"And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16).
When Paul pronounces peace and mercy upon the "Israel of God" to whom is he referring? The answer will differ on who you ask. For some (namely the dispensationalist) the answer depends on the translation of "καὶ" (and). They who maintain that God has two people (Israel and the Church) believe that the normal translation of "καὶ" is "and" and therefore should be translated the same here. Furthermore, it is argued everytime time Israel is mentioned in the Bible it always refers to ethnic Israel. These two concepts combined they argue, lead one to understand that Paul has two groups in mind-the believing Galatians (the "them") and believing Jews (the "Israel of God"). The Bible Knowledge Commentary (a dispensational commentary out of Dallas Theological Seminary) says this: "...all the 65 other occurrences of the term "Israel" in the New Testament refer to Jews. It would thus be strange for Paul to use "Israel" here to mean Gentile Christians. Third, Paul elsewhere referred to two kinds of Israelites—believing Jews and unbelieving Jews (cf. Rom. 9:6). Lest it be thought that Paul is anti-Semitic, he demonstrated by means of this benediction his deep love and concern for true Israel, that is, Jews who had come to Christ."
For the dispensationalist, this "two group" interpretation must hold or their whole hermeneutical and theological structure will crumble. The absolute sharp distinction between national Israel and the Church must be maintained. Charles Ryrie says this: "the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity." I mention this because, they are not going to like this, I believe they are bringing their own playing cards to the game. In other words they have a theological agenda that they absolutely must defend or their system collapses. They are reading back into the text their already and essential preconceived ideas. I say all this as a former dispensationalist. I often struggled with their interpretation of Gal. 6:16. A simple survey of church history and commentaries doesn't favor their view. In fact you will be hard pressed to find any commentary that holds to their understanding of this verse. I'm sure there are some out there but they are, by far, in the minority. This is partly what leads me to believe they are reading back into the text what is not there.Of course they would object that their exegesis is the correct one.
I concede that "καὶ" is often translated "and" in the N.T. but it can also mean "and also," "even," "likewise," "nevertheless," "but" and so on. The usage of "καὶ" has a variety of translation depending on the context. This is where I believe the dispensationalist falls into trouble. The whole context of Galatians is about justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. Paul's main concern seems to be proclaiming and defending how sinners stand right with God (justification) and identifying the true offspring of Abraham ( Christ and all united to him by faith). See Gal. 3:16-29 where there is no ethnic or national distinctions (3:28). It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for Paul to turn around and completely undo, as well as contradict, what he said previously (3:28) and divide up the offspring of Abraham by nationality, if he indeed meant what dispensationalists say in Gal. 6:16- that is that peace and mercy be upon the believing Galatians and believing Jew. Two different groups? The context just doesn't allow for that.
So then what of this "καὶ" (and)? Well in light of the context (see above paragraph) is seems best and most reasonable to take it the way it has been understood for the large majority of church history and commentaries. That is explicative and epexegetical- further explaining who the "upon them" are that are walking by "this rule." It seems fairly simple that Paul is saying that all who are trusting in Christ and Him alone for their acceptance with God and are a new creation, to them and them alone be peace and mercy; they are the "Israel of God." I remind you that this is the most common understanding to the verse in the consensus of commentaries.
William Hendricksen writes this,"As to the former, Gal. 6:16 must be interpreted in accordance with its own specific context and in the light of the entire argument of this particular epistle. And as to the latter, it is very clear that in his epistles the apostle employs the term Israel In more than one sense. In fact, in the small compass of a single verse (Rom. 9:6) he uses it in two different senses. Each passage in which that term occurs must therefore be explained in the light of its context. Besides, Paul uses the term "the Israel of God" only in the present passage, nowhere else.What, then, is the solution? In harmony with all of Paul’s teaching in this epistle (and see also Eph. 2:14–22), and also in harmony with the broad, all-inclusive statement at the beginning of the present passage, where the apostle pronounces God’s blessing of peace and mercy upon "as many as" shall walk by this rule, an object from which nothing can be subtracted and to which nothing can be added, it is my firm belief that those many translators and interpreters are right who have decided that kai, as here used, must be rendered even, or (with equal effect) must be left untranslated. Hence, what the apostle says is this: "And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God." Cf. Ps. 125:5. Upon all of God’s true Israel, Jew or Gentile, all who truly glory in the cross, the blessing is pronounced" (Baker New Testament Commentary: Galatians).
My conclusion is that in light of the context of Galatians and what Paul says elsewhere (Ro. 2:28-29, Eph. 2:11:22,Eph. 4:1-6, Col. 3:1-17 namely v. 11) it is most appropriate to understand that all, from Adam until the second coming of Christ, who place their faith in Christ and Him alone for their right standing with God, make up the "Israel of God." Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
He Who Is Forgiven Much Loves Much
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47)
It is no wonder why Paul spent three chapters (and 5:12-21) confining all man under sin and condemnation. I believe part of the reason is if you do not understand your sinfulness and that you deserve God's righteous wrath, you will never see your need for Christ the Savior. And if you don't understand His work as Savior then you won't love Him much, if at all. There are lots of folks that think of Jesus more like a Ghandi type figure than they do as our saving Lord. Sadly, because people fail to grasp their own sinfulness (both on account of Adam and their own personal sins) they fail to love, worship and praise Christ for who He is. I believe precisely what the Lord says in Luke 7:47 applies to much of contemporary Christianity (or at least for what passes for Christianity). People love Him little because they minimize their condition apart from Him. They tend to see themselves as a sick person in need of a little help rather than a dead person in need of life; as a sick person that has "mistakes," "shortcomings," "failures" and "faults," and when you minimize sin like that the logical outcome is that you're really forgiven little.
Romans 5:12-21 makes it clear that we all are accountable for that sin in the garden, yet we also commit personal sins that are abhorrent and direct rebellion to an absolute holy God and deserving of His just wrath and punishment. When I look at my past I recoil at the sins I committed. They are disgusting and vile to the natural human understanding and even much more to a perfectly righteous God. Amazingly, those sins and the future sins I will commit are forgiven because of Christ; I am clothed in His perfect righteousness because He kept the Law perfectly for sinners and died a death we deserve. He alone was and is the worthy and spotless Lamb of God that absorbed the righteous wrath of the Father due to unholy sinners. This is why countless believers have died martyrs deaths and fought many battles for their King. Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliff, Huss,Tyndale, Luther, Calvin and the list can go on and on. These men understood that they were forgiven much, therefore, they loved Christ much because He is the reason we are forgiven and freed from our bondage to sin. A failure to understand that all humans are born sinners, separated from God, His enemies and under His judgment will lead to a false view of salvation, a different Jesus and a mockery of the cross. A person will not love Christ much, if they don't see how bad off they are without Him.
Our actions and not just our emotions will demonstrate if we do understand that we have been forgiven much. This I believe is why the womans actions towards the Lord are recorded for us. Look at what the text says about this forgiven sinner, "And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment" ( Luke 7:37-38). That's right this blatant well known sinful woman got it! She was a sinner- she knew it, the Pharisee knew it and Jesus knew it; her devotion to Christ, poured out in her actions, vouches that she indeed understood she was a sinner in need of much forgiveness that only Jesus could give. She didn't love Christ because He set a good moral example for her (even though he did that as well) but as Jesus said, "Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little”(Lk 7:47).
There is an awful lot of chatter these days about how people love Jesus. What's lacking is the demonstration of it. I don't doubt for a second that people can get emotional about Christ. I know that I can. Many pastors say that hell is the most difficult topic they've preached on, but for me it's the Gospel that is the most difficult. I get choked up when I preach about Christ and what He accomplished for sinners. But love is not just about our emotions and sentiments. It involves our actions. Imagine for a minute that a man says he loves his wife and gets "butterflies" in his stomach when he thinks about her. Now imagine this same man sits idly by when his wife is verbally assaulted. Still think that he loves her much? Why then when the Gospel of Christ is altered and tampered with, the silence from contemporary Christianity is so loud? And why is it when these Christians do speak up they go after the ones loving their Savior much by defending His name? I think it goes back to what I said at the beginning. Calvin said it best: "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." We love our Master so much that we are willing to take the gloves off and defend His name (not that He needs us but that He decreed to use us) when He is attacked. True love demands it!
We echo with Paul, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me"(Ga 2:20). Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
It is no wonder why Paul spent three chapters (and 5:12-21) confining all man under sin and condemnation. I believe part of the reason is if you do not understand your sinfulness and that you deserve God's righteous wrath, you will never see your need for Christ the Savior. And if you don't understand His work as Savior then you won't love Him much, if at all. There are lots of folks that think of Jesus more like a Ghandi type figure than they do as our saving Lord. Sadly, because people fail to grasp their own sinfulness (both on account of Adam and their own personal sins) they fail to love, worship and praise Christ for who He is. I believe precisely what the Lord says in Luke 7:47 applies to much of contemporary Christianity (or at least for what passes for Christianity). People love Him little because they minimize their condition apart from Him. They tend to see themselves as a sick person in need of a little help rather than a dead person in need of life; as a sick person that has "mistakes," "shortcomings," "failures" and "faults," and when you minimize sin like that the logical outcome is that you're really forgiven little.
Romans 5:12-21 makes it clear that we all are accountable for that sin in the garden, yet we also commit personal sins that are abhorrent and direct rebellion to an absolute holy God and deserving of His just wrath and punishment. When I look at my past I recoil at the sins I committed. They are disgusting and vile to the natural human understanding and even much more to a perfectly righteous God. Amazingly, those sins and the future sins I will commit are forgiven because of Christ; I am clothed in His perfect righteousness because He kept the Law perfectly for sinners and died a death we deserve. He alone was and is the worthy and spotless Lamb of God that absorbed the righteous wrath of the Father due to unholy sinners. This is why countless believers have died martyrs deaths and fought many battles for their King. Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliff, Huss,Tyndale, Luther, Calvin and the list can go on and on. These men understood that they were forgiven much, therefore, they loved Christ much because He is the reason we are forgiven and freed from our bondage to sin. A failure to understand that all humans are born sinners, separated from God, His enemies and under His judgment will lead to a false view of salvation, a different Jesus and a mockery of the cross. A person will not love Christ much, if they don't see how bad off they are without Him.
Our actions and not just our emotions will demonstrate if we do understand that we have been forgiven much. This I believe is why the womans actions towards the Lord are recorded for us. Look at what the text says about this forgiven sinner, "And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment" ( Luke 7:37-38). That's right this blatant well known sinful woman got it! She was a sinner- she knew it, the Pharisee knew it and Jesus knew it; her devotion to Christ, poured out in her actions, vouches that she indeed understood she was a sinner in need of much forgiveness that only Jesus could give. She didn't love Christ because He set a good moral example for her (even though he did that as well) but as Jesus said, "Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little”(Lk 7:47).
There is an awful lot of chatter these days about how people love Jesus. What's lacking is the demonstration of it. I don't doubt for a second that people can get emotional about Christ. I know that I can. Many pastors say that hell is the most difficult topic they've preached on, but for me it's the Gospel that is the most difficult. I get choked up when I preach about Christ and what He accomplished for sinners. But love is not just about our emotions and sentiments. It involves our actions. Imagine for a minute that a man says he loves his wife and gets "butterflies" in his stomach when he thinks about her. Now imagine this same man sits idly by when his wife is verbally assaulted. Still think that he loves her much? Why then when the Gospel of Christ is altered and tampered with, the silence from contemporary Christianity is so loud? And why is it when these Christians do speak up they go after the ones loving their Savior much by defending His name? I think it goes back to what I said at the beginning. Calvin said it best: "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." We love our Master so much that we are willing to take the gloves off and defend His name (not that He needs us but that He decreed to use us) when He is attacked. True love demands it!
We echo with Paul, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me"(Ga 2:20). Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Putting Obstacles In The Way Of The Gospel
"If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ" (1 Co 9:12).
Let's start off by saying that this verse pertains to Paul's giving up his rights to material gain from fellow believers he ministered to by him. This was done to prevent any accusations of greed. The Apostle did not want anyone to reject Christ by mistaking his right to receive material benefits from fellow believers for a "prosperity" preacher. His concern was the the fruitfulness of the Gospel- it's proclamation and its power to reconcile and deliver: "I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings" (1 Co 9:23). Did you catch that? He was willing to give up his rights to advance the Gospel. Oh that we would learn from such godly men!
