not! Because, while the judge may be merciful, he must also be just if he is a good judge. A payment must be rendered for this crime! Will the criminal get off the hook because of good behaviors in other areas of his life, good behaviors such as feeding the hungry, or donating to charity? Again, certainly not! Although feeding the hungry and donating money are good acts, the fact still remains that a punishment must be rendered for the crimes committed!

What else would we expect from a just judge? For a judge to do anything less would be wrong, because it would simply be unjust. After all, we would complain in a human court if a convicted criminal was simply let go. And, in the case of crimes against God, the punishment must be eternal because they have been committed against an eternal God!

I don’t know about you, but when I look at the Ten Commandments, I realize that despite my efforts I am guilty of violating God’s holy, good, and perfect law again, and again, and again, every day that I live. In fact, the Bible says that if anyone is honest with themselves and examines God’s law, they will realize that they are 100% guilty. Romans chapter three says that there is “no one righteous, not even one.” Believe me when I say that the rest of the scriptures confirm that this is no exaggeration…it is literally true!

This is the point where Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross becomes absolutely precious.

The phrase “Jesus died for my sins” is thrown around a lot. And as I said before, the word “gospel” means many different things to many different people. But here is what the Bible says that it means: for those who believe, who have acknowledged that they are sinners before God and that they are not righteous in and of themselves, and who realize that they must submit to God and His Word, salvation from the eternal wrath of God and rightness before God are accessible through faith in Jesus’ death on the cross. The reason is that while Jesus suffered physically on the cross, the overwhelming weight of His death was that Jesus suffered the infinite wrath of God in the place of everyone who would believe. Speaking of believers, 2 Corinthians 5:21 says it this way: “He [God the Father] made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

So there is the most amazing story in all of history; that while Jesus died for us to find fulfillment in Him, He did not die to make us happy in this life. He did not die to rescue us from our mistakes in this life. While He did die for us to have riches in Him and Him alone, He did not die to make us successful on the earth. No, He died for a much more lofty purpose, to rescue us from certain doom that we had earned for ourselves and to mercifully make us His own, and now allow us, white as snow, to enter heaven. Believers get the perfect righteousness of Christ in exchange for their sin! What an amazing exchange! A great preacher named Alistar Begg said it this way, “the great mystery…is not that the wicked would be condemned to an eternity that they have earned for themselves by determining to deny God…the great mystery is that such a God would seek out men and women to inhabit His heaven.”

“…and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures…”

By rising again, Jesus defeated death, proved that God was pleased with Him, and gave us a hope for eternal life. Later on in 1 Corinthians 15, as Paul goes on to speak about Christ’s resurrection, (and because of this, our own hopes for a resurrection and eternal life), we read this: “but when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory, O death, where is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Praise God for being victorious! Because of His triumph over sin and His resurrection, believers know that we have a strong advocate for us before the throne of God! Now to conclude let’s look at the first part of the passage that this letter is focusing on:

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.”

I simply want to say this: here Paul is making sure that those whom he is writing to have responded the right way.

I don’t believe that the Bible teaches that there are many ways to God, or even many ways to believe in or to come to the right God. Notice that the faith Paul is hoping for is not a simple belief or mental assent to the gospel truths. Nor is it through good works that we can approach God (Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “for by grace you have been saved, through faith, that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not as a result of works, lest any man should boast"); all of the glory must go to God, not to us. The Corinthians have received the gospel, and they stand in it. Not only do they stand in it, but they hold fast to it.

The question to ask anyone who has heard the gospel is this: do you hold fast to this good news? Do you stand in it? Note that this passage teaches that it is possible to believe in vain. And indeed, there are those who will go their entire lives without embracing this truth that God Himself has determined will be the one way that people are saved (In Matthew 7:14, Jesus said that the path to eternal life is narrow, and that there are few who find it. In contrast, the way that leads to destruction is broad.)

So I would ask someone such as yourself after sharing this message, is Jesus’ death on the cross precious to you? Have you repented, turned from your sins, acknowledged that your ways were evil, and put all of your faith and trust for salvation from the just wrath of God in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross? If so, then the Bible has a wonderful message: that you are saved from the wrath of God and are counted with the righteousness of Christ to be worthy to enter heaven! And what could be more glorious, what could be a greater gift for anyone to receive? What GOOD NEWS! If one has not done this, then I would simply ask for one to think on these things, and plead with them to repent for God to make them right with Him.

Two Kingdoms and Musical Inspiration Part II (Alistar Begg Transcription)

2009-12-04T10:42:00.001-07:00

(Continued from previous blog)

The following is a transcription of part of a sermon by Alistar Begg concerning the Two Kingdoms:

Tonight on earth,

It’s total confusion.

You see, the collapse of the city of man should not be seen as curtailing the building of the city of God.

As distracting and as distressing as the actions of the wicked may be, when we focus on the fact that God is on His throne, then we can view the tottering foundations and the crumbling occasions in a totally different fashion.

And at a time when there are unique opportunities for the gospel, at a time when people are asking deep-seated questions, because they recognize the foundations are crumbling too,

And at a time that they are just about repair to drink a cup of coffee and seek a sensible answer,

The bombastic ugly Christian is manning the barriers of Right-Wing politics,

Joining coalitions,

Endorsing political agendas,

Advancing legislative remedies,

And in doing so with every further move loosing the ability to say with Paul, “we do not wage war the way the world wages war.”

The church cannot say it because it wouldn’t be true.

The tragedy is that since the foundations are being destroyed and since activism is a very large part of this culture, the Christian determines then that they will become an activist; and it isn’t wrong to become and activist.

But it is wrong to become a slanderer.

It is wrong to become combative and ugly.

It is wrong to forget that the only thing that separates me from the guy who tonight is boozin it up in some saloon,

Is not that I am smarter than him, but it is the grace of God to me.

So until the Church learns how to cry, the Church looses any right to shout.

Until we learn what we have been asked to do, we dare not start to do what has been granted to us no mandate at all.

You know, here is the strangest thing, if I may make an assign;

Conservative Christianity hammered for the longest time mainline churches in America.

Because of what?

Their desertion of the gospel and their commitment to politics.

And they said, “These people do not preach the gospel because they are so involved in politics. Look at them—they’re arm in arm with the Sandinistas, they’re arm in arm with the liberators, they’re arm in arm with the freedom fighters. Oh, what a bad group of people they are.”

Well, did we get inoculated by their condition?

Don’t we see ourselves in the mirror?

For the last two decades, we’ve done the same thing.

Oh, it’s not left-wing liberalism, it’s Right-Wing radicalism.

The foundations are being destroyed, but we must do something, and we’re not going to run, but we can sure stay and fight, and so we’ll link arms with all these strange concoctions of people. We will reconstruct our society by coercive legal and political means. We will establish some kind of little political misrepresentation of God’s Kingdom. We are like the disciples in the garden of Gethsemane, out with the swords, ready to chop the people’s heads off, and Jesus is putting ears back on all around us and saying, “Guys, have you learned nothing in two thousand years? Didn’t you read what I wrote in the book? My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews, but the reason that they don’t is because the very crushing of my body is going to be blood the fuels the birth of my Church.”

And in every generation, it has been the blood of the martyrs that is the seed of the church. But in this generation, we are determined that no blood will flow, save the blood of these who with their wicked bows are shooting from the darkness--

They will not have our country, they will not have our schools, they will not have our…” listen—God has no special countries.

Read the history books. The British Empire. Down the flag comes over Hong Kong, and up goes the Chinese flag. And over Zimbabwe, and over great chunks of Africa, and over the continents of Asia and over India,

And in part largely because they made the mistake that I can’t believe we would now make so soon afterwards.

What will the righteous do?

C.S. Lewis had a wonderful picture. He said that instead of this ugly combatativeness in terms of physical warfare as it were, the Christian is like a secret agent dropped in behind enemy lines to go about the clandestine business by means of the weaponry provided by his Commander-In-Chief.

We don’t want to drop behind enemy lines. We might have to talk to some of those folks. But once you cannot justify it from the pages of scripture, when the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Well, they can flee. They can fight. Another one is they can follow whatever is going on in the culture. Marry the spirit of the age. Do Broadway musicals, you know? Try and soften them up, butter them up. Turn your church into a social club. Turn it into a singles bar. Eat the cultural trends. Play anything you want to play, play the game, get them in at any cost. Marry the spirit of the age, and become a widow in the subsequent generation.

No, the great mystery tonight is not that the wicked would be condemned to an eternity that they have chosen for themselves by determining to deny God, the great mystery is that such a God would come and seek out men and women to inhabit His heaven.
You see, the tempter came to them and said, “Hey, you’re not going to believe all that judgment stuff, all the prohibition stuff, are you? You’re not going to believe that you’ll really die? Don’t be afraid of the consequences, God’s trying to frighten you. Do as I tell you. Believe me, you’ll be perfectly happy. You’ll have this amazing knowledge and understanding. You will be like a God yourself,” and man bought it, and he buys it again tonight, “Oh, don’t go and listen to that stuff. Don’t obey the Bible. Don’t believe that stuff about the judgment of God. Get out and live your life!”

And the ultimate tragedy, loved ones, tonight is this: first, that man rejects the diagnosis in relationship to sin, and secondly, that despite the most dire of predicaments, he continues to avoid the only One who can really help.

Isn’t that the tragedy of it all?

Man’s predicament is not in relationship to his environment, is not in relationship to his parents, that his grandmother locked him in a closet, but is in relationship to the fact that he himself is perverse and goes his own way rather than God’s way.

They will cry themselves to sleep for want of a savior, but they will not come to the only one who has the answers.

Two Kingdoms and Musical Inspiration Part I

2009-11-26T09:14:00.002-07:00

Once again, a blog influenced by the Christian podcast "The Narrow Mind."

I was introduced to Two Kingdoms theology by "The Narrow Mind." The URL for this series of podcasts concerning Two Kingdoms theology is here:

http://twokingdomstheology.blogspot.com/

I found this branch of Reformed theology, which is a systematic articulation of Biblical concepts concerning the kingdoms of God and man, to be inspirational. So inspirational, in fact, that I wrote a song cycle for baritone and classical guitar. I have formed a duo with a singer from another state, and we are supposed to perform it next year, hopefully at a few big conferences. Here are the program notes:

Two Kingdoms is a cycle that draws its inspiration from Two Kingdoms theology, which is a branch of reformed Christian theology. Two Kingdoms theology focuses on the study of the disparate kingdoms of men and God as described in scripture, that of men being earthly, and that of God being spiritual. Through this lens, the music explores five different perspectives on truth. The two outer movements are imprecatory Psalms. The first song, Evangelist, is an evangelistic Psalm about the Messiah’s conquering of the kingdoms of men and the establishment of His own superior kingdom from God. The last song, Warrior, begins with a cry of distress in physical danger and ends with peaceful trust in God. The second and fourth songs, What Must I Do and Vanity, are views from the kingdom of men; respectively, inquiring about entrance into God’s kingdom, and denying the existence of its spiritual reality. The inner third song, Preacher, contains excerpts from the reformed preacher Alistar Begg, who insists on the importance of the distinction of the two kingdoms in order to maintain the clarity of the message of God’s kingdom. Throughout the piece, the tensions that these texts create are felt, as perspectives on reality, politics, religion, and intense assertions are worked out through musical expression.

Transcription of the Alistar Begg sermon referred to in the program notes coming soon...

Humanistic Apologetics vs. Presuppositional Apologetics (Presuppositional Apologetics, Part III)

2009-11-20T20:06:00.003-07:00

Note: If the format of the tables in this blog is off, I apologize. The format looks fine in the editing window, but I am not 100% confident about what it will look like when it is actually published. I am still learning how to manage the finer points of formatting!

The following is not yet the meat of the argument for Presuppositional Apologetics; this is the final appetizer, meant to pique the curiosity of those who might not see the merit of examining apologetic method, or who might disagree with the Presuppositional standpoint.

In an effort not to get caught up in critiquing whole schools of apologetic thought in one fell swoop (again, not the goal of the essay), I will simply be distinguishing Presuppositional Apologetics from its antithesis, humanistic apologetics. Though it operates under a Christian banner, humanistic versions of apologetic thought can subconsciously worm their way into many thoughts and words of the Christian apologist. The following is a breakdown of the main differences between humanistic apologetics and Presuppositional Apologetics.

Similarities

Both humanistic and Presuppositional Apologetics believe:

∙ In presenting evidence to the unbeliever.

∙ The gospel is the power of salvation.

∙ In Biblical evangelism.

∙ There are good reasons to believe the message of the gospel.

