Attack That Scarecrow!

Nothing gets my blood pumping like a straw man argument against my position. According to Wikipedia: "A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." This sort of tactic happens all to often in theological discussions and any serious friendly or brotherly discussion should avoid this cheap debate trick. Yet, it seems that some folks just can't help themselves. They detest a certain position so much that they start their argument off by going into the bag of tricks and pulling out that scarecrow they then attack without having actually dealt with the substantial, scriptural argument they are attempting to refute!

When dealing with an opponents position we have an obligation to read what they have written or listen to what they have spoken on concerning the topic at hand. Simply saying their position is "un-scriptural" or "un-biblical" while yours is "biblical" and "I believe the Bible" is not fair. Not only is it not fair, it is arrogant and childish. Both sides hold the Bible (I'm speaking here of those that do but disagree on certain doctrines) to be inerrant, completely sufficient and authoritative, so that is not the issue. It is your job to demonstrate how your opponents view(s) is not in line with the Word of God. Simply throwing out silly assertions and attacking straw men does not count. What is does require is the proper use of hermeneutics and an exegesis and explanation of verses that are often cited in the discussion.

This requires diligence and much study, something many fail to do because of the prevalent "me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit and nothing else" attitude that dominates the American church. I cannot recall how many discussions that I've had with individuals on certain matters and they have no idea what others, that do not hold their view, believe on certain theological topics like ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, pneumatology e.t.c. They haven't taken the time to study. It's sheer laziness thus ignorance is another reason for straw men arguments. Some people haven't a clue to what they are arguing against. All they know is someone disagrees with them and they go on the attack. Study, study, study, study!

Now I'm aware that there are those people that do hold erroneous views and when they are exposed, exegetically and taken to there logical conclusions, people cry "you're straw man-ing me;" that's just a failure to admit defeat. I remember the first time this was done with me. I rejected the doctrine of election and was exposed to Dr. James White. His book "The Potter's Freedom"and "Debating Calvinism" (his written debate with Dave Hunt) were key to exposing my eisegesis and holes in my embarrassing theological stance. I was hoping Dave Hunt would come to the rescue but no sir, his handling of certain passages were nothing short of pathetic. I was left ashamed and angry. But what could I do but submit to the Word of God! I've since learned to study my opponents views from themselves and I'll tell you what, I've changed most of my theological view points. I went from a five point Arminian dispensationalist to a five point Calvinist amillennial covenant theologian or simply as a Reformed Baptist. I've learned my lesson. That's why I'm no fan of "just study the Bible." Sola Scriptura? Absolutely! But we all bring preconceived notions to the Bible. That's why the Lord graciously has given us teachers to help us understand what He has said; this includes poking holes in our preconceived notions which we probably would never have recognized apart from the theologians and teachers God has graciously raised up. By the way, what do you think believers are doing every Sunday listening to their pastor? Aren't they learning?


The use of straw men arguments is a sure sign that your position is weak or that you haven't any clue to what you are talking about. So you go right on ahead and attack that scarecrow but sooner or later you will have to actually deal with my actual position. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,

Fernando

The Eleventh Commandment: Don't Criticize

       There are plenty of man made commandments created by those in Charismatic circles. One of them is, and you've probably heard it before: "Don't criticize". You ever ask: "why? chapter, book and verse, please?" I have. And you'll usually just get a cold stare (try it, its fun). Well, let me state it clear as day: There is no sin in criticizing (loud gasp). When I say criticize, I mean "indicating someone's faults".Now, let me be clear: I do NOT endorse any form of murmuring nor gossip. This is sin. And not only is it sin, it is cowardly. I have been the victim, and continue to be the victim of gossip till this day (and it is something I absolutely detest). Why? Well, there are things that people will say behind your back, that on their best day, would never consider uttering in your presence. Now with that said, I do believe that it is biblical (Matthew 18:15), for a Christian brother to privately (and publicly, if said sin or issue should be dealt publicly) critique a fellow brother or pastor (obviously, we ought to have the deepest respect for those who are ministers of the word and be cautious on how we address them). 


Now, the bible no where condemns the use of critique (of course there are sinful reasons as to why you could be wanting to critique someone). But ultimatley, we do this for the glory of Christ. Macarthur puts it well:

"As vital as it is for us to enlist in the Truth War and do battle for our faith, it is even more important to remember why we are fighting- not merely for the thrill of vanquishing some foe or winning some argument, but out of a geniune love for Christ, who is the living, breathing embodiment of all that we hold true and worth fight for"- John Macarthur (The Truth War; Pg 18 of the introduction)

Jesus and the scriptures commend and encourage us to expose (or critique) false teachers. Here in lies the proof:


Revelation 2:14 


¹⁴ Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. ¹⁵ Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.


Revelation 2:20


²⁰ Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 


Here he commends the church in Ephesus for not tolerating false teachers: 


Revelation 2:2


² I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 


Ephesians 5:1


¹¹ Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them


1 Timothy 1:3


³ As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer


2 Timothy 2:16-18


¹⁶ Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. ¹⁷Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, ¹⁸ who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.