Sometimes I think that we can so divisive and and bitter about certain issues that we become the obstacle in the way of the Gospel. For example take the Baptist vs Paedobaptist, Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism, Amillennialism vs. Premillennialism vs. Postmillennialism and 2K Vs. Theonomy issues. These can get so heated and divisive that opposing camps are too busy flinging mud at one another, they lose sight of the fact they're flinging mud at each other from the same foundation (Christ)! There is, at times, very little fellowship between these groups. We treat the other theological camp as if they have "cooties." We can get so caught up arguing our points and winning arguments that we forget we are united on the Gospel. Meanwhile, un-believers observe this behavior and wonder, "what Sam's name is going on here? I thought I heard a sermon where Christians are supposed to be known by their love for another (John 13:35)." We unknowingly create an obstacle in the way of the Gospel by over aggressively bickering back and forth on secondary issues. Remember all will know we belong to Christ, not by our theological astuteness, but as Christ said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). I know, I know, this talk about brotherly love can make some Calvinists, especially the "cage stagers" and hyper Calvinists, extremely uncomfortable. Get over it, it's biblical.
Now that I've gotten the "mushy" stuff out of the way, I do understand that those secondary issues are very important. They are worth arguing passionately over. Just not dividing over and definitely not creating obstacles in the way of the Gospel by slandering and pouncing one another. I believe polemics (aggressively attacking and refuting the beliefs and opinions of others) are absolutely necessary to Christianity. The Holy Scriptures are polemical. In fact most of my teaching includes the use of polemics. However, I agree with Paul Jewett when he writes, "Polemical theology that would serve a good purpose must be irenic, not divisive." In other words it's okay to debate and argue our positions with those that disagree with us on secondary issues. Even loudly and and heatedly but we must remember the goal of the discussion is truth and unity in the Gospel. Recently I had a seven or eight hour debate with a fellow brother and friend over philosophy and minor theological issues. The discussion was very loud, heated and passionate. But we maintained our fellowship and friendship. A few weeks later went over to his house and will be taking a trip with him and his wife. Let me reiterate that it is okay and even necessary to discuss passionately about these other issues. If they are in the Word of God, they matter significantly!
However, far too often in these arguments we lose sight of the goal and winning the argument becomes about us, with a bitterness and even hatred that springs up for fellow Christians who disagree; therefore creating an obstacle in the way of the Gospel for the unbelievers that are on the outside looking in. Maybe I'm overstating my case a bit (care to argue about it? :-)) but one thing I know for certain and it is what Scripture says, "Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation" (1 Pe 2:10–12) and "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor" (1 Pe 2:17). Let's not be a cause for the hindrance of Gospel by mistreating and failing to love one another. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ" (1 Co 9:12).
Let's start off by saying that this verse pertains to Paul's giving up his rights to material gain from fellow believers he ministered to by him. This was done to prevent any accusations of greed. The Apostle did not want anyone to reject Christ by mistaking his right to receive material benefits from fellow believers for a "prosperity" preacher. His concern was the the fruitfulness of the Gospel- it's proclamation and its power to reconcile and deliver: "I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings" (1 Co 9:23). Did you catch that? He was willing to give up his rights to advance the Gospel. Oh that we would learn from such godly men!
Sometimes I think that we can so divisive and and bitter about certain issues that we become the obstacle in the way of the Gospel. For example take the Baptist vs Paedobaptist, Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism, Amillennialism vs. Premillennialism vs. Postmillennialism and 2K Vs. Theonomy issues. These can get so heated and divisive that opposing camps are too busy flinging mud at one another, they lose sight of the fact they're flinging mud at each other from the same foundation (Christ)! There is, at times, very little fellowship between these groups. We treat the other theological camp as if they have "cooties." We can get so caught up arguing our points and winning arguments that we forget we are united on the Gospel. Meanwhile, un-believers observe this behavior and wonder, "what Sam's name is going on here? I thought I heard a sermon where Christians are supposed to be known by their love for another (John 13:35)." We unknowingly create an obstacle in the way of the Gospel by over aggressively bickering back and forth on secondary issues. Remember all will know we belong to Christ, not by our theological astuteness, but as Christ said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). I know, I know, this talk about brotherly love can make some Calvinists, especially the "cage stagers" and hyper Calvinists, extremely uncomfortable. Get over it, it's biblical.
Now that I've gotten the "mushy" stuff out of the way, I do understand that those secondary issues are very important. They are worth arguing passionately over. Just not dividing over and definitely not creating obstacles in the way of the Gospel by slandering and pouncing one another. I believe polemics (aggressively attacking and refuting the beliefs and opinions of others) are absolutely necessary to Christianity. The Holy Scriptures are polemical. In fact most of my teaching includes the use of polemics. However, I agree with Paul Jewett when he writes, "Polemical theology that would serve a good purpose must be irenic, not divisive." In other words it's okay to debate and argue our positions with those that disagree with us on secondary issues. Even loudly and and heatedly but we must remember the goal of the discussion is truth and unity in the Gospel. Recently I had a seven or eight hour debate with a fellow brother and friend over philosophy and minor theological issues. The discussion was very loud, heated and passionate. But we maintained our fellowship and friendship. A few weeks later went over to his house and will be taking a trip with him and his wife. Let me reiterate that it is okay and even necessary to discuss passionately about these other issues. If they are in the Word of God, they matter significantly!
However, far too often in these arguments we lose sight of the goal and winning the argument becomes about us, with a bitterness and even hatred that springs up for fellow Christians who disagree; therefore creating an obstacle in the way of the Gospel for the unbelievers that are on the outside looking in. Maybe I'm overstating my case a bit (care to argue about it? :-)) but one thing I know for certain and it is what Scripture says, "Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation" (1 Pe 2:10–12) and "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor" (1 Pe 2:17). Let's not be a cause for the hindrance of Gospel by mistreating and failing to love one another. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Monday, March 28, 2011
Why Are You On Facebook?
"Why are you on Facebook?" I get asked that from time to time. Sometimes it's, "Why are you on Facebook so much?" Typically this question is posed in a condescending way and to which I am tempted to respond, "Are you going to have a theological conversation with me?" Let's face it it is very difficult to have a nice biblical theological conversation with the average believer these days. Now if we were in the times of the Reformers and Puritans I would bet my house that when they gathered for socialization it was centered on fellowship in Christ, which would mean that the primacy of their conversation was centered on biblical truths. That kind of chit-chat is not easy to come by anymore. I struggle to find believers that are not only willing to discuss theology but also love it. In comes Facebook.
Now let me say that Facebook cannot replace the fellowship of the local church, which is a biblical mandate. Nor does it mean that it can replace private bible reading and prayer. Finally, Facebook should not consume the majority of your time. God and family have priority. We also need to remember that Facebook can be a playground for false teachers looking to find naive Christians. I watched (tried to help) as a young person learning the things of God started off on the right track but got connected with a false teacher and ended up denying the Triune God (this person I believe also did not attend a local church). Young and naive (I know no one likes to see themselves as naive so unlearned will suffice) Christians and those seeking to know biblical truth should not use (nor should anyone else) Facebook as there primary means of learning and studying. Better to seek the council of your pastor and elders who will answer your questions or direct you to sound resources that may help. Any questionable teaching should be brought before church leadership to be looked over or a trustworthy and learned fellow believer. Wives should run it by their husbands.
Now when Paul writes, "Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,making the best use of the time, because the days are evil" (Eph 5:15–16). I do believe that Facebook can fall into redeeming the time. How so one may ask? Paul was a preacher of the Gospel. The proclamation of Christ crucified and risen consumed his time. He hated to waste any second that could be spent preaching the Gospel to sinners and time that could be used being built up and building up fellow saints. He wanted to make the most of every moment for the glory of Christ. He did much traveling in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. We have been given an opportunity to share this same Gospel with friends and family, that we have as Facebook friends, from our own home! Some of these people we cannot preach Christ face to face because they will not allow it. They throw up a defensive wall and are quick to change the subject and may even get hostile at the mention of any "religion." Yet, they will read a post on our wall that testifies to the person and work of our Savior. At the very least it is a seed planted and by the grace, mercy and power of God may be the means by which the Spirit draws someone. Facebook is a place where we can freely evengelize the lost. Of course this does not replace sharing the Gospel on a personal face to face level. Yet, it can still be used to redeem the time.
Facebook is also a great place to have good and healthy theological chats. You can share, learn, be edified and challenged in your own theological positions. Numerous of times I have read posts and links to articles that have helped me further in my own studies. In fact one post from Lane Chaplin, quoting from Calvin, on how faith must come be before repentance "logically" caused me to re-think my position that repentance comes "logically" before faith. I was pretty dogmatic about it before, not so much now. We all agree that they are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. My point is that my position was challenged and I studied further and learned. I was edified. At the same time it can be a place where I share with others. I know quite a few folks that have a misconception or no knowledge whatsoever about Reformed Baptists and what we believe and I have been provided the platform to share. Facebook can be a good thing.
So when people ask me "Why are you on Facebook (so much)?" The answer is because I want to share what I have learned about Christ and I want others share what they have learned about Him. Just trying to redeem the time. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Now let me say that Facebook cannot replace the fellowship of the local church, which is a biblical mandate. Nor does it mean that it can replace private bible reading and prayer. Finally, Facebook should not consume the majority of your time. God and family have priority. We also need to remember that Facebook can be a playground for false teachers looking to find naive Christians. I watched (tried to help) as a young person learning the things of God started off on the right track but got connected with a false teacher and ended up denying the Triune God (this person I believe also did not attend a local church). Young and naive (I know no one likes to see themselves as naive so unlearned will suffice) Christians and those seeking to know biblical truth should not use (nor should anyone else) Facebook as there primary means of learning and studying. Better to seek the council of your pastor and elders who will answer your questions or direct you to sound resources that may help. Any questionable teaching should be brought before church leadership to be looked over or a trustworthy and learned fellow believer. Wives should run it by their husbands.
Now when Paul writes, "Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,making the best use of the time, because the days are evil" (Eph 5:15–16). I do believe that Facebook can fall into redeeming the time. How so one may ask? Paul was a preacher of the Gospel. The proclamation of Christ crucified and risen consumed his time. He hated to waste any second that could be spent preaching the Gospel to sinners and time that could be used being built up and building up fellow saints. He wanted to make the most of every moment for the glory of Christ. He did much traveling in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. We have been given an opportunity to share this same Gospel with friends and family, that we have as Facebook friends, from our own home! Some of these people we cannot preach Christ face to face because they will not allow it. They throw up a defensive wall and are quick to change the subject and may even get hostile at the mention of any "religion." Yet, they will read a post on our wall that testifies to the person and work of our Savior. At the very least it is a seed planted and by the grace, mercy and power of God may be the means by which the Spirit draws someone. Facebook is a place where we can freely evengelize the lost. Of course this does not replace sharing the Gospel on a personal face to face level. Yet, it can still be used to redeem the time.
Facebook is also a great place to have good and healthy theological chats. You can share, learn, be edified and challenged in your own theological positions. Numerous of times I have read posts and links to articles that have helped me further in my own studies. In fact one post from Lane Chaplin, quoting from Calvin, on how faith must come be before repentance "logically" caused me to re-think my position that repentance comes "logically" before faith. I was pretty dogmatic about it before, not so much now. We all agree that they are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. My point is that my position was challenged and I studied further and learned. I was edified. At the same time it can be a place where I share with others. I know quite a few folks that have a misconception or no knowledge whatsoever about Reformed Baptists and what we believe and I have been provided the platform to share. Facebook can be a good thing.
So when people ask me "Why are you on Facebook (so much)?" The answer is because I want to share what I have learned about Christ and I want others share what they have learned about Him. Just trying to redeem the time. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Do we start with God or with man?