∙ In the need for a rational defense of the faith.

∙ There is a time and a place for scholarship and formal debate in apologetics.

∙ Sometimes, the mind of the unbeliever must be properly prepared for the deliverance of the gospel, whether on an earthly level

In light of the above list, one might rightly ask, “so why all the trouble making these distinctions in apologetics, if almost every orthodox Christian agrees on these similar points?” The answer should become clear from the presentation below:

Differences

Humanistic Apologetics                                                          Presuppositional Apologetics

Fails to acknowledge or do justice to                                    Moulds all presentations of
the Biblical account of man’s fallen                                        evidence to elucidate the extreme
and helpless state of mind in the                                             suppression in unbeliever’s mind.
presentation of evidence for God.

Implies that the unbeliever is unbiased                                  Focuses on showing how
by presenting evidence as neutral facts                                 the unbeliever’s sinfulness
                                                                                           to be interpreted by the unbeliever                                                                                          causes him to darken his own
                                                                                          understanding of God, in light
                                                                                          of clear evidence, of which there
                                                                                          exists a preponderance.

Critiques the opposition by wrangling                                   Critiques the opposition over the validity of certain historical /                                                                 by showing the Biblical account
scientific facts of the unbeliever                                             is true, whether or not the unbeliever accepts it.

Creates an impediment to the gospel                                   Presents the gospel up front
by separating apologetic conversation                                 as the lens through which
from discussion of the unbeliever’s                                      everyone must properly
suppression of God’s truth,                                                 understand God and all of
accountability to God’s law, and the                                   reality, believes that
presentation of the gospel. In other                                     apologetics and evangelism
words, the humanistic apologist seeks                                 are inexorably intertwined.
to build a brick-by-brick structure up
to the truth of the Christian God.

∙ Concerned primarily with the                                                 Twofold primary consideration:
conversion of the unbeliever’s mind                                         1) To elucidate the gospel through
                                                                                               the addressing of the unbeliever’s

objections, whether cultural, philosophical, emotional, rational, spoken, unspoken, conscious, subconscious, otherwise, and

                                                                                          2) To then silence objections                                                                                             by giving  good Biblical answers, in order                                                                                             to pave the way for the proclamation of                                                                                                to gospel.

∙ Primarily, applies supposedly attractive                              Primarily, applies scripture to
arguments to unbelief                                                            unbelief

When they are clearly broken down comparatively, the difference between Presuppositional Apologetics and humanistic apologetics seem clear. Hopefully, this comparison will at least pique the curiosity of the Christian who is unfamiliar with or apathetic towards Presuppositional Apologetics. It evokes important questions of the Christian witness: How are we to do apologetics properly if we do not acknowledge the reality of the state of the unbeliever when we witness to Christ? Should we not strive to make our message as apostolic as possible? Is there a right and a wrong way found in scripture to present the gospel or give an apologetic answer to an unbeliever?

The answers to these questions are not easy. There is much foundational theological work that is to be done if the Christian hopes to live out the clearest and most God-glorifying witness possible. It is one thing to see the merits of or investigate the basic notions of Presuppositional Apologetics; it is another thing to allow scripture to transform one’s thoughts and words so that in the heat of the evangelistic moment one gives a striking and clear answer to the unbeliever’s questions. It is clear from the scriptures that God is not pragmatic when it comes to any aspect of the Christian life. In scripture, the means as well as the ends of worship, devotion, acts of service, prayer, growth in Christ, repentance, and evangelism, are treated as crucial to the glorification of God. To put it another way, scripture as a whole is not simply a cold list of naked prescriptions for the Christian, (do this, don’t do this, etc.). It also gives the Christian abundant why’s and how’s of life (do this in this way, because of this reason, don’t do this in this way, because of this reason, etc.). From the scriptures, one could easily argue that the why’s and how’s of Christian life are preeminent over the do’s and don’ts; that is, scripture treats God and His nature as more important than, and in control of, the individual efforts of the Christian. Only by viewing our Christian life in this way can we hope to effectively accomplish the commonplace do’s and don’ts of the Christian life in a God-glorifying manner. Apologetics and evangelism should be viewed the same way. We have been given ample instruction from scripture as to why and how we are to do apologetics and evangelism a certain way, and we ought to carefully examine this as we continually come into contact with unbelievers.

Still Coming: The Davidic Covenant

2009-11-20T08:00:00.001-07:00

Hang in there! The Davidic Covenant blogs are coming. I feel that it is important to examine passages carefully before you share about them. Just want to get this one right!

I recently had a conversation with an elder at my church about the book of Ezekiel and how it relates to eschatology. Since I view the Davidic Covenant as inexorably intertwined with eschatology, I feel the need to put my posts on hold until I can properly examine this topic (not that I am revising my position, it's more like I'm refining and deepening it).

The book of Ezekiel is one of the most challenging books of the Bible. I find its themes (and those of the later Old Testament prophets) and various genres about Israel, judgement, and God's redemption spiritually convicting, as well as fascinating. It relates directly to eschatalogical questions about the true Israel, and the messianic kingdom. I plan to share about my adventures in Ezekiel as well as the Davidic Covenant sometime in the winter of 2010.

What is Presupositional Apologetics, And What is it Not? (Presuppositional Apologetics, part II)

2009-11-15T08:00:00.001-07:00

Before a proper establishment of Presuppositional Apologetics begins, it is prudent to establish what it is not. The idiom “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” certainly applies with this topic. Presuppositional Apologetics is not a position that says that Christians should simply tell nonbelievers to believe in God because He is right, or to believe in the Bible simply because it is the Word of God, nor does Presuppositional Apologetics reject the role of evidence in an apologetic exchange. Presuppositional Apologetics does not insist on the usage of the Transcendental Argument in every encounter (the Transcendental Argument will be addressed later).

The following is a basic summary of the tenants of Presuppositional Apologetics:

—It is a systematic articulation of the Biblical teachings on apologetic method.

—Its primary goal is to honor God in the speech and conduct of the Christian in apologetic encounters.

—It should be explained why and how the Christian God is the one true God. However, the Christian will always argue from this perspective. In other words, the Christian never departs from using God’s own truths teachings as an encompassing force in the dialogue. Christ is always Lord of every piece of knowledge and argument—this is the principle that drives the Christian, both explicitly and rhetorically.

—Besides the primary goal of honoring God, the goal is not to persuade unbeliever’s mind is not a secondary goal; instead, the secondary goal is the conversion of the unbeliever’s heart.

—Evidence is important, but evidence is never the heart of the Christian’s presentation.

—Careful, well thought out responses are paramount.

—The message of Christianity should be explained in an understandable way. In this sense, the explanation of the message may change depending on the context of the conversation; however, the message itself never changes.

—It involves a critique of the other position (again, from a Christian perspective) as well as a positive presentation of the truths of Christianity.

—Since the Christian never departs from treating Christ as Lord of everything as all both explicitly and rhetorically, any subject can be a launching point for an apologetic encounter—art, entertainment, philosophy, business, family, child-rearing, bird-watching, etc.

—When it comes to topics discussed with the unbeliever, the goals of the Christian are threefold:

1—The conversation should, at the very least, prepare the way for the sharing of the gospel. This usually involves a setting up of an understandable context for the sharing of the gospel and the “stopping of the mouth” of the unbeliever (i.e., preventing the unbeliever’s arguments from taking over the progress to sharing the gospel, or, establishing a rhetorical context where the gospel can be freely shared, without the dominance of false issues that muddle the message of the gospel).

2—The apologist should use Biblical arguments to correct the unbeliever’s view of reality as thoroughly as possible, removing false barriers and establishing truths of God. Ultimately, a sufficiently accurate and glorifying presentation of the true God must be given to the effect that the Christian can establish: A) That the unbeliever has violated God’s law, and is culpable for his crimes, and B) The unbeliever has suppressed his knowledge of the true God and must be converted, or submit to God, in order to understand anything properly, and namely, to know God and His gospel.

3—The conversation should naturally lead directly to the sharing of the gospel. The presentations of the Christian should beg the question of the gospel by presenting a vision of God that leaves the unbeliever searching for mercy. Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, the image of the invisible God. It is in the message of Him and His finished work on the cross alone that God and all of Christianity is most clearly revealed. This message alone will convert the unbeliever (and it is the only force that will change his mind).

—Other related subjects such as politics, ethics, are irrelevant in evangelistic and apologetic encounters unless they are used to direct the unbeliever to a Biblical vision of God’s lordship over every area of existence.

On Biases (Presuppositional Apologetics, Part I)

2009-11-10T08:00:00.004-07:00

This is the first of a long series that I intend to write about Presuppositional Apologetics. Before I dive right into the discussion, I want to provide an introduction about biases:

In a discussion of biases and unbelieving interpretations of Christianity, one must necessarily establish a true and Biblical account of the state of mind of the unbeliever, and remember the state of mind of the Christian.

While the unbeliever will accuse the Christian of simply believing everything according to his religious tradition without any serious thought about or outward consideration of the state of affairs of the world, it is the unbeliever who must understand that he is operating on a bias that is so powerful, it has completely taken hold of his entire ability to reason properly.

The unbeliever wants to play with a loaded deck. He has placed himself in a position that no creature has the right to; he’s put himself on the judgment throne, where he in a kind of mockery of divinity has determined that he has the ultimate right to accept or reject, or interpret evidence for God as it is presented to him, rather than to remain a creature to which God’s will and God’s evidence is enforced upon him. It is important to note that it is because of this extreme bias that the unbeliever often fails to even acknowledge that he, like everyone else, must interpret all the evidence he receives in the world. In other words, an unbeliever will usually assert that he is immune to using any system through which he views reality. This self-centered error, that of making oneself out to be the sovereign force in the universe, is often what leads to the mishandling of the evidence for God. The unbeliever thinks that he must be given carte blanche on determining who is biased and who is not, who is reasoning in a circular and fallacious fashion and who is not, who is operating on the basis of an imposed worldview and who is not, simply because he does not ascribe to a specific religious tradition; or perhaps, simply because his tradition is the one that corresponds with reality.

In contrast, the Christian rightly acknowledges that everyone interprets evidence through a set of beliefs they hold about the world, whether Atheist, Muslim, Mormon, or Christian, and that all reasoning, in the end, is circular. The basic existential, moral, and epistemological questions of human existence are real and pressing for every person, no matter what one’s philosophical, religious, or scientific persuasion, and the way that an unbeliever answers (or fails to acknowledge the importance of) these questions will play a major role in the formation of his worldview. The crucial difference is that the Christian sees that only by acknowledging and analyzing these presuppositions can one get to the truth of a weighty existential matter such as the existence of God or moral accountability to Him. It will do no good to engage in what ultimately amounts to name-calling by simply insisting that the other side is wrong because it assumes a man-made tradition. Instead, in order to effectively give a reason for belief, the Christian must show why the presuppositions of the unbeliever are internally inconsistent, or logically and morally bankrupt, and why the Christian worldview is consistent and accounts for the revelation of God’s attributes through what has been made. Specifically, in order to properly elucidate the unbeliever’s unfortunate predicament, the Christian must carefully demonstrate that the unbeliever really knows the Christian God (not personally, but that he knows of Him, by observing His invisible attributes illustrated through what has been made), and that the unbeliever’s worldview is the result of the unrighteous suppression of the true God’s existence.

...from your childhood (Notes on Raising Kids in a Christian Home)

2009-11-07T08:00:00.003-07:00

My children, Joshua and Isaiah (one on the way too!) are still small (20 mo.). Sarah and I are still discussing a lot of topics regarding methods of raising them...home school, private school, public school, when and how to administer punishment, when to guide them in play, when to let them fend for themselves, how best to ensure they get proper nutrition, how to encourage their creativity without putting pressure on them, how to make them feel loved and yet to teach them to eventually be independent...and that's just scratching the surface! Issues can arise daily. There is certainly a lot to consider for any two parents who want the best for their kids.