From where do you draw your conclusions about God? Do we parrot what we hear a well know preacher say or do we draw our conclusions about who God is and what He is like from where God hath revealed Himself? See- Christianity is a religion of the heart. Thus, all that we believe about God ought to be believed. Not "believed" as giving intellectual assent. But "believed" as these truths ought to dwell in our hearts with a reliance upon God that this IS who He says He is. And from where do we draw these conclusions? From Holy writ. Surely many would say "we agree". But ask yourself- what you believe about God today, about who He is, what He is like, from whence do you draw this from? Have you read it for yourself ? When we sing that God is "Holy, Holy, Holy". Do we know what that means? Have we seen it in scripture? Have we experienced it in our own lives? So much of our Christianity is drawn from Christian t-shirts, slogans, rock bands. And it shouldn't be. Theology matters folks. And you are a theologian. Sure, we might not be great theologians, but we all have ideas about who God is and who He is not. But ask yourself, are these ideas true? This brings me to the heart of the matter.. do we start with God or do we distort the truth to make it accommodating. Accommodating to whom? Well, to you and others. See, what we believe about God will dictate how we live. It will affect how we do worship, how we treat others, what daily things we partake of or do not. Further, it will effect your gospel presentation. When presenting the gospel- do we distort it to be about some poor victim who has been mistreated by society and needs behavioral reform? My friends, that is NOT the gospel. Sure, it'll few the pews. But Moralism is not the gospel. But this is exactly what liberals tell us. That Christ did not die to satisfy the wrath of God for sins, but His death was due to his constant social activism for the poor! O' the heresy! While listening to a debate yesterday. I heard an atheist say that the New Testament is evil because it presents an idea of eternal punishment for those whom are sinners (amazing how an atheist sees hell in the New Testament but Rob Bell lives denying this very truth).
The atheist continued by saying that no evil any human does is worthy of eternal punishment. That this is injustice! He said: " The bible teaches the concept of original sin, how is it then that God can fault us for sin that is inherited?" Seems like a good point, no? That is if you start with man. But if you start with God and with ALL of scripture, it is very different: God is HOLY. And this self-existent, self-sufficient being, decided to create humans. He did this out of love, there was no need for Him to create anyone nor anything (God by definition is self-sufficient). And all throughout the human race- men have rebelled against this holy God. We have broken His law. And what does He do? He provides one who has kept His law for us to believe in. One who died at the hands of sinful men to appease His wrath. And what do men do? They scoff at this message. They reject His son. As a matter of fact- If men could, they would storm the gates of heaven, break through, and attempt to over throw God Himself. This is the biblical presentation. This is the God centered Gospel! And there is no other. So, who do you start with? God or man?
1st Corinthians 1:18
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
In Christ, Awretchsaved
Friday, March 25, 2011
Why I love My Paedobaptist Brethren
Let's face it, throughout the history of the Church, when the Gospel has been attacked, it has been our infant baptizing brothers that have been at the forefront of the battle (that is not to say our Baptist brethren have remained silent). They took up the sword of the Spirit and went to battle. And we have all their theological writings as evidence of their love for Christ and His Word. It is from these writings (there are always objectors that mumble "you should be more concerned with Scripture to which I respond "what do you think they're writing about?") that I have grown tremendously in Christ. While in prison (where the Lord converted me) I studied the Bible at length for three years. I was well versed in Scripture but I just didn't understand how everything came together, how it all related. Once released I went to Bible college where I was ingrained in Dispensationalism and confused even more. After leaving I picked up R.C. Sproul's "What is Reformed Theology" and reading it in almost one sitting thinking to myself "brilliant!" After being told that covenant theologians had cooties I thought, "well then this is the kind of cooties I want!" Finally, the Scriptures as a whole were starting to make sense.
Our Paedobaptist brothers have left a legacy of Christ honoring writings. And I am indebted to them for helping me grow. After reading Sproul I bought all sorts of books by Paedobaptists- Michael Horton, John Owen, Edward Fisher, Sinclair Ferguson, James Boice, Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, Kim Riddlbarger, J.I. Packer e.t.c.. While not agreeing with everything they believe, I learned a tremendous amount from them. Perhaps, though, what stands out is not only their proclamation of Christ but the defense of Him as well! Again, look at all the major church battles against heresies and it is our infant baptizing brothers that won those battles (only by the grace and power of God).
Now because I stand Credo I guess some Baptists think I'm supposed to detest Paedobaptists. Honestly, even though I don't hold their view of baptism, I have more in common with them than I do with modern day Baptists. The track record isn't so good for mainstream Baptists (please distinguish between mainstream Baptists and Reformed or Covenantal, for those that don't like Reformed next to Baptist, Baptists). It is filled with Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism (don't know what those mean? Google them) and partly responsible for tons of false converts with its walk the aisle, pray a prayer form of evangelism. In all good conscience I cannot stand shoulder to shoulder on the front line of our spiritual battle with those that compromise the Gospel. But I can stand side by side with the likes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Casper Oilvianus, Zacharius Ursinus, the Westminster Divines, John Owen e.t.c.
If you're a Baptist and misrepresent and anathematize our infant baptizing brothers, remember the Reformers. If God had not raised them up, you would still be bowing to the Pope! There is nothing as frustrating as a Baptist that rants against Paedobaptists while being ignorant of Church history. Read their writings and be challenged and edified. Educate yourself and learn what they believe and why they believe it, concerning infant baptism. Who knows you may still disagree with them on baptism but love their writings and end up with a library that consists of 80 percent of Paedobaptist writings. They have all the battle scars and wounds from the front lines of theological battle. They deserve our love and respect.
As for me, I'll take a Dr. Michael Horton's systematic theology over a Dr. Norman Geisler's systematic theology any day... any day."Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor" and "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart" (Ro. 12:10 and 1 Pe. 1:22). Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Our Paedobaptist brothers have left a legacy of Christ honoring writings. And I am indebted to them for helping me grow. After reading Sproul I bought all sorts of books by Paedobaptists- Michael Horton, John Owen, Edward Fisher, Sinclair Ferguson, James Boice, Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, Kim Riddlbarger, J.I. Packer e.t.c.. While not agreeing with everything they believe, I learned a tremendous amount from them. Perhaps, though, what stands out is not only their proclamation of Christ but the defense of Him as well! Again, look at all the major church battles against heresies and it is our infant baptizing brothers that won those battles (only by the grace and power of God).
Now because I stand Credo I guess some Baptists think I'm supposed to detest Paedobaptists. Honestly, even though I don't hold their view of baptism, I have more in common with them than I do with modern day Baptists. The track record isn't so good for mainstream Baptists (please distinguish between mainstream Baptists and Reformed or Covenantal, for those that don't like Reformed next to Baptist, Baptists). It is filled with Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism (don't know what those mean? Google them) and partly responsible for tons of false converts with its walk the aisle, pray a prayer form of evangelism. In all good conscience I cannot stand shoulder to shoulder on the front line of our spiritual battle with those that compromise the Gospel. But I can stand side by side with the likes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Casper Oilvianus, Zacharius Ursinus, the Westminster Divines, John Owen e.t.c.
If you're a Baptist and misrepresent and anathematize our infant baptizing brothers, remember the Reformers. If God had not raised them up, you would still be bowing to the Pope! There is nothing as frustrating as a Baptist that rants against Paedobaptists while being ignorant of Church history. Read their writings and be challenged and edified. Educate yourself and learn what they believe and why they believe it, concerning infant baptism. Who knows you may still disagree with them on baptism but love their writings and end up with a library that consists of 80 percent of Paedobaptist writings. They have all the battle scars and wounds from the front lines of theological battle. They deserve our love and respect.
As for me, I'll take a Dr. Michael Horton's systematic theology over a Dr. Norman Geisler's systematic theology any day... any day."Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor" and "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart" (Ro. 12:10 and 1 Pe. 1:22). Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Pick Up A Theological Book!
One of the great threats to Christians is ignorance. Ask the average believer about doctrine, theology, church history and sometimes even Scripture; you will find much confusion with ignorance. I am by no means using the word ignorance in a derogatory way. I am using it in its original sense- a lack of knowledge. Nor do I want to discourage learning believers that are studying but moving along slowly and struggling with certain things. I am, however, taking a shot at the lazy believer that says, "but it's too tough!" And doesn't even try to learn.
Is it tough? It sure is. I remember the first time I sat in church and listened to the pastor teach on 1 John and build his case on an aorist verb (I'm sure he explained but I was a 24 year old young man that dropped out of school in 7th grade and only accomplished a G.E.D. education level). I remember thinking to myself, "what in the world is an aorist?" What I did know is that it was crucial to understanding the sermon so I had to ask questions and look it up. I'm so thankful that he didn't overly "dumb down" the message because it could have led me to become dependent on the pastor to grow in my study of God. That sermon was a landmark in my Christian growth. I only bring this up to show that I well understand the struggle of study. Seven years later and I still struggle reading through some theologians and Christian authors. Yet, I continue to do so because what they have to say helps me grow in Christ. I would never have come to the place I am now if it weren't for, not only pastors and bible teachers, but theological books. It is well worth the struggle.
Can you imagine if someone were to be hired at a place of employment and not seek to grow in their knowledge of the occupation? They wouldn't last long before they were to be fired. And people well understand that hence all the time and money invested in further secular education (which is not a bad thing). But when it comes to their study and growth in Christ, well, He takes a back seat to everything else except for maybe on Sunday and a short 5 minute "devotion" throughout the week. I challenge you to ask a Christian about doctrine or theology and watch the awkward atmosphere develop because of ignorance. Then talk about their place of employment, politics, sports, the economy e.t.c. and watch how passionate and knowledgeable the believer can get.
Now the amazing thing about the grace of God is that He never kicks people out of the Kingdom for theological ignorance but have you ever wondered why false teaching is tolerated and promoted in and from churches today? Partly because there is this "I'm in ('saved') and that's all that matters" attitude. It's also because the average pew sitter is ignorant about biblical teachings and tragically wishes to remain so because it is "too hard" to understand and therefore don't know when a wolf is spouting false teaching from the pulpit. In fact, let's take the position of an elder for example. Most Christians are not aware of God's qualifications for elders (this includes pastor's since they are elders) given in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. When it comes time to find a teaching elder/pastor they look for the person that "loves people," "is great with the community" and "is a great speaker." He may indeed be all these but at the same time doctrinally; theologically unsound and ignorant which results in false teaching. There is no greater recipe for disaster as a biblically unhealthy pastor with a doctrinally ignorant congregation! First, we have biblical authority and second, there have been countless books expounding on the Word of God concerning this issue to prevent it from happening. There is absolutely no excuse for this problem, yet it is still prevalent because Christians fail to inform themselves.
Teachers of the Word definitely have a stricter judgment (James 3:1, Heb 13:7) but the congregation is not off the hook. When Paul wrote to the Galatians he rebuked them for tolerating false teachers and allowing themselves to be partially deceived. He was holding them accountable, even calling them "idiots" (our English translations say "foolish" but this does not accurately convey the force of Paul's rebuke in Gal. 3:1). So let's not be "idiots" like the Galatians. We have no reason to be, we have the Word of God and numerous books that have been written by godly men teaching us what they have learned in the Word. So pick up a theological book and read. At the bottom of this blog are some book recommendations and that list will grow. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Is it tough? It sure is. I remember the first time I sat in church and listened to the pastor teach on 1 John and build his case on an aorist verb (I'm sure he explained but I was a 24 year old young man that dropped out of school in 7th grade and only accomplished a G.E.D. education level). I remember thinking to myself, "what in the world is an aorist?" What I did know is that it was crucial to understanding the sermon so I had to ask questions and look it up. I'm so thankful that he didn't overly "dumb down" the message because it could have led me to become dependent on the pastor to grow in my study of God. That sermon was a landmark in my Christian growth. I only bring this up to show that I well understand the struggle of study. Seven years later and I still struggle reading through some theologians and Christian authors. Yet, I continue to do so because what they have to say helps me grow in Christ. I would never have come to the place I am now if it weren't for, not only pastors and bible teachers, but theological books. It is well worth the struggle.
Can you imagine if someone were to be hired at a place of employment and not seek to grow in their knowledge of the occupation? They wouldn't last long before they were to be fired. And people well understand that hence all the time and money invested in further secular education (which is not a bad thing). But when it comes to their study and growth in Christ, well, He takes a back seat to everything else except for maybe on Sunday and a short 5 minute "devotion" throughout the week. I challenge you to ask a Christian about doctrine or theology and watch the awkward atmosphere develop because of ignorance. Then talk about their place of employment, politics, sports, the economy e.t.c. and watch how passionate and knowledgeable the believer can get.