However, there is one certainty that we pray will never depart from our focused effort: the sharing of the gospel-- that the message of Jesus' death, burial, and ressurrection will both be lived out and explicitly shared in our home, from early on. In 1 Timothy 3:13-17, Paul tells Timothy, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

This text, the latter part of which is often used as a prooftext for sola scriptura (and rightly so, the word for profitable in the greek actually literally carries the meaning"sufficent"), is really a part of a broader context that discusses Timothy's training from his faithful relatives (possibly Paul, his mother, and his grandmother, see vs. 1:5 of 2 Timothy). This passage is a model that provides a clear example. Those close to Timothy in his childhood brought him up to know the scriptures (here, the scriptures are the Old Testament and the additions made by Paul and others), and provided a living example of them, as we can surmise by the implication in 2 Timothy that Timothy's relatives are believers. As Jesus said in John 5:36, these are the scriptures that testify of Him. So unlike the scribes and Pharisees, who knew the scriptures intellectually but read their twisted brand of self-righteousness into them, Timothy had been trained to know Jesus Christ the Messiah, the merciful and just almighty God from the scriptures. Timothy and his relatives had sufficent training in the scriptures and were blessed to know the Lord, and to recognise His appearence on the earth. Furthermore, we see the end result of this childhood soaked in the scriptures-- being adequately equipped, here, to provide solid, godly work in the church, for Christ's kingdom.

As I mentioned before, my children are still young. Yet, we recognise that the changing of their hearts towards God must be supernatural, and that the means that God uses to accomplish this is the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10). Thus, we discipline them, train them to "behave," train them to respect us and follow us and encourage them to love us as we love them so that they will follow our example. But, most importantly, we evangelize. We tell them what all this love is about, we tell them, even at their stage, the literal gospel message of Jesus Christ.

If God chooses to save our children, perhaps God will be merciful and change their hearts at a very early age. Or, perhaps in his mercy he will allow them to experientially understand what life without Him is before He saves them.

Whatever the outcome, at least our kids are already soaking in God's truth, able to understand patterns and grasp some of the most basic elements of the gospel. They are becoming familiar with their children's Bible, and that it is a special and important book. I often repeat the phrase, "you must believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins." And surprisingly, one of my kids, Joshua, is actually able to regularly and correctly answer the question, "who do you have to believe in for the forgiveness of your sins?" He blurts out, "Jezzsch!" I am not saying that Joshua understands the gospel; I don't even think the question I described properly encapsulates the gospel. But, in a proper context, this question can mean a lot.

Our ultimate goal, through discipline, love, prayer, and scriptural messages that focus on Christ, is to create an environment where our children can respond to the gospel message by God's grace, and be trained to be equipped for every good work in the world, because sometime in the future, their purpose in life will become kingdom work outside of our home.

PS: At first I wasn't sure what label to give this blog, then I realized that the label had to be apologetics, simply because it was about sharing the gospel and giving a reason for what we believe to a very special couple of people. Perhaps this is something to consider when we approach our kids; after all, we really are evangelizing to these unsaved family members, gving the Christian perspective, and providing reasons to believe.

Se Previous Blog: "Beyond What is Written; 1 Corinthians 4 and the Morality of Christ" for related notes.

Psalm 42, the Septuagint, and Bible Translations

2009-11-03T20:00:00.006-07:00

Andrew Buelow, a friend of mine and a student at Phoenix Seminary, has recently completed a personal translation of Isaiah 53, complete with footnotes and helpful references regarding the translation. If digging into the original language of this important chapter of scripture piques your interest, you might want to check it out-- it's good work. He created two documents in PDF form from the project and I can make them available upon request, just drop a comment.

I do not read Hebrew, and I found it edifying to dig through these documents. Not only was it educational, but it gave me a renewed respect for everything that goes into the translation of the Bible into our own language.

Also of interest is that this project generated a small discussion on what it means to understand the Bible in its original languages, and what it does not mean. Here is the brief exchange:

Andrew said:

Recently I was speaking with a friend about the merits of reading the Bible in the original languages, and in the course of that conversation he expressed some doubts about whether or not it was possible to truly understand the words of scripture apart from this ability. While I believe I was able to reassure him that this was certainly not the case, I was nevertheless forced to wonder if perhaps I had insinuated this mistaken notion in my sharing of Isaiah 53 with you all several weeks ago (I tend to be especially prone to errors of this nature as a Seminary student). If so, let me be the first to say that this is surely not the case; there are a number of EXCELLENT English translations of the Word readily available to us, particularly the New American Standard and English Standard Versions, though the NIV and NLT are also quite acceptable, among others. (I would be more than happy to discuss the merits of each translation with anyone who is so interested.) Having said that, let me encourage you all to dig into the Scriptures for yourselves and in doing so that you may encounter the Word and Truth of our God! As the Apostle John says, “These (scriptures) are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (v. 20:31, ESV) I shall leave my commentary at that. Take care!

I said:

You're right Andrew, I just wanted to say that I agree with you that we are able to understand God's Word in mutiple languages or translations and not just the original languages it was penned in.

I also wanted to add that another solid piece of Biblical evidence for this would be the fact that the vast majority of the citations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament come from the Greek Septuagint (for those unfamiliar, the Septuagint is the translation of the Hebrew scriptures (what we know as the Old Testament) into Greek, which was in widespread use during the time of Christ). Evidently, the Biblical authors had no problem treating a translation of God's Word from the original language of the OT scriptures as authoritative...in fact, the author of Hebrews even uses what might be considered an interpretive fleshing out of part of Psalm 40 (the citation is found in Hebrews 10:5) that had its genesis in the Septuagint. While the original text reads "my ears you have opened (or dug)," the Septuagint takes into account that the pre-Christ Jews had long understood the opening or digging out of the ears as including a kind of act of physically moulding a human body by God. The Septuigant translates the phrase "a body you have prepared for me." Thus, the incarnational messianic overtones of Psalm 40 are rightly elucidated in the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 40. The fact that the author of Hebrews actually chose the unique Septuagint citation over and against a plain and direct transferrance of the Hebrew language to Greek when he wrote Hebrews validates the use of the Septuagint as authoritative. I think that this shows that the textual history of our scriptures, in both its faithful translations and its original languages, is rich and trustworthy.

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!!!

2009-10-31T08:00:00.008-07:00

In case you didn't know, Halloween (October 31st) is also Reformation Day, the day that traditionally, Martin Luther nailed his "95 Theses" to the door of the Catholic Church. Interestingly enough, Luther was not fully reformed at that point. His "95 Theses" were actually a challenge to an in-house debate within the church.

Although there were still faithful members within the apostate Catholic Church who came before Luther that disagreed with Catholic teachings, most importantly on justification, until Luther's time, the political grip of the church was tight enough to adequately silence its opposition.

With Luther's challenge came the right God-ordained time of socio-political instability that enabled many to escape the Roman Catholic church, and others to hear Biblical teaching for the first time, amidst the sea of heresy regarding pergatory, indulgences, infused righteousness, etc.

Considering the reformation, one is reminded of Paul's words on Mars Hill concerning God's ordained times of revival, how God graciously chooses to overlook the wicked times of a people group and at a certain point allows the true gospel to be preached to them: "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:30-31)

Is Psalm 24 Messianic? A brief on Christ's ascension, on eschatological interpretive license and an appetizer for two forthcoming Davidic Covenant blogs, Part II.

2009-10-30T11:45:00.001-07:00

(continued from previous blog...)

First, consider the nature of the Psalms in general. Unlike a they are works of poetry, thus allowing for an ambiguous quality in their content: as we know from scripture, psalms often carry a double function: liturgy (present) and prophecy (future). In other words, for many of the Psalms, the words functioned for the worship of the contemporary congregation, and yet they carried obvious clues with them that the author was identifying or associating the worship experience with something greater, and something yet to be fully revealed. Psalm 2 is a prime example of this. Specifically a royal Palm, it reminded God's people of the kingship of Israel and God's promise that Israel's Davidic King would rule in a complete manner. Israel's people could use this Psalm to praise God's work in establishing their current, non-divine King. However, many faithful Jews even at the time undoubtedly understood that there was much more happening in Psalm 2 than what a worship song usually provided (for evidence that the Jews had more than an inkling about many aspects of the Messiah, the afterlife, and God's overarching plan of redemption, see the previous blog "salvation from our enemies," and also consider that the Jews of Jesus' day, through the systematic assemblage of God's promises, had early on come to anticipate an afterlife for the righteous and the wicked, a future corporeal resurrection, and a Messiah that would free His people from their spiritual bondage to sin, and who would take away their sin). For one, the scope of the Psalm is far beyond the promised land. The Psalm pictures all the rulers of the earth either bowing down to the King. There is a sense of future anticipation as the picture of God observing the wicked rulers of the earth unfolds, and all the while God has installed his King upon Mount Zion (vs. 1-6), (the book of Hebrews would later proclaim that the great men of the faith had a heavenly Jerusalem in mind when they penned many of the works of the Old Testament.). Then there is the section in vs. 7-9 that is most curious: God actually identifies with one singular king in an unusually intimate way, that actually hints of deep divine nature, relation, and fellowship with this particular king with God almighty, as God says, "You are my son, Today I have begotten you." For the careful observer in the days of the composition of this Psalm, this section must have raised eyebrows: how could an earthly King of Israel ever incite these kinds of words directly from God? Moreover, the extent of God's promise is nearly inconceivable, even when taken as hyperbole for an earthly king of Israel. What earthly king would be given dominion over the whole earth, seemingly without end, to which all the kings of the earth would bow down and do homage, and take refuge in? Indeed, the congregation would have been edified as they worshiped with this Psalm, considering the glory of God's actions through the Davidic line as a whole. But clearly, as the author of Hebrews rightly points out in Hebrews chapter 5, there was something more.
Although it is not cited by a New Testament author, Psalm 24 contains many of the same eyebrow-raising elements as Psalm 2. I believe that in the same way as Psalm 2, Psalm 24 not only contains aspect that might be seen as relating to the Messiah, but it specifically contains a discourse about Him. First, there is the context of the general genre, again, allowing the possibility of the Psalm functioning in a prophetic way. Next, there is the authorship (it is a Psalm of David, who authored many of the Messianic Psalms), and the Placement of Psalm 24 in the first book of the Hebrew Psalter, in the very ranks of a host of specifically Messianic Psalms (such as Psalm 2, and Psalm 22, famously quoted by Jesus while at His height of suffering on the Cross ("My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?").). Then, there is the work itself. The Psalm is in three parts: 1) Meditating on the lordship and ownership of God over everything, 2) Meditating on the abesolute goodness and moral purity of the king, and 3) The glorious return of the victorious king. The contemporary function of this particular Psalm is discussed in the previous blog (part I), so let us turn to the eyebrow-raising portions.

After part 1, which can be summarized by the statement in v. 1 "The earth is the Lord's, and all it contains," the Psalmist presents the following question: "Who may ascend (notice the language of exultation and raising up in the word ascend) to the hill of the Lord?" The hill of the Lord here is Mount Zion, God's holy mountain, which we know from the book of Hebrews, had its ultimate meaning for the OT authors in heaven. The Psalmist probes further, "and who can stand in His Holy place?" (a genral metaphor for the presence of God). That is, who is able to stand in the presence of God? The obvious yet difficult answer comes. Summed up, He must be perfect:
"He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood, and has not sworn decietfully, He will recieve a blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.." (vs. 4-5). Although there are some figures in the Old Testament who were spoken of as being righteous, and indeed, many of the kings of Israel were blessed in this way, which one of them could actually say that they truly had clean hands and a pure heart, that they had never sinned? The obvious conclusion from this requirement of moral perfection is that no mere man is worthy to stand before God. This notion is solidified by two main elements: 1) The Psalmist creates tension by asking in relation to the king who might stand in God's holy place. While the King had many blessings, he was restricted from much of the access to God that the prisests of God had, being restricted from entering the inner parts of the temple, where the actual presence of God was. 2) The Psalmist recalls the generations of God's people from Jacob on (v. 6, This is the generation of those who seek Him, who seek your face, even Jacob), who, by examination in God's word in Genesis, although they sought God in a sense, did not actually have the blameless attributes that the Psalm requires.

In fact, there was only one in history who could solve this tension- a King, but able to enter the actual presence of God, of the line of David, but without fault in moral perfection, fufilling all righteousness (see Matthew 3 on Jesus' entrance into the priesthood and baptism in order to fufill all righteousness): the Messiah!

Finally, there is the entrance ceremony itself. We have a King, but not just any King, a King who is able to ascend to the presence of God, who approaches God's Holy city. The tension in the work builds as the gatekeeper inquires repetitively, speaking of this particular King with exaulted language that no man deserves, "who is this King of glory?" and finally, the conclusion comes in the form of the answer from the King, "The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory." It is the Lord Himself, the same King of Glory of the first section of the Psalm, identified with the divine name Yahweh, who is Lord over all creation, who is returning from battle, having conquered the enemies of God's people in moral perfection (see parts I and II of the Abrahamic covenant blogs), having conquered and accomplished His work outside of heaven, now going up to return.

I believe that Psalm 24 depics the Messiah ascending to heaven, having accomplished purification from sins for His people, to sit at God's right hand, in the manner that Daniel records of Christ's ascension to the throne of David in Heaven, "I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up [ascension language!] to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14.

What a glorious picture is painted of Jesus, who is revealed in so much detail in the works of the Old and New Testaments, throughout all of the scriptures! This is the importance of understanding Christ and His finished work.

"When He had made purification of sins, He sat down [implies completion and rest] at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a much more excellent name than they."
Hebrews 1:3-4

Is Psalm 24 Messianic? A brief on Christ's ascension, on eschatological interpretive license and an appetizer for two forthcoming Davidic Covenant blogs, Part I.

2009-10-28T08:00:00.004-07:00

Psalm 24, NASB:

"The earth is the Lord's, and all it

contains,

The world, and those who dwell in it.

For He has founded it upon the seas

and established it upon the rivers.

Who may ascend into the hill of the

Lord?

And who may stand in His holy place?

He who has clean hands and a pure

heart,

Who has not lifted up his soul to

falsehood

And has not sworn deceitfully.

He shall receive a blessing from the

Lord

And righteousness from the God of his

salvation.

This is the generation of those who seek

Him,

Who seek your face-even Jacob. Selah.

Lift up your heads, O gates,

And be lifted up, O ancient doors,

That the King of glory may come in!

Who is the King of glory?

The Lord strong and mighty,

The Lord migthy in battle.

Lift up your heads, O gates,

And lift them up, O ancient doors,

That the King of glory may come in!

Who is the King of glory?

The Lord of hosts,

He is the King of glory. Selah."

From the 1st century on, many in the church have identified Psalm 24 as being Messianic, picturing Jesus' victory on the earth and His triumphant ascension into heaven. A kind of hybrid Psalm, it contains formal elements of a hymn of praise, and it also follows the form of the entrance ceremonies that kings would receive upon returning from battle, with the repetitive inquiring of the gatekeeper, the opening of the gates, and the announcement of the king.

Although this Psalm appears messianic upon fist glance, it is important to examine one's hermeneutic for Old Testament prophecy in order to firmly establish that fact. Psalm 24 in particular incites extra caution, since this work is not interpreted or cited by any New Testament author. Nevertheless, this fact doesn't exclude the possibility of the psalm being Christological in a variety of ways. There are many places in scripture where Christological passages are not specifically interpreted elsewhere in scripture. For example, many substitutionary sacrifice passages appear in the Pentateuch that are not specifically discussed in the New Testament. But because of context, strong and clear symbolic content, and interpretive examples of similar passages found in the New Testament, these are accepted as Christological. Neither is the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3 explicitly explained in scripture; it is a concept derived through inference (Though admittedly some debate this passage. I think is that John identifies "the serpent of old" as Satan in the book of Revelation in an important culminating passage.). Even in the book of Revelation, many Christological symbols appear that are not directly interpreted, by John or any other author. If one is to interpret Psalm 24 correctly from an eschatological perspective, there must be good reason, contextual, systematic, and internal.

Conflicts arrive when an eschatological interpretation violates the internal and contextual content of the passage with an imposition of an external systematic framework. Such is the case, I believe with passages like Ezekiel 38-39, which is cited by many to be an eschatological vision that describes a battle that will take place in the future. This passage is in fact a prophecy which involves nations contemporary to the author that existed in the same general geographical region (Rosh, Meshech and Tubal), and which gives explicit descriptions of the use of ancient weapons and tactics (riding on chariots, amidst troops using swords, bows and arrows, war clubs, and spears). It is found in a book that systematically pronounces impending divine judgment on a variety of other nations contemporary to Ezekiel that exist in the same general geographical region (these are not seen as eschatological). Given the explicit and detailed descriptions found in Ezekiel 38-39 of an actual battle of judgment that will take place, and the context of the prophecy being real judgments against contemporary nations, it seems puzzling why this passage would be insistently interpreted by some to be yet future. In addition, chapter 9 of the book of Ruth (written after Ezekiel) records a battle that matches strikingly the descriptions in Ezekiel 38-39, providing a simple and logical explanation of the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy within scripture.

Yet, because of an external eschatological framework, many impress a hermeneutic upon Ezekiel 38-39 that bends the context and content of the passage to be completely symbolic, describing a culminating battle that takes place in Revelation 20, right down to the war clubs and chariots. The contemporary nations of Ezekiel's time become representative of geographical regions, and the ancient weapons become in some way typological of modern day weapons. Many even speculate that the ancient weapons are used in Revelation 20 because there has been devastation sufficent to reduce technology to the dark ages. Where does this interpretation come from? Notwithstanding the lack of direct New Testament citations and interpretations, are there direct scriptural guidelines or internal evidences regarding the book of Ezekiel and its particular battles that would lead us to connect these two disparate parts of scripture? Is there any chance that a Hebrew who knows the Lord, who is reading with discernment, would spot any kind of cues to indicate that this passage is about the final battle of all time? The answer, in my opinion, is no; only a hermeneutic alien to Ezekiel could derive this future connection. One has to follow the clues of the text, and this one simply points to an ancient battle, future to Ezekiel, past to us.

In light of this cautionary example, is there good reason to see Psalm 24 as Messianic? Can Psalm 24 be given eschatological justification that is more substantial than the example given above? Is there actual direct evidence to consider, besides an obtuse and misguided generalization that all of the scriptures must be directly allegorical of Christ, as some believe (this is the kind of principle that leads some to believe that the Song of Solomon is an a detailed and strangely sensual allegory for Christ and His Church)? I believe the answer is yes.

(to be contiued soon...)

Coming soon: Revelation, Exodus, Hebrews, Acts, Ezekiel, Psalms, and more!

2009-10-24T08:00:00.002-07:00

Coming soon:

An all new lineup of related blogs: four on the Davidic covenant, eschatology, God's promises, evangelism, and the Lordship of Christ, and another on Revelation and the final form of the Holy of Holies!

Don't miss it!

Notes on: I simply believe in one less God than you

2009-10-22T08:00:00.005-07:00

I have started compiling introductory apologetic notes on various topics with my kids and young believers in mind. When my children are still in the house, I want to have trained them to think critically in their faith, and hopefully they will be equipped enough to articulate the ideas found below. I think that it is important for Christians to be introduced early on to dealing with objections in a Biblical manner, in a careful, logical way that gives evidence and treats God's Word as true. I think that an exploration of the following objection can be very helpful for young believers. I wanted to share these notes with you. Here is the objection, and my notes on the topic:

"I simply believe in one less God than you"

This is not so much an actual argument against Christianity or religion as it is a talking point for atheists, to explain their perspective, and / or to attempt to surprise the Christian with an unexpected angle on the conversation. If an argument is attempted with this kind of rhetoric, it is usually part of a thrust to get the Christian to see that the atheist simply views Christianity as one of the many religious movements in history, that ultimately amount to no more than hokey superstition. Comparisons of Yahweh to a figure like Zeus or Odin are common in this kind of discussion. Note that this section will not cover the similar objection, "Christianity is just a bunch of recycled myths."

There are two main reasons why this comment should serve only as an articulation of the atheist’s position, and that it should not be viewed as detrimental to the Christian position: 1) To go from any concept of deity to embracing no concept of deity is a large leap indeed. This does not is not a mere matter of moving down one more notch from pantheist to theist to atheist, as the atheist believes. It involves a fundamental switch in existential categories, whereupon an individual goes from attempting to supply some kind of explanation for creation, reality, etc. to more or less asserting that no knowable possible valid explanation exists at all. 2) The Christian God is uniquely striking, confirmable, and relevant to the moral, philosophical, and existential problems in history. Perhaps on the most superficial level some elements of Christianity appear similar to those found in other world religions. However, upon deeper examination, Zeus, Odin, etc. never come close to the attributes found in the scriptures regarding Yahweh:

∙ He is personal

∙ He existed before any matter or properties of the universe, (“In the beginning, there was nothing”).

∙ He is described as creating all things, and upholding all things by His power, as opposed to simply being a powerful part of the universe.

∙ He is entirely transcendent, invisible, etc. in nature.

∙ He is a Trinity.

∙ He is completely sovereign, restrained from nothing by no outside force or entity.

∙ Although sovereign, He is bound by His own nature to certain restrictions (i. e. He cannot lie, He cannot sin, He cannot commit wrong, He cannot not exist, etc.) that have to do with the makeup of His nature.

∙ He is revealed to all men.

∙ He gives a specific, detailed, cogent answer to the moral plight of man (mankind needing recompense before a Holy God for sins committed).

∙ He gives a specific, detailed, cogent answer to the philosophical plight of man (how do we measure or understand reality, how do we explain the basic epistemological questions of our existence and what we observe in nature?).

∙ He gives a specific, detailed, cogent answer to the existential plight of man (how is it that everything exists in such vast organization and complexity, and that it exists at all?).

∙ The events of Christ’s life are confirmed by witnesses and historical evidence.

∙ He is exclusively revealed to all men, yet all men on earth are expected to follow His revealed will.

∙ He has a long, traceable history of salvation, through His vicarious substitutionary atonement, recorded through revelation, throughout many people groups, throughout the course of human history, referencing contemporary religions, but never emulating them.

Notes on: If a loving God exists, He would not allow evil, injustice, and suffering to go on. Since evil, injustice, and suffering exist, the God of the Bible cannot exist.

2009-10-17T08:00:00.003-07:00

I have started compiling introductory apologetic notes on various topics with my kids and young believers in mind. When my children are still in the house, I want to have trained them to think critically in their faith, and hopefully they will be equipped enough to articulate the ideas found below. I think that it is important for Christians to be introduced early on to dealing with objections in a Biblical manner, in a careful, logical way that gives evidence and treats God's Word as true. This objection is an extremely common one, and a question that I faced alone for many years as a new believer, without adequate teaching or support. This time, I was careful to produce a honest and theologically bare answer, which on the surface is probably more harsh, but I believe that it gives the most truth, and can be the most effective at sharing the true God with unbelievers. I wanted to share these notes with you. Here is the objection, and my notes on the topic:

"If a loving God exists, He would not allow evil, injustice, and suffering to go on. Since evil, injustice, and suffering exist, the God of the Bible cannot exist."

There are two main problems with this argument: 1) In order for it to be a logical argument, we must presupposes the existence of God, and 2) In a human-centered manner, it naively assumes that God’s motives are the same our own.

Without the Christian God, who universally and transcendentally assigns and sustains logical and moral meaning to all things, and is the source of meaning, there is no logical basis for the existence of any kind of universal right and wrong by which one might weigh guilt, innocence, right, wrong, or the value of human suffering, or by which one might hold any authority responsible for allowing the continuance of such. Without a God, what one is left with is a kind of delusional construct of the individual mind that expects things in the world to happen a certain way without being able to explain why. There is no reason to behave or speak as if morals and logic were some kind of universal rule at all, because they are simply not real. They are the differing results of processes inside a bundle of nerves inside a person’s skull. They can be justified as such, but nothing more.

It is audacious and idolatrous indeed to think that one has enough knowledge about the one true God to know just what He would do with the various predicaments on earth, and then to proclaim in a Pope-like way, “This is what God is like!” We as human beings are often uncomfortable with reports of tragedy and suffering. Here, we in some shadowy way reflect God’s nature, because He, too is moved, saddened, and disgusted, by the suffering and injustices in the world. But the fallen human will diverges from reflecting God when it places its own whimsical judgments about the world before God’s, and presumptuously begins to make declarations about what the course of human history ought to be like in order to please God and achieve the most good. To be sure, something like the death of a child is not to be taken lightly at all. However, when one raises this objection, they must be taught that God deserves to be in command of the world, whether a suffering world or not, because He is good, and worthy to work all things after the counsel of His will. Not only this, but the earth and everything in it is His creation, and He has the right to do what He pleases with it. God has sufficiently good reason for the suffering and injustice in the world. He is working the course of history to the end that He desires, to bring Himself the most glory, and to bring good to His people. Sometimes we can explain fully the meaning behind what we see, and other times we can only explain so much, and this is how we should expect things to be! God carries out His justice, His desires to arrange the small and large-scale events of the world so that He can demonstrate His will and the truths regarding mankind's state, so that He can work out His plan of salvation. Sometimes he gives justice, sometimes He witholds it. Sometimes He brings a believer home, other times it is better for Him to allow a Christian's life to continue.