Now the amazing thing about the grace of God is that He never kicks people out of the Kingdom for theological ignorance but have you ever wondered why false teaching is tolerated and promoted in and from churches today? Partly because there is this "I'm in ('saved') and that's all that matters" attitude. It's also because the average pew sitter is ignorant about biblical teachings and tragically wishes to remain so because it is "too hard" to understand and therefore don't know when a wolf is spouting false teaching from the pulpit. In fact, let's take the position of an elder for example. Most Christians are not aware of God's qualifications for elders (this includes pastor's since they are elders) given in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. When it comes time to find a teaching elder/pastor they look for the person that "loves people," "is great with the community" and "is a great speaker." He may indeed be all these but at the same time doctrinally; theologically unsound and ignorant which results in false teaching. There is no greater recipe for disaster as a biblically unhealthy pastor with a doctrinally ignorant congregation! First, we have biblical authority and second, there have been countless books expounding on the Word of God concerning this issue to prevent it from happening. There is absolutely no excuse for this problem, yet it is still prevalent because Christians fail to inform themselves.
Teachers of the Word definitely have a stricter judgment (James 3:1, Heb 13:7) but the congregation is not off the hook. When Paul wrote to the Galatians he rebuked them for tolerating false teachers and allowing themselves to be partially deceived. He was holding them accountable, even calling them "idiots" (our English translations say "foolish" but this does not accurately convey the force of Paul's rebuke in Gal. 3:1). So let's not be "idiots" like the Galatians. We have no reason to be, we have the Word of God and numerous books that have been written by godly men teaching us what they have learned in the Word. So pick up a theological book and read. At the bottom of this blog are some book recommendations and that list will grow. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Quotes On Worship and "Together For The Gospel Live Cd"
"The first and most important thing to be said about true worship is that it is to honour God. If what we call worship is not God-centred and God-honouring, it is not worship"-Boice
"The old hymns expressed the theology of the church in profound and perceptive ways and with winsome, memorable language. They lifted the worshipper's thoughts to God and gave him striking words by which to remember God's attributes. Today's songs reflect our shallow or nonexistent theology and do almost nothing to elevate one's thoughts about God"- Boice
"You do not glorify God as God unless you come into His presence with much fear and reverence of His great name. Fear in worshipping God is so necessary that many times in Scripture we find that the very worship of God is called the fear of God" Burroughs
"At its heart, the way we worship is shaped by what we really believe. Worship is the ritual reenactment of our theology. If in our worship people are not confronted with God’s judgment and grace, any seeming success in evangelism is actually failure, and we have only made genuine evangelism more difficult."- Michael Horton
"Value God's people singing, over the sound of musical instruments"- Bob Kauflin
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”- John 4:24
Here is one of my favorite worships Cd's. It is composed of hymns that seek to glorify Christ. It is simply five thousand voices singing to God. There are no guitars, no drums, or anything of that nature. So, if that's what you're looking for, this isn't it. On the other hand- it is richly overwhelming and nothing short of beautiful to listen to God's people coming together in one place, to worship the Triune God. Here is the link
In Christ, Awretchsaved
"The old hymns expressed the theology of the church in profound and perceptive ways and with winsome, memorable language. They lifted the worshipper's thoughts to God and gave him striking words by which to remember God's attributes. Today's songs reflect our shallow or nonexistent theology and do almost nothing to elevate one's thoughts about God"- Boice
"You do not glorify God as God unless you come into His presence with much fear and reverence of His great name. Fear in worshipping God is so necessary that many times in Scripture we find that the very worship of God is called the fear of God" Burroughs
"At its heart, the way we worship is shaped by what we really believe. Worship is the ritual reenactment of our theology. If in our worship people are not confronted with God’s judgment and grace, any seeming success in evangelism is actually failure, and we have only made genuine evangelism more difficult."- Michael Horton
"Value God's people singing, over the sound of musical instruments"- Bob Kauflin
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”- John 4:24
Here is one of my favorite worships Cd's. It is composed of hymns that seek to glorify Christ. It is simply five thousand voices singing to God. There are no guitars, no drums, or anything of that nature. So, if that's what you're looking for, this isn't it. On the other hand- it is richly overwhelming and nothing short of beautiful to listen to God's people coming together in one place, to worship the Triune God. Here is the link
In Christ, Awretchsaved
The Building of Christ's Church
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18).
Matthew 16:18 is perhaps one of the main passages used by proponents of the "two people" of God view. It was certainly the verse (along with Gen. 12, 15 and 17) that I fell back on when I was a dispensationalist trying to defend my position. I remember teaching on it and thundering, "if the Church and Israel are the same then Jesus wouldn't have used a future tense verb (will build:οἰκοδομήσω) when referring to His church!" Ahh, the arrogance. Silly me. Yet, this is the argument that still is used by many that maintain discontinuity between the O.T. saints and the N.T. saints. Converse with a dispensationalist on this issue and almost guaranteed this passage and argument will pop up. The argument goes goes something like this: "Had the Lord wanted to communicate that the Church existed in the O.T. He would have used an imperfect verb instead of a perfect one when referring to the building of His Church." Admittedly this argument seems persuasive, until you examine all the Scriptural evidence.
It's important to understand that there is a distinction between ethnic Israel and the Church. That's obvious. I'm not walking around claiming to be Jewish. But a nationality wasn't the point. When God called Israel unto Himself, they were to be ultimately a "called out" spiritual people. They were an "ekklesia," an assembly of people. Interestingly the word "ekklesia" is used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the O.T.) when referring to the gathering of God's people- Israel. This is the same term that is applied to the N.T. saints as well. The obvious understanding would be that all saints of all time constitute the "ekklesia"- the Church of Christ, where there are no national distinctions.
We do not deny that there was a national aspect in the Mosaic economy. We believe that the national aspect was both fulfilled and condtional (see my post on Abraham and God's People). It was also a foreshadowing of the N.T. manifestation of God's "ekklesia." All the promises and covenants are met fully in Christ alone. Anyone that becomes a participant in these blessings must be in union with Christ the "offspring" of Abraham (Gal. 3:16).
So what of this future tense verb "will build" in Matthew 16:8? The answer is that the Church of God was about to under go a reconstitution. No longer were His people to marked out by outward circumcision and nationality but by the circumcision of the heart that is made without hands (Ro. 2:28-29, Col. 2:11-12). The arrival of the New Covenant had come and was about to be inaugurated. Gentiles were to be grafted into God's people (Ro. 11). The "ekklesia" of God was going to look drastically different. No longer was there going to be a Jew/ Gentile distinction and no longer would the Gentile be treated inferior to the Jew. The beauty of the New Covenant! I believe this has much bearing on why Christ used a future tense verb. He started with the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:6) and rejected as the Messiah, He then turned to the Gentiles calling them a people who were not His people (Ro. 9:25-26, Hos. 2:23). Again, the future tense, I believe, refers to the change in who constitutes the people of God and this is to be seen with the inclusion of the Gentile believers. We are one flock not two (John 10:16).
R.T. France writes this on Matt. 16:18: "The metaphors of (foundation) rock and of building go together, and the latter will be used frequently in the NT for the development of the church, often linked with the idea of a new temple to replace the old one in Jerusalem (e.g. Mark 14:58; 1 Cor 3:9–17; Eph 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:5); the metaphor of a new temple has already been introduced by Matthew in the reference to 'something greater than the temple' in 12:6, and will underlie much of the language about the destruction of the temple in ch 24 and the charge that Jesus planned to destroy and rebuild the temple in 26:61; 27:40. But modern English usage, in which 'church' often denotes a physical structure, is liable to obscure the way this metaphor works here. When Jesus speaks of 'building his church,' the foundation rock and the verb 'build' are the solid images on which the metaphor relies, but the word 'church' does not contribute to the physical imagery. The Greek term ekklēsia never denotes a physical structure in the NT, but always a community of people. The new temple is not a building of literal stones, but consists of 'living stones' (1 Peter 2:5).
Ekklēsia was a common Greek term for an 'assembly' of people (political and social as well as religious), but in a Jewish context it would be particularly heard as echoing its frequent LXX use for the 'assembly' of the people of God, which thus denotes the national community of Israel. But now Jesus speaks with extraordinary boldness of 'my ekklesia'—the unusual Greek word-order draws particular attention to the 'my.' The phrase encapsulates that paradoxical combination of continuity and discontinuity which runs through the NT’s understanding of Jesus and his church in relation to Israel. The word is an OT word, one proudly owned by the people of Israel as defining their identity as God’s people. But the coming of Israel’s Messiah will cause that 'assembly' to be reconstituted, and the focus of its identity will not be the nation of Israel, but the Messiah himself: it is his assembly. How much of this theology of fulfillment the disciples could have been expected to grasp there at Caesarea Philippi is debatable, but for Matthew and his readers, as members of the Messiah’s ekklēsia, the phrase would aptly sum up their corporate identity as the new, international people of God" (The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament).
And William Hendriksen this in his Baker New Testament Commentary: "The figure of a building to represent the church is found also in such passages as I Cor. 3:9; Eph. 2:21, 22; I Peter 2:4, 5. Little by little the building goes up. It increases in strength, beauty, and usefulness, its members being considered 'living stones.' In building his church Jesus makes use of Peter and of the other apostles. In fact, he makes use of all the living members of the church to accomplish this purpose.
The expression 'my church' refers, of course, to the church universal, here especially to the entire “body of Christ” or “sum-total of all believers” in its New Testament manifestation, wherever it is truly represented on earth (cf. Acts 9:31; I Cor. 6:4; 12:28; Eph. 1:22, 3:10, 21; 5:22–33; Col. 1:18; Phil. 3:6). It is a great comfort that Jesus considers this church 'his very own.' Did he not come from heaven in order to purchase his church 'with his own blood' (Acts 20:28)?
We are a spiritual people- one Shepherd with one flock, not two. "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd"(Jn 10:16). Soli Deo Gloria
For His Glory,
Fernando
Matthew 16:18 is perhaps one of the main passages used by proponents of the "two people" of God view. It was certainly the verse (along with Gen. 12, 15 and 17) that I fell back on when I was a dispensationalist trying to defend my position. I remember teaching on it and thundering, "if the Church and Israel are the same then Jesus wouldn't have used a future tense verb (will build:οἰκοδομήσω) when referring to His church!" Ahh, the arrogance. Silly me. Yet, this is the argument that still is used by many that maintain discontinuity between the O.T. saints and the N.T. saints. Converse with a dispensationalist on this issue and almost guaranteed this passage and argument will pop up. The argument goes goes something like this: "Had the Lord wanted to communicate that the Church existed in the O.T. He would have used an imperfect verb instead of a perfect one when referring to the building of His Church." Admittedly this argument seems persuasive, until you examine all the Scriptural evidence.
It's important to understand that there is a distinction between ethnic Israel and the Church. That's obvious. I'm not walking around claiming to be Jewish. But a nationality wasn't the point. When God called Israel unto Himself, they were to be ultimately a "called out" spiritual people. They were an "ekklesia," an assembly of people. Interestingly the word "ekklesia" is used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the O.T.) when referring to the gathering of God's people- Israel. This is the same term that is applied to the N.T. saints as well. The obvious understanding would be that all saints of all time constitute the "ekklesia"- the Church of Christ, where there are no national distinctions.
We do not deny that there was a national aspect in the Mosaic economy. We believe that the national aspect was both fulfilled and condtional (see my post on Abraham and God's People). It was also a foreshadowing of the N.T. manifestation of God's "ekklesia." All the promises and covenants are met fully in Christ alone. Anyone that becomes a participant in these blessings must be in union with Christ the "offspring" of Abraham (Gal. 3:16).
So what of this future tense verb "will build" in Matthew 16:8? The answer is that the Church of God was about to under go a reconstitution. No longer were His people to marked out by outward circumcision and nationality but by the circumcision of the heart that is made without hands (Ro. 2:28-29, Col. 2:11-12). The arrival of the New Covenant had come and was about to be inaugurated. Gentiles were to be grafted into God's people (Ro. 11). The "ekklesia" of God was going to look drastically different. No longer was there going to be a Jew/ Gentile distinction and no longer would the Gentile be treated inferior to the Jew. The beauty of the New Covenant! I believe this has much bearing on why Christ used a future tense verb. He started with the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:6) and rejected as the Messiah, He then turned to the Gentiles calling them a people who were not His people (Ro. 9:25-26, Hos. 2:23). Again, the future tense, I believe, refers to the change in who constitutes the people of God and this is to be seen with the inclusion of the Gentile believers. We are one flock not two (John 10:16).