Ultimately, though, it is God's right to withold the whole council of His will, which a mere human could neither comprehend, nor appreciate. God knows the heart of man, that it is desperately wicked. It is merciful that God allows any of us to experience the pleasures of life from conception on. Ultimately, God will either use a person as a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath. Those who become vessels of wrath will answer for the injustices they have committed, because God is just. Those who receive mercy will receive it without merit. To reject existence of God simply because one in their presuppositional rejection of a sovereign God hates the idea of a God who does what He pleases is to reason around the events observed in a presumptuous, myopic, and rebellious fashion.

Injustices and suffering in the world should bring us to our knees before God in acknowledgement of our frail nature as fallen human beings, and of Him as our only steadfast hope. They are reminders for us to remove our trust from the things of this world and place them in God. When the tower of Siloam collapsed, Jesus did not attempt to make excuses for God in what had happened. He didn't feign that God was surprised by this event. Instead, He used it as a picture of judgment, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them, do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:2-5).

Reactions to Words to Winners of Souls by Horatius Bonar

2009-10-12T08:00:00.010-07:00

Reactions to:

Words to Winners of Souls

By Horatius Bonar

Published By P & R publishing

59 pages

Brief Reaction:

This is a passionate book that can help dig some Holy spurs into the sides of complacent Christians, especially those who are ministers. What I picked up is apparently the slightly abridged version, and it was a fast, easy read. It injects some hard-core SNOS (Scottish Nitrous-Oxide) towards the driven deliverance of the gospel and the pursuit of a passionate private devotional life. However, I believe that one must read it with care and discernment—while there is definitely good wisdom to be mined from these pages, there is a danger of reading its critiques of the author’s Scottish contemporaries anachronistically (Bonar wrote during a time of complacent recession of the true church). Overall, it is a good work, but I would caution the reader to exercise care and discernment so as to not come away from Words with a more synergistic view of evangelism, or a more works-based attitude towards devotional life.

Full Reaction:

Why write a reaction to this well-known work?

Before I began reading Words to Winners of Souls, I did not plan on writing a reaction to it. I decided in the past that I would only write a reaction to a Christian book if I thought I had something to share that was not already clearly voiced in Christian circles. That’s why I wrote a reaction to Last Days Madness, and why I skipped writing a reaction to Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy even though I though it was a fantastic book. However, as I began to read Words to Winners of Souls, I quickly realized that I had found good reason to write a most careful reaction.

In this slightly abridged version, Words was a fast, easy read, which helped the thought process over the weighty issues it addresses. Words seems to be a well-known and well-liked book, and although I heartily agree the work has its merits, I also feel compelled to voice a word of caution about this work. Even our most treasured historic works, such as Words, should be put through a Biblical filter, so that their truths can be properly savored.

Don’t read it anachronistically!

A word before we dive in about the historical context of the work…if you read this reaction, or if you read the work itself, it is extremely important to keep in mind that Bonar is specifically intending to send a wake-up call to complacent ministers in his own time period, when the church at large had become lukewarm. Bonar’s work should not be taken as a universal manual that provides a comprehensive how-to of evangelism or devotional life. Without this in mind, the reader can easily mistake Bonar’s passionate, exasperated words that strongly emphasize certain aspects of a minister’s Christian duties as being deficient. However, reading this work in its historical context can bring a visceral, effective edge to Bonar’s teachings. It may also (rightly so!) lead the reader to compare Bonar’s church environment to the church at large in America, which is suffering from many of the same ailments we find addressed in the text. Afterwards, the reader is inspired to ask the question, how should we respond to the problems the church faces today?

The good, the bad, the…Scottish?

Historical context notwithstanding, I believe that Words must receive a critical examination in order to be received effectively by the Christian. Interpretive work in this regard may bring the work to life, but it doesn’t let Bonar off the hook completely. Here are my positive reactions, followed by my cautionary reactions (thought it is difficult to impartially critique anything written by a passionate Scottish man, who I can easily imagine pulling out a broadsword and swinging it at me to make his next point).

Words to live by…

Any Christian who ponders the simple truths that Bonar brings up about evangelism and private devotional life will find their Christian walk boosted by some hard-core SNOS (Scottish Nitrous Oxide). My favorite chapter by far was the Ministerial Confession, where Bonar records actual confessions of ministers of the Church of Scotland. Strikingly and appropriately, these are mostly sins of omission. These confessions force the reader to ponder their own desires regarding secret prayer and devotional time with God, their own fleshly pursuits of excuses to avoid Christian duties, their own emotional coldness towards the desperate state of sinners their own lack of rejoicing when sinners convert, and their own callousness towards sin and the work of the Holy Spirit as their walk carries on year after year.

In other places of Words, Bonar stresses the falseness of the notion that our Christian walk should be outwardly restful, prudent, and moderate. His words echo with Paul’s in 1 Corinthians, when the apostle writes concerning zealousness in serving Christ: “We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless…I exhort you, be imitators of me” (1 Corinthians 4:10-11…16b). Bonar gives several examples from church history of martyrs and other servants of the church who joyfully determined to live a life of toil and sacrifice in order to fulfill the great commission given by Christ. These examples are both humbling and inspiring.

Another excellent point that Bonar makes, amidst some other teachings that will be addressed later, is regarding the sovereignty of God in evangelism. In the chapter Past Defects, Bonar rebukes ministers for responding to the sovereignty of God with complacency. He says, “Really to submit to God’s sovereign disposal does always necessarily involve the deep renunciation of our own will in the matter concerned, and such a renunciation of the will can never be effected without a soul being brought through very severe and trying exercises of an inward and most humbling nature.” Bonar proceeds to explain that if one really considers Paul’s words in Romans 10:17, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ…” one will be greatly inspired to sacrificially peruse passionate preaching to such a degree and to such an end that God will convert those who one encounters.

Also of note are Bonar’s words on the private devotional life of a preacher. Bonar stresses the importance of first feeding oneself before one attempts to teach or preach to others, and rightly points out that we must prioritize time for the Lord to teach us from His Word and through prayer. Only from this necessary discipline can anyone be properly equipped to exposit the depths of the riches of Christ in the public arena. In a section entitled “Time for Everything but Prayer,” Bonar asks, “Why is there so little anxiety to get time to pray?” A point well taken.

Words of caution…

Please consider these next critiques to be cautionary guidelines for interpreting certain passages of Words.

Doctrine vs. God?

In several places, Bonar appears to be overcorrecting the false notion that a minister need not be concerned with God’s personal work in people’s lives. It often seems that to Bonar, personal contact with God must be the antithesis to holding doctrine as preeminent (or guiding, or ruling) over other aspects of the faith. One scarcely begins reading the first page of Words before this amazing statement appears: “The lukewarm ministry of one who is theoretically orthodox is often more extensively and fatally ruinous to souls than that of one grossly inconsistent or flagrantly heretical.” To be sure, to have a lukewarm ministry is bad, but to be a false teacher, a blasphemer, must be far worse! In the scriptures, the lukewarm are warned, while the false teachers are condemned to eternal judgment with the anathema! Paul even says in Philippians 1:15…17a…18: “Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife….the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress…what then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice.” Certainly those Paul is referring to who preached the gospel out of selfishness were sinning, but the point here is that the message itself was really the gospel, and here despite the condition of those preaching it, Paul rejoiced. I have been struggling as to how to understand Bonar’s statement within a historical or scriptural framework that will exonerate it, but I have as of yet been unsuccessful.

On page 6, Bonar says, “The one true goal or resting-place where doubt and weariness, the stints of a pricking conscience, and the longings of an unsatisfied soul would all be quieted, is Christ Himself. Not the church, but Christ. Not doctrine, but Christ. Not forms, but Christ. Not ceremonies, but Christ; Christ the God-man, giving His life for ours; sealing the everlasting covenant, and making peace for us through the blood of His cross; Christ the divine storehouse of all light and truth, ‘In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Colossians 2:3)…” Here he hits the point again and again with a massive literary Braveheart sledgehammer: solus christus! From a certain perspective, he is right on. Being knowledgeable doesn’t save us, nor does being eloquent entice sinners into the kingdom…it is indeed Christ Himself who personally saves the lost.

But what must one necessarily ask when someone says “Christ Himself!” so emphatically? The response that must come is “…well, alright then, who is He?” I do not see the merit in answering church complacency by placing doctrine in antithesis with Christ. Speaking of the Philippians’ love in Christ, Paul says, “and this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ…” (Philippians 1:9-10). I believe that it is clear from scripture that having correct doctrine is paramount to walking blamelessly in Christ. As Bonar goes on to make his point that we need Christ Himself, he seems to admit this by immediately diving into doctrine about Christ (“Christ the God-man, giving His life for ours; sealing the everlasting covenant, and making peace for us through the blood of His cross; Christ the divine storehouse of all light and truth, ‘In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Colossians 2:3)…”); that is, Bonar begins to exposit truths about Christ’s nature. Apparently, Bonar wants to show us what he “really means” in “doctrine, not Christ” by openly contradicting himself in this passage, but I find this literary device unhelpful and ineffective. It leaves me confused as to what he is saying the role of sharing doctrine is in sharing Christ, and what the difference is between understanding doctrine and knowing Christ. It is especially confusing in light of requisite statements like “unless you believe that I Am, you will die in your sins,” from John 8:24, which require a person to believe certain specific things about Christ in order to be saved.

On page 12, Bonar says: “It is living fellowship with a living Savior which, transforming us into His mage, fits us for being able and successful ministers of the gospel.” And I heartily agree; it is absolutely true that a passionate spiritual walk with God is what equips to earnestly share God’s Word with others. But does it then follow that “it is the individuals themselves [Whitefield or Berridge or Edwards] that we must mainly set before us; it is with the spirit of men, more than of their works, that we are to be imbued, if we are emulous of a ministry as powerful, as victorious as theirs”? This is actually a difficult question for me to answer, because when I consider the works of great men of the faith, perhaps Edwards or Paul, what is the summary of their works and their message? In brief, it is the gospel. And is the gospel not central to the Christian faith, the sustenance of our spiritual walk with God? Of course, these men gave examples for us to emulate. The citation I gave earlier from 1 Corinthians demonstrates this, that it is good for us to study the lives of great men of the faith. But when it comes to the question of what is most important to study, we must ask ourselves, was Paul’s preeminent message about his personal life, his personal sacrifices, his personal disciplines? Should we, as Bonar entitled a section in Words, “Study the speakers, not the sermons”? What did Paul primarily want to communicate as first importance to the church (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-5)? I think that in response any godly minister would point us away from his own sinful life and to the cross. If there is anything we should remember about these Christian men who came before us, it should foremost be that they were weak, sinful men who clung to nothing else but the message of salvation found in the gospel. A disciplined, passionate life without a proper message fails; it will either end in disillusionment or in works righteousness.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12, tells the Corinthians in a roundabout way that he was actually caught up to heaven and heard “inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (v.4b). Yet he goes on to turn the emphasis away from his own spiritual strength and deep experiences with the Lord (in fact, in this passage he specifically says that his interactions with God were supposed to remain secret), and says, “on behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses [v. 5a]…most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me [v.9b].”

God working vs. us working?

On page 23, Bonar says, “Exactly so it is with us as ministers: when we can rest satisfied with using the means for savings souls without seeing them really saved, or we ourselves being broken-hearted by it, and at the same time quietly talk of leaving the event to God’s disposal, we make use of a truth to cover and excuse a falsehood; for our ability to leave the matter thus is not, as we imagine, the result of heart-submission to God, but of heart-indifference to the salvation of the souls we deal with. No, truly, if the heart is really set on such an end, it must gain that end or break in losing it. He that saved our souls has taught us to weep over the unsaved.” This is a proactive statement, and I believe it must be carefully taken by the reader. On the one hand, it is certainly wrong to become complacent because God is the one who elects and saves sinners. And, as Bonar says earlier, God’s sovereignty should spurn us on to peruse sinners further, because we know that God saves when the gospel is preached.

On the other hand, if we do not rest on some level in the fact that God is truly the one doing the saving work during the act of evangelism, our message will certainly become warped and man-centered. One should be careful in reading Bonar not to draw any extreme conclusions regarding this issue. Must we not focus on glorifying God first in our message rather than persuading men? Yes, we should make our messages understandable. Yes, we should be ready to give an answer to those who ask. But if we don’t have the glory of God and His power and sovereignty to save set in front of us first, how can we hope to properly elucidate the gospel? Words contains a section that says that our very first priority should be the conversion of sinners. I say that we should preach to glorify God first, then to save sinners. Perhaps Bonar would agree. But I think that when teaching Christians how to preach, and when we are teaching them about God’s sovereignty in salvation, that we must make much of God’s glory and God’s work. Doesn’t understanding how the Lord works to save sinners, and focusing on His power and His work, help us to preach better? Reading Bonar’s words, it would sometimes appear that as we preach we should replace all thoughts about God working in salvation with visions of thousands of souls being tossed into Hell. Is this the only recourse for complacency? Do we find a call in scripture to feel burdened so much by the reality of Hell that we cannot find a moment’s peace even to eat or rest? Moved emotionally, yes, but burdened to the point where we cannot ever experience mental peace?