R.T. France writes this on Matt. 16:18: "The metaphors of (foundation) rock and of building go together, and the latter will be used frequently in the NT for the development of the church, often linked with the idea of a new temple to replace the old one in Jerusalem (e.g. Mark 14:58; 1 Cor 3:9–17; Eph 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:5); the metaphor of a new temple has already been introduced by Matthew in the reference to 'something greater than the temple' in 12:6, and will underlie much of the language about the destruction of the temple in ch 24 and the charge that Jesus planned to destroy and rebuild the temple in 26:61; 27:40. But modern English usage, in which 'church' often denotes a physical structure, is liable to obscure the way this metaphor works here. When Jesus speaks of 'building his church,' the foundation rock and the verb 'build' are the solid images on which the metaphor relies, but the word 'church' does not contribute to the physical imagery. The Greek term ekklēsia never denotes a physical structure in the NT, but always a community of people. The new temple is not a building of literal stones, but consists of 'living stones' (1 Peter 2:5).
Ekklēsia was a common Greek term for an 'assembly' of people (political and social as well as religious), but in a Jewish context it would be particularly heard as echoing its frequent LXX use for the 'assembly' of the people of God, which thus denotes the national community of Israel. But now Jesus speaks with extraordinary boldness of 'my ekklesia'—the unusual Greek word-order draws particular attention to the 'my.' The phrase encapsulates that paradoxical combination of continuity and discontinuity which runs through the NT’s understanding of Jesus and his church in relation to Israel. The word is an OT word, one proudly owned by the people of Israel as defining their identity as God’s people. But the coming of Israel’s Messiah will cause that 'assembly' to be reconstituted, and the focus of its identity will not be the nation of Israel, but the Messiah himself: it is his assembly. How much of this theology of fulfillment the disciples could have been expected to grasp there at Caesarea Philippi is debatable, but for Matthew and his readers, as members of the Messiah’s ekklēsia, the phrase would aptly sum up their corporate identity as the new, international people of God" (The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament).
And William Hendriksen this in his Baker New Testament Commentary: "The figure of a building to represent the church is found also in such passages as I Cor. 3:9; Eph. 2:21, 22; I Peter 2:4, 5. Little by little the building goes up. It increases in strength, beauty, and usefulness, its members being considered 'living stones.' In building his church Jesus makes use of Peter and of the other apostles. In fact, he makes use of all the living members of the church to accomplish this purpose.
The expression 'my church' refers, of course, to the church universal, here especially to the entire “body of Christ” or “sum-total of all believers” in its New Testament manifestation, wherever it is truly represented on earth (cf. Acts 9:31; I Cor. 6:4; 12:28; Eph. 1:22, 3:10, 21; 5:22–33; Col. 1:18; Phil. 3:6). It is a great comfort that Jesus considers this church 'his very own.' Did he not come from heaven in order to purchase his church 'with his own blood' (Acts 20:28)?
We are a spiritual people- one Shepherd with one flock, not two. "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd"(Jn 10:16). Soli Deo Gloria
For His Glory,
Fernando
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Jew First?
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Ro 1:16).
I suppose that after my last two blog posts (be sure to check the name at the end of each blog article as there are four contributors to this blog), objections will arise and passages of Scripture will have to be dealt with, that seem to contradict my position on the the nation of Israel and the Church. Thus, I see it's fitting to address some passages for clarity and to be fair to my dispensational brethren and learning Christians. Back in my dispensational days I used all the proof-texts (not always a negative term) to defend the "two people" of God view- the nation of Israel and the Church. Shortly after I left Bible college I began to study outside of the dispensational camp and soon realized that what I was taught at Bible college (staunchly dispensational) wasn't accurate, nor correct, concerning Covenant Theology. Yet, it was because covenant theologians exegetically and systematically dealt with my proof-texts that I abandoned my dispensational roots, seeing it no longer fit with the whole of Scripture. But boy, it was sure difficult taking off my dispensational glasses!
The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe and to the Jew first; then the Greek. What in the blazes? Was Paul dispensational? Did he maintain that the Jews are God's chosen people while the Church is a "parenthetical" plan in God's redemptive purpose for man? Well, some think that Romans 1:16 points in that direction. Without my dispensational lenses I just don't see it. In fact the same Paul that wrote Romans 1:16 also wrote (being inspired by the Holy Spirit mind you), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise"(Ga 3:28–29). And also, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'” (Ro 10:12–13 see also Ph. 3:3, Eph. 3:6, col. 3:11). Immediately the dispensationalist will object, "but this is concerning the "dispensation" of the church!" The problem with that is in the Galatian (Gal. 3:28-29) passage Paul is applying the removal of the Jew/Gentile distinction to the Abrahamic Covenant, which is allegedly, to be primarily with the nation of Israel! My friends, Paul was not schizophrenic.
Now back to Romans 1:16. What does the Apostle mean by "to the Jew first?" Well, I believe the Jewish people played a vital and important role (of course the Lord is not done with them as I believe there will be a large conversion of them according to Romans 11.) in God's plan for the world. It is said of them: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God "(Ro 3:1–2); "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (Ro 9:4–5 Don't forget 9:6-8 and Ro. 2:28-29 when reading this passge). So one should naturally understand that if the living God called national Israel to Himself; established covenants and promises with them and through them-for all people, then He would offer the Messiah to them first. This was the way Christ and Paul ministered. They went to the Jews and when continually rejected by them and their leaders, they turned to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43, Acts 18:5-6).
The "Jew first" should not be understood to mean that ethnic Israel ( even with faith in Christ) has prominence over the Church nor that the Church is a "parenthetical" plan. The "Jew first" is so that those that are ethnic Israelites and are the called and chosen and to whom the promises and covenants were given, become members of the Church, through repentance and faith in the Messiah- Jesus Christ and enjoy the blessings of those promises. The reality is that the only way any Jewish person will participate in the promises and blessings of the covenants is through membership in the body of Christ. And once a member of the Church, we are one and the same- in Christ. That much is clear.
John Peter Lange summarizes it best in his commentary on Romans( Commentary on the Holy Scriptures): "To the Jew first. This priority is economical, as it rests upon the Old Testament revelation of God, and the faith of Abraham (chap. 4:9); and as such it is: 1. The genetic priority. “Salvation is of the Jews” [John 4:22]. 2. The historical priority (Chrysostom, and others). 3. A legal priority (as to form) of the nearest claim to the gospel in accordance with the direction given to the apostles, Acts 1:8 (Calov, De Wette, Tholuck). But notwithstanding all this, the Jew had no real right to the gospel, since salvation, 1. is not a product of Judaism, but of free grace; 2. faith is older than Judaism (chap. 4); 3. faith itself is the reality and substance of which Judaism was only the symbol."
And Everett Harrison follows right behind: "Salvation is a broad concept. It includes the forgiveness of sins, but involves much more, because its basic meaning is soundness or wholeness. It promises the restoration of all that sin has marred or destroyed. It is the general term that unites in itself the particular aspects of truth suggested by justification, reconciliation, sanctification, and redemption. But its efficacy depends on man’s willingness to receive the message. 'Everyone who believes' will benefit equally. This sweeping declaration ties in with the previous statement (concerning Greeks and non-Greeks) and now includes both the Jew and the Gentile. The Jew receives 'first' consideration. This does not mean that every Jew must be evangelized before the gospel can be presented to Gentiles. But it does mean that God, after having dealt in a special way with the Jew in OT days and having followed this by sending his Son to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, could not pass by this people. To them was given the first opportunity to receive the Lord Jesus, both during his ministry (John 1:11) and in the Christian era (Acts 1:8; 3:26). Paul himself followed this pattern (Acts 13:45, 46; 28:25, 28). It is a case of historical priority, not essential priority, for the Jew who is first to hear the gospel is also the first to be judged for his sins (2:9)" (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Romans).
The "Jew first?" Yes, but once converted there is no Jew/Gentile distinction. All that are in Christ are the "Israel of God!" Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
I suppose that after my last two blog posts (be sure to check the name at the end of each blog article as there are four contributors to this blog), objections will arise and passages of Scripture will have to be dealt with, that seem to contradict my position on the the nation of Israel and the Church. Thus, I see it's fitting to address some passages for clarity and to be fair to my dispensational brethren and learning Christians. Back in my dispensational days I used all the proof-texts (not always a negative term) to defend the "two people" of God view- the nation of Israel and the Church. Shortly after I left Bible college I began to study outside of the dispensational camp and soon realized that what I was taught at Bible college (staunchly dispensational) wasn't accurate, nor correct, concerning Covenant Theology. Yet, it was because covenant theologians exegetically and systematically dealt with my proof-texts that I abandoned my dispensational roots, seeing it no longer fit with the whole of Scripture. But boy, it was sure difficult taking off my dispensational glasses!
The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe and to the Jew first; then the Greek. What in the blazes? Was Paul dispensational? Did he maintain that the Jews are God's chosen people while the Church is a "parenthetical" plan in God's redemptive purpose for man? Well, some think that Romans 1:16 points in that direction. Without my dispensational lenses I just don't see it. In fact the same Paul that wrote Romans 1:16 also wrote (being inspired by the Holy Spirit mind you), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise"(Ga 3:28–29). And also, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'” (Ro 10:12–13 see also Ph. 3:3, Eph. 3:6, col. 3:11). Immediately the dispensationalist will object, "but this is concerning the "dispensation" of the church!" The problem with that is in the Galatian (Gal. 3:28-29) passage Paul is applying the removal of the Jew/Gentile distinction to the Abrahamic Covenant, which is allegedly, to be primarily with the nation of Israel! My friends, Paul was not schizophrenic.
Now back to Romans 1:16. What does the Apostle mean by "to the Jew first?" Well, I believe the Jewish people played a vital and important role (of course the Lord is not done with them as I believe there will be a large conversion of them according to Romans 11.) in God's plan for the world. It is said of them: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God "(Ro 3:1–2); "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (Ro 9:4–5 Don't forget 9:6-8 and Ro. 2:28-29 when reading this passge). So one should naturally understand that if the living God called national Israel to Himself; established covenants and promises with them and through them-for all people, then He would offer the Messiah to them first. This was the way Christ and Paul ministered. They went to the Jews and when continually rejected by them and their leaders, they turned to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43, Acts 18:5-6).
The "Jew first" should not be understood to mean that ethnic Israel ( even with faith in Christ) has prominence over the Church nor that the Church is a "parenthetical" plan. The "Jew first" is so that those that are ethnic Israelites and are the called and chosen and to whom the promises and covenants were given, become members of the Church, through repentance and faith in the Messiah- Jesus Christ and enjoy the blessings of those promises. The reality is that the only way any Jewish person will participate in the promises and blessings of the covenants is through membership in the body of Christ. And once a member of the Church, we are one and the same- in Christ. That much is clear.
John Peter Lange summarizes it best in his commentary on Romans( Commentary on the Holy Scriptures): "To the Jew first. This priority is economical, as it rests upon the Old Testament revelation of God, and the faith of Abraham (chap. 4:9); and as such it is: 1. The genetic priority. “Salvation is of the Jews” [John 4:22]. 2. The historical priority (Chrysostom, and others). 3. A legal priority (as to form) of the nearest claim to the gospel in accordance with the direction given to the apostles, Acts 1:8 (Calov, De Wette, Tholuck). But notwithstanding all this, the Jew had no real right to the gospel, since salvation, 1. is not a product of Judaism, but of free grace; 2. faith is older than Judaism (chap. 4); 3. faith itself is the reality and substance of which Judaism was only the symbol."