I believe in teaching that a balance is best. The reality of Hell must be balanced with God’s sovereignty. It seems from the scriptures that Paul can hardly mention any kind of priorities in the believer’s life without mentioning God’s glory and His sovereignty first. Why are we saved? It is “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Ephesians 1:1a). What is the “mystery of Christ” in Colossians 4:3 that Paul specifically asks the Colossians to pray could be clearly proclaimed, but the mystery of God’s will in Ephesians 1: “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the time, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” (v.9-10)? All things are sovereignly summed up in Christ, and will be so. Should this lofty view change when we witness? Far from it. It should fuel our joy as we preach the gospel.

How to respond to Christian conviction of sin?

One of the most important points to make about Words is that, if you are convicted by what Bonar has to say (which, I think, is likely), you must run to God’s grace first, before you run to Bonar’s proposed solutions. That Bonar’s contemporaries have become slothful because they have not considered God and His attributes highly enough seems absent from Words. Yes, Bonar stresses the importance of being refreshed by reading the scriptures and prayer. Yes, Bonar regards Christ and the Christian walk as being utterly worthy. But when the teaching on evangelism, the walk of the minister, and the ministerial confession are done, what is Bonar’s first and only solution? Let’s get disciplined. 1) Let’s rise timely every morning. 2) Let’s do work right away when we get up and let’s mourn over our failings. 3) Let’s spend enough time praying, reading, etc… the list goes on. A good list, to be sure. But a solution to a church-wide epidemic that Bonar faces?

It seems that Bonar is missing the biggest problem of them all for his contemporaries: they do not think rightly about the nature of God! What else could cause ministers to become so careless, passionless, and complacent, but the fact that they have lost sight of the glorious God they serve? Before Bonar brings them to discipline, why does he not correct their low view of God? Their eyes have fallen off the prize, they have looked away from Jesus. How then could a church who is in love with the world, by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps through discipline and getting up early every morning, fix for themselves this extremely deep-seated spiritual problem? Only Christ can accomplish this, through correction that is focused on Him and His nature. Bonar’s contemporaries needed to focus on Christ, to confess their sins and run to His gospel again, not to simply enact their eight points of discipline.

I feel confident saying this because it seems clear from scripture that, for a Christian, the path to obedience always will first lead through an enlightenment of and love for the nature of God, and this being founded in the gospel. How does every epistle that corrects an erring church begin? With that dreaded d-word, doctrine. Corrective teaching begins with a discussion on the nature of God. Think of the book of Romans, which presents eleven chapters of theology before the application finally arrives. Or the book of Ephesians, which is four chapters explosion about the glory of God in salvation followed by two chapters of application. Think of the book of Revelation, which begins with an earth-shattering, glorious vision of Jesus …the list goes on. Even James, when correcting his brothers and sisters in their sins of partiality and of similar kinds of complacency, does not write out lists of disciplines for them, when to get up, how much to pray, how many days a month to set aside for this or that purpose… he writes teaching on the nature of faith, drawing it back to the way that God Himself views works and being outwardly justified. Christ, when correcting the lukewarm church in the cosmopolitan city of Laodicea, first identifies it as spiritually poor, naked, and wretched. Then, in Revelation 3:18, He says, “I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes that you may see.” Thus, Christ directs them to facing their inward decrepit spiritual reality, and then, for the solution, to Himself and the gospel. I think it is fine that Bonar is for spiritual disciplines; I am too! After all, they are scriptural. I just don’t see his concluding list as the proper primary remedy for the spiritual problems he describes throughout Words.

While Words was a very convicting book for me, it also made me realize how thankful I was for Biblical teaching that, in the face of my sin, directs me away from my sinful, flawed, failing capacities to discipline myself, and towards God Himself. Only then can we be properly motivated to serve God: “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1-2).

Conclusions

It quickly became clear to me as I considered how to write a reaction to this book that it would provoke a strong and personal, journalistic response. Reading Words to Winners of Souls is a surprisingly enriching experience. It drove me to personal confession about loving pleasure rather than Christ and His call, to realizing how much I needed God’s grace, to facing more the contemporary realities of Hell and Heaven, and to develop my understanding of how I believe one should instruct Christians. If you are ready to read it with discernment, I suggest that you check out Words soon.

Sorrow that Leads to Repentance: A Preview of the review for Words to Winners of Souls

2009-10-11T08:00:00.146-07:00

For the Christian, recognizing sin in one's own life can often be a psychologically intense experience. Is natural to feel moved emotionally, personally, and intellectually when God graciously reveals sin in the Christian's life.

When considering the conviction of the Holy Spirit of sin in a believer's life, one must as a way of reminder bring up the two kinds of sorrows discussed in 2 Corinthians 7:8-13 (NASB), the sorrow of the world, and the sorrow that leads to repentance:

"For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it--for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while--I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not sufer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the word produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the offender nor for the sake of the one offended, but that your earnestness on our behalf might be made known to you in the sight of God. For this reason, we have been comforted."

As Paul is lovingly honest with the Corinthian church, which had committed much immorality in the past, he contrasts the sorrow of the world, which mourns for the loss of worldly status and approval, and the sorrow that leads to repentance, a renunciation of the worth of sin and a deep-seated change of mind, acknowledging the supreme value of the Lord over everything else.

No doubt that the Corinthians, who had experienced so much in the recent past, falling into sin, experiencing gross immorality, being admonished by Paul several times, recieving a "severe letter" from him (referenced in 1 Cor. 5:9, it has since been lost to history), recieving 1 Corinthians, encountering venemous false teachers, recieving external elder oversight from Titus, etc. However, despite these times of upheavel in the church, there is some evidence that the Corinthian church was blessed in their response to conviction, by 2 Corinthians, most of the church had repented, and although there was still much to be done by Paul, Titus, and others to counter the after-effects of the false teachers who had attempted to undermine Paul's authority, the Corinthian church was showing signs of good fruit again.

The Corinthian church is an example of the emotional, personal, and spiritual storms that sin can cause in a believer's life, and the church at large. In the midst of the difficult and disorienting process of dealing with sin, it is important to remember two things:

1) God's sovereign benevolence in the face of His people's falls into unfaithfulness, so as to be moved to a proper level and view of brokenness.

Romans 5:9: "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." From start to finish, salvation is a work of God. Even when a Christian falls into sin, the Holy Spirit still lovingly strives with him. Ephesians 4:30: "Do not grieve the Spirit of God, by Whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." After an amazing introduction about God's plan for salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit to seal God's people for the day of redemption, Paul describes how a Christian should conduct himself in response to the good news of God's saving work, in order to live a lifestyle fitting with new life. A Christian no longer feels judgement; instead, the conviction of sin now brings a sense of temporal grief and the longing of a unfettered relationship with God.

2) To remember the cross, and the sorrow that leads to repentance, so as not to respond first and foremost with a kind of task-oriented payback to God.

Romans 5:1: Having therefore been justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Should we fear the loss of a certain kind of status before men, or even God Himself, when we sin? Should we respond to the conviction of sin by trying to "fix the problem ourselves," to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, so as to secure our obedience and prove that we are able to meet God's task, to increase our spiritual status, as it were? Such would be the nature of an emotional, unguided reaction to God's law. However, is this God's desire?

Let's not confuse discipline or tasks associated with repentance as substitutes for the blood of Christ, which sustains believers as much as it saves unbelievers. Hebrews 7:25: "Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them." If needed, should we enact a human measure to curb the effects of sin? Yes. However, enacting these measures is not repentance, it cannot replace repentance, and it entirely misses the continual, forever-saving heart of God.
1 John 1:9, written to believers, says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We are saved once and all by the finished work of Christ (Hebrews 10:12) and justified by faith, having been brought to peace with God (Romans 5:1), but there is nontheless a need for temporal reconciliation between the Christian and God, not for payment of sin, but the acknowledgement of sin, and the invitation for the work of God to take place.

Ezekiel 16 records God's symbolic description of the nation of Israel, who God found in its uncleanliness and yet strove with them: "When I passed by you and saw you squirming in your blood, I said to you while you were in your blood, 'Live!' Yes, I said to you while you were in your blood, 'Live!'" The story takes a sad turn as God describes Israel's repetitive sin and idolatry (described as harlotry) in the face of God's love.

National Israel (Israel according to the flesh) was not ultimately blessed by God, rather, "it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7), that is, those who rely on God's promises alone for continual imputed righteousness of Christ (as Paul describes to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 5:21, we have become the righteousness of God in Him) are God's people, who will not dissapoint Him as national Israel did (Hebrews 8).

The path to obedience will always first lead through an enlightenment and increased love for the nature of God, founded in the gospel.

--------

For more discussion on repentance, evangelism, and doctrine, see the review of Words to Winners of Souls by Horatius Bonar, coming tomorrow.

Beyond What is Written; 1 Corinthians 4 and The Morality of Christ (Follow-Up to Grace Bible Sermon 10/4)

2009-10-10T09:58:00.001-07:00

In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul continues with themes he has developed of the impenetrable, hidden, unfathomable wisdom of God (quoting Isaiah 29:14, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart," and Jeremiah 9:22-23, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him..."), and tells the Corinthians that it is impossible for anyone to boast in any way, ultimately in this context (there are other reasons as well, such as those given in Ephesians 2:8-10) because we are restricted in understanding what pleases an unfathomable God by what God has revealed to us. Therefore, we have no need for comparison amongst ourselves or our leaders. Instead, we should let God decide what pleases Him. This will occur ultimately when Christ, knowing the thoughts and intentions of man, judges everyone at the end of this present world.

A common yet unexpected temptation that I encounter often in my life is that very desire; to go beyond what is written down as pleasing to God in the scriptures in my own life, so as to somehow increase my status with God in some kind of imaginary Pharisaical dichotomy. I often catch myself believing that I am obligated before God to somehow figure out what His will is in a miriad of situations to which scripture is silent, that there is a definite right (and blessed) and definite wrong (and damning) course of action to take around every corner. Don't get me wrong, I abesolutely believe that scripture speaks to the issues we face today. However, while it is one thing to extrapolate and apply a concept that is clearly taught in scripture, it is wrong to construct additional commands for oneself or others based off of no clear scriptural direction.

This is precisely what the Parisees were condemned for. God's commands and teachings were not enough for them; instead, they chose to look beyond the clear meaning of the scriptures, which pointed to the suffering servant, and twisted the scriptures into a man-centered self-help religious construct.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, "all scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching , for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." There is a reason that God communicated what He did in the scriptures; it was to reveal Christ. We have with us everything that is needed for godliness. There is also a reason that the scriptures are silent where they are.

Deuteronomy 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."

Let's remember to rest in Christ and His morality, not in our own moral constructs, and to honor Him by honoring what He has specifically revealed in His Word as a guide to righteousness. After all, His Words are trustworthy.

My New Hobby!

2009-10-09T08:00:00.009-07:00

Well, after all, the blog description does say "occasionally other stuff."

I recently took up a new hobby of roasting my own coffee beans. I am ordering them raw and green off the internet, they come 5 bucks a pound. Not bad for really good coffee from around the world. It is great because it is easy enough but it also takes a developing of skill, taste, and knowledge to really get good. I use this device called a "Whirley Popper," which is basically a stovetop popcorn popper with a hand-cranked stirrer. I do it outside on my grill burner because the process throws out a lot of smoke. You have to wait for two noises-- the fist, called the "first crack" sounds like popcorn popping. This is the bean "out-gassing," or releasing steaming hot vapors (that's the same process, by the way, that causes lobsters to make that screaming sound as they are thrown into a pot of boiling water). Shortly after comes the "second crack," which is the actual bean matrix crackeling. When you hear this, it's shortly time to pull it off. You have to cool them off right away by passing them from one colander to another, then they are placed on a rack to cool for 24 hours. Roasting time, judged by pulling it off either just before or during the second crack, affects the appearance a range of different flavors.

And the taste is abesolutely unparalleled.

The Morality of Christ: Reactions to Grace Bible Sermon 10/4/09

2009-10-09T08:00:00.008-07:00

Last Sunday (10/4/09) our pastor delivered a sermon out of Ephesians 2:14-18. In the NASB, the text reads: "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 'And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near;' for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father."

The sermon discussed how here Paul teaches that Jesus' death on the cross brought both horizontal and vertical peace; peace between the Jews and Gentiles, two groups seperated by culture and religious bigotry (the Jews were actually taught in the Pentatuch to be kind to forigners, but by the time of Christ, the tradition of the Pharisees and others had twisted these teachings into hate) who hated one another severely, and peace with God. Not temporary peace, which was achieved through the bloody rituals God's people had performed through the ages and the slaughtering of lambs, but the Shalom that Paul discusses in Romans 5.

All this was accomplished as Christ abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, or, the binding requirements of the Mosaic law, by bearing the sin of all of God's people on the cross. Now, since there is no barrier of ritual, law, and animal sacrifices, the saved Jews and Gentiles have culturally and morally become a "new man," or new movement of mankind, in Christ. Furthermore, the barrier that these ordinances created between God and His people has been torn down with the veil in the temple.

Ritual, constantly flowing blood, and hate are now replaced with the imputed righteousness of Christ, satisfying God morally and personally. Believers now live by the ordinances of the New Covenant, faith in Christ and the Word of God.

The Mosaic law (and any works-based religious belief does this, for that matter), crammed morality into a plethora of ordinances the people were required to follow; the law of Christ crams morality into every corner of a believer's soul by the power of Holy Spirit.

Listening to this sermon, my head also began buzzing about a somewhat analogous passage in Romans 11:17-18, which reads: "But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant towards the branches, but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you."

This comparison caught my attention, because while these analogies are similar, they have some crucial differences: while in Romans 11 Paul teaches that the gentiles were "grafted into" an existing group, Ephesians 2 teaches that the two groups are made into one "new man."

Later, I realized the richness of God's teaching regarding the abolition of the ordinances in Christ by considering both of these passages. Romans 11 is an illustration that is highliting God's remnant of true believers, a preexisting group that gentiles were now added to, while the unbelieving members of the nation of Israel were "broken off," some to continue attached to the root, some to possibly be grafted back in later (and all the while there is a general warning to the congregation that just as there were unbelieving Jews in the nation of Israel who were not God's people, so may there be unbelieving members of God's church, who would meet the same fate if they did not repent). As Paul says in Romans 9:6 reads, "not all are Israel who are descended from Israel."

On the other hand, Ephesians 2 takes a different perspective-- the role of culture and ordinances in salvation. In this respect, the Jews and Gentiles are made into a "new man," because as a worshiping group they are not seperate from God, and they are no longer required to uphold their religious status by preforming any ritual. All of God's people now step into a newer walk of mankind in Christ.

So, in every respect, involving the people of God, Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross is revealed to be the culminating moment in redemptive history.

If this blog piques your interest, I strongly encourage listening to the sermon:

http://www.gracetempe.org/wp/?cat=2&special=sermons

Notes on: The Trinity is Illogical

2009-10-07T08:00:00.013-07:00

I have started compiling introductory apologetic notes on various topics with my kids and young believers in mind. When my children are still in the house, I want to have trained them to think critically in their faith, and hopefully they will be equipped enough to articulate the ideas found below. I think that it is important for Christians to be introduced early on to dealing with objections in a Biblical manner, in a careful, logical way that gives evidence and treats God's Word as true. The Trinity is a concept that I could not articulate for a long time, and criticizing the Trinity is common in the cults and in others who misunderstand it. This is not an exaustive exploration, it mainly deals with the topic from a basic apologetic perspective. I wanted to share these notes with you. Here is the objection, and my notes on the topic:

"The Trinity is Illogical"

Most objections to the doctrine of the Trinity result from a fundamental misunderstanding of this important doctrine. While the Trinity is indeed a concept that may seem unusual at first, there is nothing that logically precludes the Orthodox definition of the Trinity from existing. It seems unusual simply because we do not spend our days consumed with accurate and thoughtful meditation on God and His nature. God is Holy, we are earthly. The physical activities at the core of the sun might seem unusual to some, but it does not seem illogical to those who spend their days taking measurements and making calculations regarding the sun. In the same way, a Christian who studies the issue in the scriptures sees the amazing functions of, appearances of, and necessities of the Trinity. At the same time, while the physical activities at the core of the sun can easily remain wondrous, captivating, and not fully understood to those who study it, so can the doctrine of the Trinity remain to Christians.

The Trinity is simply a doctrine that states that God is three persons, who share fully and completely one invisible, spiritual being. This is how God the Father can be said to be the “one true God,” and at the same time it can be said that “in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form” (here, deity means the essence of what makes God, God. Again, while it might be difficult for some to immediately grasp this spiritual concept, there is nothing in this definition that is contradictory, that violates the laws of logic). The Trinity is mysterious in the sense that it is wonderful, that it is difficult to comprehend, that it was only fully revealed in history with the appearance of Christ (though there are evidences of the Trinity in the Old Testament), and that we cannot fully grasp this aspect of God, just as we cannot fully grasp any of His attributes. It is not mysterious in the sense that such a doctrine would normally be considered fallacious, except because it’s about God, we suspend our normal logical sensibilities. While logic is important, it is not the ultimate standard we use to understand or (in a sinful way) judge God (we must go to God’s Word preeminently), logic is simply a tool like the other senses we possess. In other words, the mind of man is not the measure of all things. While God is always logical, we are not, and we must be careful to assume that something must always make sense to us in order to be true, and to extend our own reasoning into areas which God did not intend. Nevertheless it should be pointed out that since logic is an aspect of God’s nature, the Trinity is not illogical.

We also must be careful to distinguish between the Biblical use of the word “mystery” (Biblically, it often means something wonderful, difficult to fully grasp or partially hidden, or something that waited throughout history to be revealed in Christ) and the popular use of the word “mystery” (the word “mysterious” is often used in pop religious circles in place of the word “contradictory”).

It should be pointed out that the Trinity is revealed doctrinally, functionally, and necessarily in the scriptures. This section is not meant to be an exhaustive exploration of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it should be pointed out that without the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ is impossible, God’s electing grace and redemptive work is impossible, the hierarchical servitude within God (i.e., between Jesus and the Father, etc.) is impossible, the crucifixion becomes fallacious, and the plurality in God in name, appearance, role, worship, attributes, etc. that is expressed from Genesis to Revelation is inexplicable.

Furthermore, going beyond trite physical illustrations for the Trinity such as the three physical phases of water (all of these break down quickly and are not found in the scriptures) there is something to be said for understanding of the Trinity as a “one in many,” and how the Trinity and its internal fellowship can be used to explain many aspects of life that we observe, from the fellowship that humans generally desire, to the fellowship within Biblical marriages, to how the universe itself can be understood as both a singularity and a plurality. We should be careful not to speculate or teach in this area outside of scripture, but it is not a stretch to see the correlation between God’s creations and His revealed nature to some extent in this light.

Only conversion will allow someone to fully submit to and to begin to understand the significance of the Trinity. Objections regarding the Trinity should be answered, and the answers should be used to point to God’s redemptive work for sinners.

Reactions to Six Articles by Greg Bahnsen

2009-10-05T08:00:00.003-07:00

Reactions to:

Six Articles on Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen:

“Revelation, Speculation, and Science”

“Prolegomena to Apologetics”

“The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection”

“Awaiting Our Verdict?”

“On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator”

“Apologetics and Evangelism”

By Greg Bahnsen

Various Original Publishers, including Westminster Seminary and Christianity Today

All articles available for free at:

http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?ID=8&PageAction=Custom

Brief Reaction:

These six articles together are an excellent introduction to the Presuppositional Apologetic tradition that were carried by Bahnsen and Van Til through the 20th century. They provide a good definition for Presuppositional Apologetics and demonstrate the scripture and philosophical veracity of the position. Topics cover the basis of Presuppositional apologetics, and various applications thereof, to specific methodologies that Christians use today and to popular secular philosophies that are alive today. Some of these articles, especially “On Worshipping the Creature…” while maintaining a Biblical standpoint, can get a little heavily into philosophy.

Full Reaction:

I stumbled upon the above website about a year ago when I was searching for an MP3 of the famous Bahnsen vs. Stein debate on “Does God Exist?” I didn’t think much of it right away but I have since realized that this single web page is a gold mine of information on Biblical Apologetics and other issues. It has articles by Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, and Randy Booth. I began reading these six Bahnsen articles because I had been introduced to Presuppositional Apologetics by the same Christian Apologetics Podcast that had introduced me to Amillennialism; The Narrow Mind. Now I have a bunch of articles from this website printed out, three-hole punched, and in a binder. I feel like a nerd, but in exchange I get a wealth of free information about Christian Apologetics and other issues, such as ethics and eschatology.

Suffice to say that the general definition of Presuppositional Apologetics is that it is a doctrinal Christian position that says that the only Biblical way to defend one’s faith (a la 1 Peter 3:15) is to never depart from authoritative scriptural teaching and a Biblical worldview, even (one could say, especially!) when confronting the most ardent secularist. In other words, Presuppositional Apologetics would directly contradict the Evidential school of apologetics, which says that we must appeal to authorities both within and outside of the Bible to make our case, and that we must present this case from a neutral, or secular standpoint in order to make our case more receivable for the unbeliever. This is not to say that Presuppositional Apologetics has no place for evidence in its perspectives, but it is to say that the crux of a Presuppositional Apologist’s arguments will always be Biblical, and all evidence will always be interpreted Biblically. Also closely associated with Presuppositional Apologetics is the Transcendental Argument, which, you could say, is the modern version of Paul's message on Mars Hill in Acts 17 (by this I mean that it is the same argument, only applied to the modern secular schools of thought that Christians regularly encounter).

When I first heard about Presuppositional Apologetics, I was surprised to discover that the issue with defining the Christian apologetic in such a way was all about faithfulness to God and the end goal of conversion of the unbeliever, which as we know can only occur in a rhetorically Biblical setting and through the preaching of the gospel. Allow me to go through these six articles and describe the focus of each:

“Apologetics and Evangelism”

“Prolegomena to Apologetics”

These two articles are an excellent introduction into understanding Presuppositional Apologetics. They contain a Biblical justification for the assertions that Presuppositional Apologetics honors God the most consistently and that Presuppositional Apologetics is in the long run the most successful method. If you do not have an awareness of a proper apologetic stance, or if you don’t think that apologetic stances matter, or even if you disagree with the general outline of Presuppositional Apologetics, these articles will make you think! You will not come out the other side the same! Bahnsen has much to say about how a Christian should conduct himself in the world and as he dialogues with unbelievers, all from the pages of scripture. “Apologetics and Evangelism” in particular is a beefy article that contains a fairly detailed exegesis of a large bulk of Colossians 2. “Prolegomena to Apologetics” is a shorter introduction (it is actually part of a letter that Bahnsen wrote to a Christian student) that gives the basic notions of Presuppositional Apologetics and contains a smattering of scripture passages and analysis. Both articles, heartily and briefly respectively, also give a critique of the neutral, or Evidential approach.

“The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection”

“Awaiting Our Verdict?”

These two articles are geared as a kind of rebuttal against the Evidential position. “The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection” is about exactly what you would surmise from the title. “Awaiting our Verdict?” is a short and direct reply Bahnsen gave to a critique of “The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection” that contained several misconceptions and straw men of Presuppositional Apologetics. They are short, readable, and helpful to understand how to consider the other side of the apologetic fence.

“On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator”

“Revelation, Speculation, and Science”

These articles are intense, passionate, intelligent, Biblical, and thorough critiques of Darwinist philosophy and its precursors from a Presuppositional standpoint. “On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator” is a beast, for an article—it’s 31 pages long with the bibliographic materials, is densely written, and contains a lot of analysis of secular philosophical systems, from Phenomenalism to Pantheism to Darwinism, and seemingly of everything in between. This article breaks down Paul’s description of the unbeliever in Romans 1 and shows how all these systems fulfill Paul’s diagnosis of “worshipping the creature rather than the creator.” This is the only article that I haven’t finished, but it is already very entertaining, edifying, and helpful, even though it is more challenging than most Christian literature that’s out there. This article in particular helped me to understand better the way that darwinists think. I found Bahnsen's insight dead-on in this area, both in his explanation of artifical worldviews, how they affect the way that unbelievers think, and their direct practical applications to scripture. “Revelation, Speculation, and Science” is designed specifically to show how the transcendental argument dismantles the validity of Darwinist thought and its related systems.

All in all, I think that these articles are extremely valuable to the Christian who wants to seriously consider how to honor God best when dialoguing with unbelievers. They will encourage, uplift, and inform the believer who has a heart for the gospel, and who wants to improve his or her overall Biblical Christian worldview. But be warned—these works must be approached with care and discernment, given their great depth and challenging nature!