And Everett Harrison follows right behind: "Salvation is a broad concept. It includes the forgiveness of sins, but involves much more, because its basic meaning is soundness or wholeness. It promises the restoration of all that sin has marred or destroyed. It is the general term that unites in itself the particular aspects of truth suggested by justification, reconciliation, sanctification, and redemption. But its efficacy depends on man’s willingness to receive the message. 'Everyone who believes' will benefit equally. This sweeping declaration ties in with the previous statement (concerning Greeks and non-Greeks) and now includes both the Jew and the Gentile. The Jew receives 'first' consideration. This does not mean that every Jew must be evangelized before the gospel can be presented to Gentiles. But it does mean that God, after having dealt in a special way with the Jew in OT days and having followed this by sending his Son to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, could not pass by this people. To them was given the first opportunity to receive the Lord Jesus, both during his ministry (John 1:11) and in the Christian era (Acts 1:8; 3:26). Paul himself followed this pattern (Acts 13:45, 46; 28:25, 28). It is a case of historical priority, not essential priority, for the Jew who is first to hear the gospel is also the first to be judged for his sins (2:9)" (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Romans).
The "Jew first?" Yes, but once converted there is no Jew/Gentile distinction. All that are in Christ are the "Israel of God!" Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Monday, March 21, 2011
Abraham and the People of God
In Romans Paul identifies exactly who the people of God are. He is very clear on how sinners become members of God's people and it is through faith in Christ; not through any nationality. Yet, this seems a hard concept for the Church to understand. Much confusion has drawn the body of Christ to the Middle East. A very odd thing since the early Church was always looking forward and not back. They were concerned with preaching the Gospel and "enduring all things for the sake of the elect" ( 2 Tim. 2:10). Paul understood that the people of God consist of those united with Christ through faith:
The most focused on aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, by Paul, seems to be on Abrahams "seed" and the people of God. In the above passage he identifies Abraham's true "offspring" as those of faith in Christ. That is why Peter calls the Church, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession" (1 Peter 2:9). The true people of God are not in the Middle East somewhere. They are all those people around the world whom have repented and placed their faith solely in the Law keeping, curse suffering, wrath satisfying, death defeating, raising from the dead- Savior- Jesus Christ. All trusting in Him alone are the spiritual offspring of Abraham and therefore the people of God. That is the point the Apostle makes in the Rom. 4:11-17, Rom. 2:28-29, Ro. 9:6 and Gal. 3. It is a matter of circumcision of the heart. We are a spiritual people, not an ethnic one.
Were the New Testament authors "spiritualizing?" It sure seems like it! "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 28-29), "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God (Ro. 2:28-29). The only way to understand the Old Testament teaching on this issue is to do what the New Testament authors did; understand them to have "spiritual" substance and fulfillment. A failure to understand to "spiritual" emphasis of the covenant made with Abraham has also led some to teach that the New Covenant (which flows out of the Abrahamic Covenant) is yet future, with the Church not participating in it (an assertion I find baffling concerning all the N.T. data!) since it was made exclusively with the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31). A "literal" (in the Dispensationalist sense) understanding of that text would certainly lead to that conclusion. However, since the "literal" understanding was applied by Paul in a "spiritual" way, when he writes, "Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Co 3:4–6). Since this New Covenant includes Gentiles, the logical conclusion is that the Church (comprised of Jew and Gentile mind you) is the true "spiritual" Israel. Biblical authors were very fond of "spiritualizing" and we shouldn't avoid it, when it is called for. In fact, a failure to do so leads some to have all sorts of goofy interpretations. As Jefferey Johnson writes: "Dispensationlists make a great boast in their literal and historical interpretation of Old Testament Scripture. Yet, in so doing, they fail to interpret literally every aspect of the Old and New Testament. Such as, the conditional nature of the promises of the Old Testament, and the new covenant spiritual fulfillments of the Abrahamic Covenant. If they desire to understand every prophecy of the Old Testament as literal, why do they not see the curses of the old covenant as literal curses, literal curses which must be carried out literlly upon the physical nation of Israel? Why do they not take Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-9 literally?" (The Fatal Flaw p. 230). And "What many Dispensationlists mean by the word 'literal' is something that is physical and earthly. However, a spiritual understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant is not a rejection of a literal interpretation of Scripture; it's a rejection of placing that which is conditional above that which is unconditional, and that which is temporal and physical above that which is spiritual and eternal" (p.231).
What about the "people of God" and the land promise? I believe for Abraham's physical descendants this was both fulfilled ( Jos. 21:43-45 and Jos. 23: 14-15) and conditional (Deut. 8:1, 11:8, 30:16 and 1 Ch. 28:8). Yet, I also believe it was a type for the "heavenly" rest (Heb.11:16) that is for the true Israel of God (Christ and all united to Him by faith). According to the author of Hebrews the piece of real estate in the Middle East was not the real land of God's promise of rest, "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his"(Heb 4:8–10 see also Heb. 3:9-11). It becomes very apparent that the land of Canaan was not the fulfillment of the true promise land. Even Abraham understood this (was he too a "spiritualizer?" ) as the author of Hebrews testifies in Heb. 11:8-16.
It's very tragic when God's people take what belongs to Christ and His sheep and give it to unrepentant, Christ rejecting national Israel and confuse what the promise is and whom it is for. Lest the charge of "anti-semite" arise (which it usually does), God's people consist of both Jew and Gentile- all that trust and rest in Christ and Him alone for their acceptance with God. The Lord tore down the wall of separation and made one people for Himself: "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility "(Eph 2:13–16). The idea of "two peoples" of God is foreign to the Scriptures.There has always been one people of God through all times. These people are the called, chosen- the elect of God. It is not wise to erect what Christ has torn down. Soli Deo Gloria
For His Glory,
Fernando
"He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, 'I have made you the father of many nations'—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" (Ro. 4:11-17).
The most focused on aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, by Paul, seems to be on Abrahams "seed" and the people of God. In the above passage he identifies Abraham's true "offspring" as those of faith in Christ. That is why Peter calls the Church, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession" (1 Peter 2:9). The true people of God are not in the Middle East somewhere. They are all those people around the world whom have repented and placed their faith solely in the Law keeping, curse suffering, wrath satisfying, death defeating, raising from the dead- Savior- Jesus Christ. All trusting in Him alone are the spiritual offspring of Abraham and therefore the people of God. That is the point the Apostle makes in the Rom. 4:11-17, Rom. 2:28-29, Ro. 9:6 and Gal. 3. It is a matter of circumcision of the heart. We are a spiritual people, not an ethnic one.
Were the New Testament authors "spiritualizing?" It sure seems like it! "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 28-29), "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God (Ro. 2:28-29). The only way to understand the Old Testament teaching on this issue is to do what the New Testament authors did; understand them to have "spiritual" substance and fulfillment. A failure to understand to "spiritual" emphasis of the covenant made with Abraham has also led some to teach that the New Covenant (which flows out of the Abrahamic Covenant) is yet future, with the Church not participating in it (an assertion I find baffling concerning all the N.T. data!) since it was made exclusively with the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31). A "literal" (in the Dispensationalist sense) understanding of that text would certainly lead to that conclusion. However, since the "literal" understanding was applied by Paul in a "spiritual" way, when he writes, "Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Co 3:4–6). Since this New Covenant includes Gentiles, the logical conclusion is that the Church (comprised of Jew and Gentile mind you) is the true "spiritual" Israel. Biblical authors were very fond of "spiritualizing" and we shouldn't avoid it, when it is called for. In fact, a failure to do so leads some to have all sorts of goofy interpretations. As Jefferey Johnson writes: "Dispensationlists make a great boast in their literal and historical interpretation of Old Testament Scripture. Yet, in so doing, they fail to interpret literally every aspect of the Old and New Testament. Such as, the conditional nature of the promises of the Old Testament, and the new covenant spiritual fulfillments of the Abrahamic Covenant. If they desire to understand every prophecy of the Old Testament as literal, why do they not see the curses of the old covenant as literal curses, literal curses which must be carried out literlly upon the physical nation of Israel? Why do they not take Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-9 literally?" (The Fatal Flaw p. 230). And "What many Dispensationlists mean by the word 'literal' is something that is physical and earthly. However, a spiritual understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant is not a rejection of a literal interpretation of Scripture; it's a rejection of placing that which is conditional above that which is unconditional, and that which is temporal and physical above that which is spiritual and eternal" (p.231).
What about the "people of God" and the land promise? I believe for Abraham's physical descendants this was both fulfilled ( Jos. 21:43-45 and Jos. 23: 14-15) and conditional (Deut. 8:1, 11:8, 30:16 and 1 Ch. 28:8). Yet, I also believe it was a type for the "heavenly" rest (Heb.11:16) that is for the true Israel of God (Christ and all united to Him by faith). According to the author of Hebrews the piece of real estate in the Middle East was not the real land of God's promise of rest, "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his"(Heb 4:8–10 see also Heb. 3:9-11). It becomes very apparent that the land of Canaan was not the fulfillment of the true promise land. Even Abraham understood this (was he too a "spiritualizer?" ) as the author of Hebrews testifies in Heb. 11:8-16.
It's very tragic when God's people take what belongs to Christ and His sheep and give it to unrepentant, Christ rejecting national Israel and confuse what the promise is and whom it is for. Lest the charge of "anti-semite" arise (which it usually does), God's people consist of both Jew and Gentile- all that trust and rest in Christ and Him alone for their acceptance with God. The Lord tore down the wall of separation and made one people for Himself: "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility "(Eph 2:13–16). The idea of "two peoples" of God is foreign to the Scriptures.There has always been one people of God through all times. These people are the called, chosen- the elect of God. It is not wise to erect what Christ has torn down. Soli Deo Gloria
For His Glory,
Fernando
Friday, March 18, 2011
The Local Church and You
I have met a countless amount of Christians who do not belong to a local church. When I ask them why- the answer varies depending on the individual. Some say things like: "I don't gotta go to no church, it's between me and God" or "we are the church- you and me- we are having fellowship right now". It only takes a few seconds of carefully examining these statements to see that these comments are not only illogical but unbiblical. And remember, if you claim to be a Christian, it should be a desire of yours to be biblical. Now, I am sensitive to the fact that there are Christians who do not live within a driving distance of a church that preaches the pure gospel of our Lord. I understand this. At the same time- I have met Christians who will not attend a church unless that church is in total agreement with all of their theological convictions. And lets be honest, it is almost impossible to find a church that is in perfect alignment with your theology. I know folks, theology is important. But there is a great blessing (and command) in belonging to a local church. This is where God has chosen to demonstrate His glory throughout all generations (take that Harold Camping).
"To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen."- Ephesians 3:21
The real reason some do not want to belong to a local church is due to this individualistic, I can do it all by myself, I don't want anyone telling me what to do mentality. And lets be honest, some churches do go up and beyond what the bible demands of its members (this is legalism). But this is not all churches. This idea of maverick Christians floating around is found missing in the New Testament. Remember most Epistles were written to churches, if not churches, they were written to overseers on matters of the church (e.g., Timothy, Titus). Now, there is no command in the scriptures that says "Ye shall attend a church". Certainly not in those words. But it is certainly implied and assumed that believers ought to belong to a visible church.
17Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.- Hebrews 13:17
7Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.- Hebrews 13:7
Christian, who are your leaders? Do you have them?
God has appointed these in the church (1 Cor 12:28). For building up "the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12). Elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23). And they are over you (1 Thess 5:12-13). They are to be considered of double honor, those who preach and teach (1 Tim 5:17).
These verses only make sense if you are under a church. Christ has not left us to wander alone under the instruction of a televangelist 300 miles away. He has given us a church which we are called to not forsake (Hebrews 10:25).
Further, how do all the verses in the N.T about church discipline make sense if one does not belong to a church? Jesus set the church as the ultimate authority in matters of dispute between two brothers.
15 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them,tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.-Matthew 18:15-17
Paul reinforces this idea in 1st Corinthians 5. He is combating sexual immorality in the church in Corinth.
11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
How can the evil person be purged from among you if there is no visible Church?
Here as some more verses to show that the N.T believers came together as a church: Acts 2:1, Acts 4:31, Acts 11:26, Acts 20:7, Rome 1:15, Rom 16:5, 1 Corinthians 14:23, 1 Cor 11:18, 14:9. And there are plenty others, one just needs to open up his N.T to see them.
So believer, do you belong to a church? Are you under those whom Christ has apointed to watch over your soul? Are you under a church where you and others can be disciplined if there is a need? And if you do belong to a church, are you attending weekly? Do you pray for the brethren? Do you pray for your pastors?
With so many churches around- many may ask themselves- how do we know what is a good church? Well, I believe the Belgic Confession answers this in the twenty-ninth article:
"The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it."
If you are looking for a church- contact me and I will help you find one.
In Christ, Awretchsaved
"To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen."- Ephesians 3:21
The real reason some do not want to belong to a local church is due to this individualistic, I can do it all by myself, I don't want anyone telling me what to do mentality. And lets be honest, some churches do go up and beyond what the bible demands of its members (this is legalism). But this is not all churches. This idea of maverick Christians floating around is found missing in the New Testament. Remember most Epistles were written to churches, if not churches, they were written to overseers on matters of the church (e.g., Timothy, Titus). Now, there is no command in the scriptures that says "Ye shall attend a church". Certainly not in those words. But it is certainly implied and assumed that believers ought to belong to a visible church.
17Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.- Hebrews 13:17
7Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.- Hebrews 13:7
Christian, who are your leaders? Do you have them?
God has appointed these in the church (1 Cor 12:28). For building up "the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12). Elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23). And they are over you (1 Thess 5:12-13). They are to be considered of double honor, those who preach and teach (1 Tim 5:17).
These verses only make sense if you are under a church. Christ has not left us to wander alone under the instruction of a televangelist 300 miles away. He has given us a church which we are called to not forsake (Hebrews 10:25).
Further, how do all the verses in the N.T about church discipline make sense if one does not belong to a church? Jesus set the church as the ultimate authority in matters of dispute between two brothers.
15 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them,tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.-Matthew 18:15-17
Paul reinforces this idea in 1st Corinthians 5. He is combating sexual immorality in the church in Corinth.
11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
How can the evil person be purged from among you if there is no visible Church?
Here as some more verses to show that the N.T believers came together as a church: Acts 2:1, Acts 4:31, Acts 11:26, Acts 20:7, Rome 1:15, Rom 16:5, 1 Corinthians 14:23, 1 Cor 11:18, 14:9. And there are plenty others, one just needs to open up his N.T to see them.
So believer, do you belong to a church? Are you under those whom Christ has apointed to watch over your soul? Are you under a church where you and others can be disciplined if there is a need? And if you do belong to a church, are you attending weekly? Do you pray for the brethren? Do you pray for your pastors?
With so many churches around- many may ask themselves- how do we know what is a good church? Well, I believe the Belgic Confession answers this in the twenty-ninth article:
"The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it."
If you are looking for a church- contact me and I will help you find one.
In Christ, Awretchsaved
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Israelolatry?
This post may seem provocative to some and perhaps it is. My chief concern here is to warn of the prevalent idolizing (Israelolatry) of the nation of Israel, which leads to a low view of the Church and seems to dominate much of Christianity. Now I also understand that many that uphold Israel do not make the mistake of making it an idol. This is by no means is directed at them but it is a reminder to carefully watch yourselves. I've seen many go off the deep end when it comes to this issue.
One of the sad things about this Israelolatry is that it tragically leads to a minimizing of the Church. We believers should be grieved and angered by such a thing. For the Scripture says this about the Bride of Christ: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" ( Eph. 5:25-27). Oh such love from Christ for His people- both Jew and Gentile!
It saddens and angers me to hear things like, "the gospels are for the nation of Israel only" and "the book of Matthew should not be applied to the Church since it is for Israel." Come again? Where in the texts do we find such notions? Rarely when these statements are made is there any Scriptural evidence presented (you won't find any either since that very idea is absent from the gospels themselves). What lies under such statements is a theological lens that has national Israel at its center and reads all of Scripture through that very scope. And no matter how much the texts speak for themselves, that lens is very difficult to remove, and statements like "but the Abrahamic Covenant was made with Israel and it is unconditional!" seem to suffice for some.
We'll get to the Abrahamic Covenant but let's go back to the Garden of Eden for just a minute. What we find is that our federal head- Adam transgressed the covenant God made with him (Hos. 6:7) and plunged all of humanity into sin, death and under the wrath of God, so that, all mankind is born in this condition (Rom. 5:12-21). Amazingly we find God loving His people and providing a promise of the Messiah, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15), and a temporary atonement until the arrival of the Messiah, "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21).This was chiefly about salvation and not some piece of land; this promise of a Savior was for all mankind (not limited to any race of people) and it was given long before a nation of Israel ever existed.
Now what Abraham and the covenant that bears his name? Something to quickly point out- Abraham was not Jewish(there was no such thing at that point in history). He was most likely pagan (Jos.24:2). So up to this point there is no emphasis on an ethnic Jewish people. Why? Because it's not about one ethnic people but all mankind (Jew and Gentile). It inlcudes the Jewish people that certainly played a big part of God's redemptive plan but is not primarily about them and a piece of land. When one examines Scripture as a whole we see how Paul (a Jew) understood the Abrahamic Covenant: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.' So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith" (Gal. 3:8-9). Here the Apostle takes the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole ( he seems to take Gen 12:3 and 18:8 and bring them together) and applies it in the way it was intended- a promise of justification that includes Jew and Gentile. Nowhere do we see Paul emphasizing a piece of land for national Israel. We do find him applying the Abrahamic Covenant in the realm of salvation for all nationalities.
Most importantly the covenant made with Abraham is centered on Christ and all that are in Him. It is not chiefly about "Israel," nor even Gentiles, though it includes both. The Abrahamic Covenant centers on one person- Jesus Christ- the fulfillment of the promise of a savior given back in Gen. 3:15. This is how we should understand that covenant: "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). And this is why we are Gospel centered and not land centered. There is no room for Israelolatry. We can't take what is Christ's and give it to "Israel." They, like Gentiles, partake of His blessings and promises through repentance and faith in Him (Matt. 3:1-2).
How about the land? Without going into much detail on this issue, the New Testament has not left us silent on this: "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God" (Heb. 11:8-10). Abraham was a wanderer and was looking forward to the place of rest where he would dwell permanently with God. And this wasn't just limited to Abraham: "These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city" (Heb. 11:13-16 see also Heb.12:28).
There is much more that can be said on this topic but I just wanted to give a few brief statements. There is no room for Israelolatry. Is what I am presenting "replacement theology?" No, this is fulfillment theology. Christ is the true Israel of God and all in union with Him consist of God's "chosen people." When people toss out the "replacement theology' accusation, it presupposes the idea that it was about national Israel to begin with. It was never about ethnic Israel and the only "replacement theology" going on is the replacing of God's plan for all mankind (Ge.3:15) with Israel. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
One of the sad things about this Israelolatry is that it tragically leads to a minimizing of the Church. We believers should be grieved and angered by such a thing. For the Scripture says this about the Bride of Christ: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" ( Eph. 5:25-27). Oh such love from Christ for His people- both Jew and Gentile!
It saddens and angers me to hear things like, "the gospels are for the nation of Israel only" and "the book of Matthew should not be applied to the Church since it is for Israel." Come again? Where in the texts do we find such notions? Rarely when these statements are made is there any Scriptural evidence presented (you won't find any either since that very idea is absent from the gospels themselves). What lies under such statements is a theological lens that has national Israel at its center and reads all of Scripture through that very scope. And no matter how much the texts speak for themselves, that lens is very difficult to remove, and statements like "but the Abrahamic Covenant was made with Israel and it is unconditional!" seem to suffice for some.
We'll get to the Abrahamic Covenant but let's go back to the Garden of Eden for just a minute. What we find is that our federal head- Adam transgressed the covenant God made with him (Hos. 6:7) and plunged all of humanity into sin, death and under the wrath of God, so that, all mankind is born in this condition (Rom. 5:12-21). Amazingly we find God loving His people and providing a promise of the Messiah, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15), and a temporary atonement until the arrival of the Messiah, "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them" (Gen. 3:21).This was chiefly about salvation and not some piece of land; this promise of a Savior was for all mankind (not limited to any race of people) and it was given long before a nation of Israel ever existed.
Now what Abraham and the covenant that bears his name? Something to quickly point out- Abraham was not Jewish(there was no such thing at that point in history). He was most likely pagan (Jos.24:2). So up to this point there is no emphasis on an ethnic Jewish people. Why? Because it's not about one ethnic people but all mankind (Jew and Gentile). It inlcudes the Jewish people that certainly played a big part of God's redemptive plan but is not primarily about them and a piece of land. When one examines Scripture as a whole we see how Paul (a Jew) understood the Abrahamic Covenant: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.' So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith" (Gal. 3:8-9). Here the Apostle takes the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole ( he seems to take Gen 12:3 and 18:8 and bring them together) and applies it in the way it was intended- a promise of justification that includes Jew and Gentile. Nowhere do we see Paul emphasizing a piece of land for national Israel. We do find him applying the Abrahamic Covenant in the realm of salvation for all nationalities.
Most importantly the covenant made with Abraham is centered on Christ and all that are in Him. It is not chiefly about "Israel," nor even Gentiles, though it includes both. The Abrahamic Covenant centers on one person- Jesus Christ- the fulfillment of the promise of a savior given back in Gen. 3:15. This is how we should understand that covenant: "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). And this is why we are Gospel centered and not land centered. There is no room for Israelolatry. We can't take what is Christ's and give it to "Israel." They, like Gentiles, partake of His blessings and promises through repentance and faith in Him (Matt. 3:1-2).
How about the land? Without going into much detail on this issue, the New Testament has not left us silent on this: "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God" (Heb. 11:8-10). Abraham was a wanderer and was looking forward to the place of rest where he would dwell permanently with God. And this wasn't just limited to Abraham: "These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city" (Heb. 11:13-16 see also Heb.12:28).
There is much more that can be said on this topic but I just wanted to give a few brief statements. There is no room for Israelolatry. Is what I am presenting "replacement theology?" No, this is fulfillment theology. Christ is the true Israel of God and all in union with Him consist of God's "chosen people." When people toss out the "replacement theology' accusation, it presupposes the idea that it was about national Israel to begin with. It was never about ethnic Israel and the only "replacement theology" going on is the replacing of God's plan for all mankind (Ge.3:15) with Israel. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Monday, March 14, 2011
Christian Unity
Christian unity- what is it? It's one of those terms that gets used an awful lot. Sometimes biblically and sometimes not. Do Christians have biblical grounds for calling out other teachers for error, whether it be doctrinal or behavioral? Or is that being "divisive?" Well, I guess that depends on how people are defining "unity" and "divisive." A large part of the problem in Christianity is that words and terms gert re-defined (usually on a subjective level) and therefore lose their biblical meaning. Think I'm overstating my case? Take a look at how Rob Bell defines "love" and then how he defines "hell." Not biblical at all. But some would say that maybe I'm being divisive and not showing Christian "unity" in calling out Bell. Back to my original point.
Paul's point here is simple. Gentiles are inlcuded in God's plan of salvation for man. Both Jew and Gentile are partakers of the promise through the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. There is unity and the Apostle makes it even clearer in Eph. 4. There is no unity outside of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If then this is the case, why is it that there can be such a backlash from people, when the likes of Rob Bell are exposed? Clearly he preaches a different gospel and as a result is under the curse of Gal. 1:8-9. To point out the fact that he is - there is no soft way to say it - a false teacher is comletely biblical and commanded in Scripture (Rom. 1:17-18) Is Rob Bell a nice guy? I'm sure he is but that is not the issue. The believers that are exposing him did not wake up one day and decide to "hate" Rob Bell. No, but Rob Bell did decide one day to launch an all out assault on the Lord Jesus Christ. Those of us calling him out are are simply doing what we have been told to do in Scripture:
False teachers are free to teach whatever they wish (they will be held accountable for it) but they are not free to call it Christianity! Yet this is where their defenders come along. They are offended that other Christians would call out their favorite teachers or teachers they like and have used. They would have us call goats (unbelievers) sheep (believers)! Yet the issue here is not unity but disunity. We are not united with apostates. Period. I suppose the objecters want us to be "nice' about it. Yet, that was never the response from Christ nor the apostles to false teachers. When you deal lightly with fasle doctrine, people will take it lightly. I believe that is why Paul was so harsh with the Galatians- calling them idiots (Gal. 3:1), when they tolerated the "false brethren' and allowing themsleves to be duped by a return to the Law. So my friends unity can only be in the Lord Jesus Christ.