Comments Enabled

2009-09-30T15:13:00.001-07:00

Comments are now enabled on this blog. Please feel free to comment appropriately now, dialogue is welcome...in fact, that is part of the goal!

Notes on: A Changed Life as Apologetic Evidence

2009-09-30T08:00:00.012-07:00

Reactions to Last Days Madness

2009-09-28T08:00:00.002-07:00

Reactions to:

Last Days Madness

By Gary DeMar

Published By American Vision

443 pages including the appendices

Brief Reaction:

This book is ideal as an apologetic against the radical version of Dispensational Pre-Millennialism supported by those such as Hal Lindsey that has invoked so much wild end-times speculation in American culture in the 20th century. It is also a great way to learn many of the basic tenants of Orthodox Amillennial theology, which is why I picked it up. It’s great to pick it up for the second reason, I should say, if you are willing to also go slogging through all the material that directly addresses the semi-hokey end-times speculation stuff (there is a lot).

Full Reaction:

I picked this book up because I was looking for an Amillennial perspective on the numerous eschatological passages in the scriptures. While I have drawn application and speculated as to their full meaning, I have never possessed the understanding or historical knowledge to make a confident, complete interpretation of passages such as the Olivet Discourse or Jesus’ fig tree parable, let alone the book of Revelation. God saved me while I was in my mid-late teens, and ever since then I have been “brought up,” so to speak, in the church within a context of Pre-Millennialism. Thankfully, for several years, my wife and I have been under many men who rightly handle the Word of God. We have learned so much from them, including a fair amount about their perspective on eschatology (now I am referring to MacArthur’s version of Dispensational Premillennialism, which I respect, and which is obviously within the realm of Orthodoxy. I want to be careful from the outset to draw a big distinction between MacArthur’s eschatology and the wildly speculative “last days madness” type of theology that is critiqued in Last Days Madness).

Since it is not an essential Christian issue, eschatology has never been a major concern of mine. Nonetheless, in the past few years, I have found myself confused by so many passages in scriptures about Israel, the destruction of Jerusalem, the apocalypse, the antichrist, and the Jewish nation at the time of Christ, just to name a few, that I found myself desiring to investigate eschatology in more detail. After all, if one rightly understood eschatology, the meaning of many of these passages and the passages related to them could be unlocked. Furthermore, it seems obvious that eschatology is important to God, since He refers to it so many times in His Word. As MacArthur says, “the end matters.”

I encountered Amillennial theology for the first time through a Christian apologetics podcast called The Narrow Mind that is based in Temecula, California. Now, here, I am not referring to the hokey and radical version of Amillennialism that is associated with arbitrary metaphorical spiritualization of the scriptures, replacement theology, and a heretical version of Hyper Preterism. As I said before, I am referring to the Orthodox kind of Preterist Amillennial theology that can be found throughout church history, that affirms the return of Christ, the future corporeal resurrection and judgment, and that believes that the thousand year reign of Christ found in Revelation 20 is a symbolic passage that describes what many refer to as the “Church age.” In other words, if you are reading this, please don’t think that I’m diving off the deep end.

I was intrigued by this other perspective, mainly because the bits of it I heard seemed to make sense given certain statements in scripture, such as the “this generation” statements or the numerous statements that certain eschatological events must happen “soon.” I was also intrigued by the Amillennial position in light of passages in scripture that seemed to teach that certain apocalyptic-sounding prophecies were actually fulfilled in the time near the inception of the New Testament. Having heard the Premillennial interpretations of these passages (from various teachers, the MacArthur Study Bible, and MacArthur himself), I began to look for an Amillennial perspective. Enter Last Days Madness.

Last Days Madness presents what I find to be a thoroughly convincing case for the Amillennial position on many of the contested issues of eschatology. To name a few, these issues include the time texts found in the gospels, the destruction of the temple, the timing of the authorship of the book of Revelation, the “Abomination of Desolation,” the tribulation, the signs of the tribulation, “this generation,” the intense judgment imagery found in the Old and New Testament, the rapture, the beast, the mark of the beast, the “Man of Lawlessness,” Daniel’s 70 weeks, and Jesus’ fig tree parables. The main reason I thought the case was convincing? Scripture. The whole book is chock-full of scripture references, and scripture exegesis. Never once did his presentations seem hokey or questionable, and I can’t think of a single time that DeMar didn’t make an interpretive claim without thoroughly demonstrating how that claim is founded on the scriptures. At some parts, I was simply amazed at the amount of meaning that can be unlocked from passages in the scriptures by traditional exegesis and comparing one text to another. This was especially true in the sections of the book that compared Old Testament texts with Jesus’ words in the gospels. Let me give just one example:

In a discussion of Jesus’ coming in judgment, DeMar demonstrates how God “comes in judgment” numerous times throughout the Old Testament without actually physically returning each time. When the Old Testament scriptures discuss God’s coming in judgment to various nations (Israel included), intense imagery is used. This imagery is mimicked precisely in the Olivet discourse. DeMar argues that while this imagery initially sounds to us like the very universe is being destroyed, it is really an extended reference to the intense judgment that occurred on individual nations when God would come upon a nation destroy it, and the Jews would have recognized it as such. Yes, understanding these comparisons and others that go along with them did convince me that when Jesus then says “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse, He means that these judgments will come upon Jerusalem in “that generation.”

BUT, it surprised me how much understanding the Olivet Discourse and Old Testament judgment imagery better helped to reveal Jesus more fully. Jesus is revealing Himself to everyone within earshot as being an almighty ruler and judge, who comes on the “clouds” of judgment evoked so often in reference to the Yahweh of the law and the prophets. Knowing that Jesus is the judge is one thing…seeing how He Himself applied His role to the very city of Jerusalem is quite another. Congruently, I used to think of the book of Revelation as a revelation of the apocalypse. I now see it as a capstone for the scriptures that is the final revelation of the nature of Jesus Christ and His glorious roles as prophet, priest, and king, the firstborn of creation. I used to think so much of the apocalyptic language in the New Testament was focused on Israel. In part because of Last Day’s Madness, now I see it as being focused on revealing Christ.

Each chapter of Last Days Madness is followed by a hefty list of citations that reference the materials DeMar utilizes. In addition to handling scripture well, DeMar has done his research. It is clear from the first page onward that he is well-acquainted with a wide variety of Premillennial positions, especially the radical ones that he critiques so often in this book. Works by Amillennial authors are also discussed, along with textual critics and commentators from all parts of the spectrum.

The only drawback for me was that I didn’t pick up this book to learn about how wrong Hal Lindsey was, and, although I found DeMar’s critiques of what he calls “last days madness” interesting, there is just so much of it to get through! He seems to bring up over and over again one radical author after another who thought the world was going to end in 1970, and then1980, and then 1990, and then the year 2000. Then, each time, he spends pages explaining in detail how they were wrong. This is fine if you find yourself constantly needing to respond to these ideas. I do not find myself in this boat, so all of this information was a little superfluous to me. However, I got through this book with a little bit of determination because the Biblical material is worth the battle.

All in all, I think that Last Days Madness is a good investment of money and time. DeMar’s prose is easy to read and his content clear. This book is by no means an exhaustive proof for Amillennialism. After all, that isn’t DeMar’s goal. However, it is a competent and Orthodox examination of many of the issues contested by Amillennialists and Premillennialists. I would recommend it in this capacity for both sides of the eschatological camp. Even if one were to not read it cover to cover, reading just a crucial chapter here and there can make a big difference in one’s understanding of the Amillennial position and responses thereof to “last days madness.” Personally, I think even if I didn’t plan on reading all of it I would buy the book just for this reason.

I think it’s important to understand multiple viewpoints in order to be a well-informed and well-rounded believer. I would especially recommend checking out the Amillennial position in some way if you are of the opinion that, as one famous theologian said, “every self-respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist.” So, if you don’t know much about Amillennialism, or if you are just waiting for the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem to signify that Christ will come back, maybe this is the book for you. This is one of the many good resources that are available on this subject. I don’t fully agree with DeMar’s position on everything, but of course we as Christians should exercise discernment whenever we read a Christian author.

To close, here is the end of Last Days Madness:

The Bible is a record of the reality of God acting in history. God destroyed all those nations that sought to build kingdoms that competed with His kingdom—from Babylon to Rome. God has set up His kingdom and it “will never be destroyed”; it will crush and put an end to all rival kingdoms, “but it will itself endure forever” (Dan. 2:45). Iraq, Russia, and Europe may raise their fists in rebellion against God, but God, as He has done in the past, will slap them down. One day they will all worship at His feet. “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25).

Three Reviews to Come...

2009-09-23T15:17:00.002-07:00

In the past I have written three written reviews of Christian works: Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar, a review of six articles by Greg Bahnsen, and Words to Winners of Souls by Horatius Bonar. Starting next week, I'll be releasing these once a week. Please take a look: the first two works are little-known, but I believe very valuable! The Bonar review is another perspective on this famous work that some might find useful.

salvation from our enemies (the Promised Land and the Abrahamic Covenant, part II).

2009-09-22T20:40:00.004-07:00

Genesis 22:16-18 "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not witheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall posess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

Upon first glance, who might one assume were the enemies of the Hebrews? Historically, perhaps many of the nations that Israel fought, recorded in the law and the prophets, perhaps the Babylonians, or the Romans.

But when answering this question, we must stress the importance of this question: if the enemies of God's people (and therefore, God), were truly evil nations, how is it that these nations were such a concern to God, the sovereign creator of all men, that they would become a defining part of the very covenant of the promised Messiah? And, more importantly, how is it that all these enemies throughout time were vanquished in the first coming of Jesus?

In Luke 1:67-75, the prophecy of Zecharias concerning the arrival of the Messiah on earth is recorded:
"And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prephesied, saying:
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of David His servant,
And He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old,
Salvation from our enemies,
And from the hand of all who hate us;
To show mercy towards our fathers,
And to remember His holy covenant,
The oath which He swore to Abraham
our father,
To grant us that we, being rescued from
the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before
Him all our days."

As Zecharias repeats the genesis prophecy clearly, every aspect of the Abrahamic covenant is seen as fulfilled in the coming of Christ, who brought righteousness and peace to all His people, though not as many of the Jews expected. As Paul says in Ephesians 6:12, amidst the context of the doing away with the old external ways of the Jews: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the word forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

And as for the promise originally recorded in Genesis when God spoke to Abraham, what enemies were in view when the covenant was established? Is Rome mentioned in the book of Genesis? Is there unrest between Abraham and any of the nations? The only battle recorded for us at this time was between Abraham and Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, out of which Abraham emerged a sure victor, not to be challenged again.

In fact, the sole possible enmity in view that God promises victory from is that between the serpent (identified as at least being embodied by Satan by John in the book of Revelation) and his offspring, and the woman and her offspring, namely, God's people, and Christ, in the protoevangelium of Genesis chapter 3.

...whose architect and builder is God (the Promised Land and the Abrahamic Covenant, part I).

2009-09-22T20:15:00.004-07:00

Hebrews 11:8-10, NASB: "By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God."

Abraham lived in the land of Caanan for most of his long life, and yet he never settled there. He remained nomadic namely because he was looking for a spiritual dwelling in God's house, membership in a kingdom that "cannot be shaken" (Hebrews 12:25-29). The Abrahamic covenant focuses on the genealogical transmission through God's people of one person, the messiah, Jesus Christ (Galations 3). God promised that all the families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham's seed, singular, that is, a singular ancestor. Abraham died, still faithful to God's promise, without ever seeing fulfillment of God's promises in Christ. How much more should we be looking toward the heavenly realities that are ours, now that Christ is fully revealed? Our hope is in Him and His kingdom (which is not of this world, Mark 4, Mark 9, Luke 1:33, explicitly, John 18:36).
In contrast, what are earthly things, inheritances of land from fulfilled promises, and mere buildings? Genesis is a story about origins, of families, of sin, of God's judgement, of His promises, of nations, and in explaining the origins, it reveals their meaning. The first piece of real estate that the Hebrews ever had rights to in the land of Caanan wasn't farmland, or houses, or a city: it was a small plot of land reserved for the dead, a tomb, purchased by Abraham, not given by God.

Welcome

2009-09-22T20:08:00.001-07:00

Welcome to my blog!

This blog is dedicated to doctrines of Reformed Christian Theology, the Doctrines of Grace, Eschatology, Apologetics, and occasionally to other stuff.
It is meant as a platform to start dicussions and for me to voice my experiences and observations in the realm of Christendom.