What about those in the body that we have secondary disagreements with? Is it disunity to call them out when they error in doctrine or unfairly portray another's theological viewpoint? Well, this is a different issue altogether. Unity in the Gospel demands that we hold one another accountable. If an individual is teaching or refuting a theological position publicly (it matters not if the immediate audience is Christian or not) they have a responsibility to fairly and accurately represent their opponents view point. If this is not maintained, even if it is deliberate or not, they have become the ones guilty of causing division. And their opponents are free to refute and call them on it in the public realm. This is not a Matt. 18 situation (where it is a personal sin committed by one believer to another). Paul certainly had no qualms about calling Peter on the carpet when Peter played the hypocrite (Gal. 3:11-14)! In fact, he confronted Peter face to face (because he had the opportunity) and before "them all." Was Paul being divisive? No, Peter was and Paul called him on it because Peter's behavior was leading others astray. This is similar to holding those accountable, when they misrepresent others and lead fellow believers on the wrong path.
And there is certainly nothing wrong in using polemics. In fact, if you think polemics is "divisive" then you're probably going to have a very difficult time reading the Bible, since it is highly polemical. I concur with George Whitefield- "I will not be a velvet mouthed preacher!"
Let be sure that we understand what Christian unity is and that we hold the responsible parties accountable when they cause division(s) by misrepresentation.
Christian unity is centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Eph 3:1–6).
Exposing false teachers is not limited to Rob Bell. The list is long, very long. The difference between false teachers and brothers that we have disagreements with is, that the false teachers have proven themselves to be apostates and are to be treated as such. They have become enemies of the Gospel. The biblical name for that is- "wolves in sheep's clothing."3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jud 3–4).
False teachers are free to teach whatever they wish (they will be held accountable for it) but they are not free to call it Christianity! Yet this is where their defenders come along. They are offended that other Christians would call out their favorite teachers or teachers they like and have used. They would have us call goats (unbelievers) sheep (believers)! Yet the issue here is not unity but disunity. We are not united with apostates. Period. I suppose the objecters want us to be "nice' about it. Yet, that was never the response from Christ nor the apostles to false teachers. When you deal lightly with fasle doctrine, people will take it lightly. I believe that is why Paul was so harsh with the Galatians- calling them idiots (Gal. 3:1), when they tolerated the "false brethren' and allowing themsleves to be duped by a return to the Law. So my friends unity can only be in the Lord Jesus Christ.
What about those in the body that we have secondary disagreements with? Is it disunity to call them out when they error in doctrine or unfairly portray another's theological viewpoint? Well, this is a different issue altogether. Unity in the Gospel demands that we hold one another accountable. If an individual is teaching or refuting a theological position publicly (it matters not if the immediate audience is Christian or not) they have a responsibility to fairly and accurately represent their opponents view point. If this is not maintained, even if it is deliberate or not, they have become the ones guilty of causing division. And their opponents are free to refute and call them on it in the public realm. This is not a Matt. 18 situation (where it is a personal sin committed by one believer to another). Paul certainly had no qualms about calling Peter on the carpet when Peter played the hypocrite (Gal. 3:11-14)! In fact, he confronted Peter face to face (because he had the opportunity) and before "them all." Was Paul being divisive? No, Peter was and Paul called him on it because Peter's behavior was leading others astray. This is similar to holding those accountable, when they misrepresent others and lead fellow believers on the wrong path.
And there is certainly nothing wrong in using polemics. In fact, if you think polemics is "divisive" then you're probably going to have a very difficult time reading the Bible, since it is highly polemical. I concur with George Whitefield- "I will not be a velvet mouthed preacher!"
Let be sure that we understand what Christian unity is and that we hold the responsible parties accountable when they cause division(s) by misrepresentation.
For His Glory,
Fernando
Sunday, March 13, 2011
The Love of God
Rom 5:3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
Rom 5:4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Rom 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
We all know and have heard at least some kind of mention about the love of God. Noting the secular culture that is America, I guarantee 5 out of ten people, or maybe even more, can quote John 3:16 straight from memory or at least tell you about the love of God it speaks of. I can't tell you how many times I've read over John 3:16 and many other verses, eyes half opened, mind filled with trivial things, and glazed right over the significance of them. Though it is a fact that we trivialize these familiar verses by taking them from the mouth of God and taking them for ourselves to mold and change to our liking, there is hope. There is something deeper; there is something so captivating, that when seen, glazing over scripture will be an old practice.
I'm writing this blog on account of the sermon my pastor preached today. It was probably one of the better messages that I have ever heard, and it just so happend that it was on the love of God. I would like to share the violent note taking that occupied my my time during it with you. I don't want this to be lengthy so I'll make it quick.
I don't have time develope an argument that we are all sinners against God from birth. Just read the first 3, or the whole book of Romans, and you will be convinced by the end that we are "estranged from birth," in need of Gods mercy and grace. I also can't make you or anybody else believe that Scripture is truth. I could beg and plead all day, pointing and proveing this and that, but you or I would never be convinced of those truths unless the Holy Spirit enlightened us to them. One of the reasons I even say this is because, we as sinful people think that we are ok. Ok to think we have "it all" figured out, ok to move about in life apart from Gods will seeking to establish our own control, and we think these things are ok, of course we would never say that, but deep down we all know it's true.
I heard it said, that as we go to and fro everyday, indeed seeking to establish our own, apart from Gods will (or so we think), we would not hesitate to snatch God off of His throne, all the while screaming MINE!!! Of course this is absurd because God is God and were not. It is also equally absurd that God would love us when we hate him. Why would God love a creature that was constantly trying to dethrone Him and establish himself as god instead? This is the point of the current discussion. Why would God send His son to die for the redemption of lost, unworthy, wretched, evil sinners that hate Him? The only way to answer and see the implications of these questions is to focus on God and nothing outside of Him, through His word to see clearly His love for us.
I think here is a good point to note, that most Christians tend to think that they play a part in their salvtion, and so live and think accordingly. We have to abolish this way of thinking. If we are rebellious sinners who hate God from birth, what possible part could we even play anyway? Exactly... no part! That is why Scripture says "not that we loved him, but that He first loved us," and Rom 5:10 "For if while we were enemies..." We are not on Gods side prior to salvation. We are totally bent to hate His will and His person. Though the wretchedness of us isn't in full display, if it weren't for the common grace of God delaying His wrath, it would be clearly obvious, though the cross is ample evidence that we hate God, for we did in fact kill Him. So this proves that God loveing us for things that we do or don't do is false. We don't have anything to offer except "filthy rags," filthy lives, filthy thinking, wretchedness... And yes, we will get to your best life now in just a moment ha...
So again why would God love us? Let's continue to focus on this amazing love.
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. "God's love has been poured into our hearts..." We must note here to futher disprove that we somehow manage to love God or earn salvation, note the wording in this verse, "God's love...," not ours. God poured His own love out on to us, "for while we were still weak, Christ died for the ungodly." Everything we have seen thus far denotes Gods action, not ours.
The fact that we are sinful, and the reason I pounded it like a drum in the last few paragraphs, is because there is no other backdrop that will make the love of God more clear. Why would God love rebellious sinners who hate Him?
We cannot get any deeper, though it sounds elementary and low in doctrine, than Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Indeed it is a nursery rhyme, but it goes deeper into the heart and mind of God than we could ever understand. Even while we were yet sinners, trying to snatch God off of His throne, Christ died for us, to redeem those who would believe. "
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
I want to shut it down with a hymn from Frederick Lehman, consider the depth of Gods love here in these old wise words:
The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care,
God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled,
And pardoned from his sin.
And earthly thrones and kingdoms fall,
When men, who here refuse to pray,
On rocks and hills and mountains call,
God’s love so sure, shall still endure,
All measureless and strong;
Redeeming grace to Adam’s race—
The saints’ and angels’ song.
It is said that this last verse was found written, scratched into a wall, in an insane assylum, don't know if he was there or not, but you'll get the point:
Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
The last verse of that hymn amazes me, and so we should all be amazed at the love of God, not takeing for granite those precious verses in scripture that we so many times glaze over. "For God so loved the world that He gave... His only son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Yours in Christ, Chris Fincher
Rom 5:4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Rom 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
We all know and have heard at least some kind of mention about the love of God. Noting the secular culture that is America, I guarantee 5 out of ten people, or maybe even more, can quote John 3:16 straight from memory or at least tell you about the love of God it speaks of. I can't tell you how many times I've read over John 3:16 and many other verses, eyes half opened, mind filled with trivial things, and glazed right over the significance of them. Though it is a fact that we trivialize these familiar verses by taking them from the mouth of God and taking them for ourselves to mold and change to our liking, there is hope. There is something deeper; there is something so captivating, that when seen, glazing over scripture will be an old practice.
I'm writing this blog on account of the sermon my pastor preached today. It was probably one of the better messages that I have ever heard, and it just so happend that it was on the love of God. I would like to share the violent note taking that occupied my my time during it with you. I don't want this to be lengthy so I'll make it quick.
I don't have time develope an argument that we are all sinners against God from birth. Just read the first 3, or the whole book of Romans, and you will be convinced by the end that we are "estranged from birth," in need of Gods mercy and grace. I also can't make you or anybody else believe that Scripture is truth. I could beg and plead all day, pointing and proveing this and that, but you or I would never be convinced of those truths unless the Holy Spirit enlightened us to them. One of the reasons I even say this is because, we as sinful people think that we are ok. Ok to think we have "it all" figured out, ok to move about in life apart from Gods will seeking to establish our own control, and we think these things are ok, of course we would never say that, but deep down we all know it's true.
I heard it said, that as we go to and fro everyday, indeed seeking to establish our own, apart from Gods will (or so we think), we would not hesitate to snatch God off of His throne, all the while screaming MINE!!! Of course this is absurd because God is God and were not. It is also equally absurd that God would love us when we hate him. Why would God love a creature that was constantly trying to dethrone Him and establish himself as god instead? This is the point of the current discussion. Why would God send His son to die for the redemption of lost, unworthy, wretched, evil sinners that hate Him? The only way to answer and see the implications of these questions is to focus on God and nothing outside of Him, through His word to see clearly His love for us.
I think here is a good point to note, that most Christians tend to think that they play a part in their salvtion, and so live and think accordingly. We have to abolish this way of thinking. If we are rebellious sinners who hate God from birth, what possible part could we even play anyway? Exactly... no part! That is why Scripture says "not that we loved him, but that He first loved us," and Rom 5:10 "For if while we were enemies..." We are not on Gods side prior to salvation. We are totally bent to hate His will and His person. Though the wretchedness of us isn't in full display, if it weren't for the common grace of God delaying His wrath, it would be clearly obvious, though the cross is ample evidence that we hate God, for we did in fact kill Him. So this proves that God loveing us for things that we do or don't do is false. We don't have anything to offer except "filthy rags," filthy lives, filthy thinking, wretchedness... And yes, we will get to your best life now in just a moment ha...
So again why would God love us? Let's continue to focus on this amazing love.
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. "God's love has been poured into our hearts..." We must note here to futher disprove that we somehow manage to love God or earn salvation, note the wording in this verse, "God's love...," not ours. God poured His own love out on to us, "for while we were still weak, Christ died for the ungodly." Everything we have seen thus far denotes Gods action, not ours.
The fact that we are sinful, and the reason I pounded it like a drum in the last few paragraphs, is because there is no other backdrop that will make the love of God more clear. Why would God love rebellious sinners who hate Him?
We cannot get any deeper, though it sounds elementary and low in doctrine, than Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Indeed it is a nursery rhyme, but it goes deeper into the heart and mind of God than we could ever understand. Even while we were yet sinners, trying to snatch God off of His throne, Christ died for us, to redeem those who would believe. "
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
I want to shut it down with a hymn from Frederick Lehman, consider the depth of Gods love here in these old wise words:
The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care,
God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled,
And pardoned from his sin.
O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints’ and angels’ song.
When years of time shall pass away,It shall forevermore endure
The saints’ and angels’ song.
And earthly thrones and kingdoms fall,
When men, who here refuse to pray,
On rocks and hills and mountains call,
God’s love so sure, shall still endure,
All measureless and strong;
Redeeming grace to Adam’s race—
The saints’ and angels’ song.
It is said that this last verse was found written, scratched into a wall, in an insane assylum, don't know if he was there or not, but you'll get the point:
Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
The last verse of that hymn amazes me, and so we should all be amazed at the love of God, not takeing for granite those precious verses in scripture that we so many times glaze over. "For God so loved the world that He gave... His only son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Yours in Christ, Chris Fincher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)