- (Here Paul not only critiques the error of these men, but he does it in a letter to Timothy and calls them by name) The nerve of Paul! 

2 Timothy 4:14-15

¹⁴ Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. ¹⁵ You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

-(More rebuke and naming by Paul)

Titus 1:9

⁹ He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

-(This is Paul giving instructions to Titus on what qualities an elder must have. Paul tells Titus to establish elders who will be faithful to the word and refute those who oppose it! Now, come on Paul, don't ya know it's a sin to debate? I guess Paul was just one of those crazy Calvinists.)

1 John 4:1

¹ Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

(Note: testing every spirit usually involves judging what said person has taught in comparison to the word)

3 John: 9-10

⁹ I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. ¹⁰ So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

Seems to me, that our post-modern, 21st century has produced some softies along the way. Now, it is said that critiquing is mean, or can hurt people. What is always given a back seat is the Gospel of the Lord, which those poor sinners and even Christians need to hear week in and week out. It PAINS ME to see Christians who will rather be loyal to a pastor than to be loyal to the Christ who is HEAD over that pastor. Folks, the gospel is the heart of Christianity. Let us NEVER compromise on it for the sake of unity and peace. When the gospel is distorted and turned into some man centered therapeutic nonsense, there is no peace. At the same time, let us do this while being gracious and humble. 

In Christ, Awretchsaved

We Don't Need Biblical Teachers?

Have you ever heard someone mangle 1 John 2:27? The verse reads: "But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him." The abuse of this passage is used to teach that believers do not need to read sound theological books, listen to biblical teachers or sometimes it is even manhandled in such a way that a believer need not attend a local church because we don't need teachers of the Word, better known as pastors. They say it may be helpful but not required.

My, oh my, where do we begin with such a dangerous handling of this passage? Let me first state that apart from godly, Spirit filled (no not in the Charismatic sense) learned and studied men of God, I would still be a very confused Christian, driven by shear emotion in determining Christian doctrine. Let me tell you folks, that is a very frustrating, dangerous and miserable place to be! It's a place where Christianity is about you and how you feel instead of Christ and who He is and how He has glorified and made known the Father; what He has accomplished for His people through His life, death and resurrection. It is no wonder that the individualistic (me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit) emotion driven believer will understand 1 John 2:27 they way they do. They tend to read the Bible in a very individualistic sense where everything is about them.

Is that what 1 John 2:27 teaches? No way Jose! That is not possible from its own context and to understand it that way places it in contradiction and direct  violation of Scripture given in other passages. But back to 1 John. A general observation is- what in the world is the Apostle John doing by teaching these Christians if they didn't need anyone to teach them, if this passage should be understood in the "individualistic" way? I guess John is contradicting himself (teaches to be taught in 4:6 also). However, that is not what this verse means. It has a context that needs to be accounted for and a large part of this is refuting false teaching and exposing the perverters of the Gospel whom were denying the humanity of Christ and that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:2,22, 4:2-3) ; that His death was not necessary for forgiveness (1 John 3:5 which I believe is in reference to not only forgiveness but the liberation from a life dominated by sin) at the same time assuring the believers that the had the true Gospel and didn't need anything more to add to it. They could be assured they were indeed God's people because they stood on the Gospel and were bearing fruit befitting God's people ( 1 John 1:5-2:11, 3:7-15, 1 John 4:4-15 and 1 John 5:1-20).

The primary thrust of this book in the Bible seems to be refuting false teachers called anti-christ's and their false doctrines (1 John 2:18-19)- that revealed themselves to be apostates by their departure from the Gospel and for assurance of the believers ( 1 John 2:21-25, 5:13). John specifically identifies in 2:26 what he means by  them not needing anyone to teach them. He is talking about false teachers with false doctrine: "I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you." The mention of the "anointing", which I believe is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ( 1 John 3:24), is our only way of knowing the truth and they way we can discern error from the truth.

Now that we have established that John is not saying that we do not need biblical teachers, we turn to a few passages that say we do need them. One place to start is the qualifications of overseers. It is said in 1 Timothy that one of the qualifications is that me must be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:1) and over in Titus he must, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Tt 1:9).  Not only must the elder teach the Word but he must rebuke (a qualification that is often overlooked) anyone that contradicts it.

In Ephesians 4:11-15: "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" The Shepherds/teachers are given precisely for the reason that John wrote his epistles. It is they that equip the saints and protect they flock of Christ and  that's why the author of Hebrews can say, "Obey 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" (Heb 13:17).


We don't need biblical teachers? Away with such nonsense! I say give me more of them and their sound messages, in audible or written form! Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

A Response To Steve Macias

A very real threat to the body of Christ is the redefinition of biblical terms. We see it with the Dispensationalists when they redefine God's people, we see it with the Emergent crowd when they redefine almost every attribute of God and the Gospel, we see it with the New Perspective on Paul when they redefine justification by faith alone and we also see it with the Federal Vision when they redefine the word Christian (among other terms but here we are concerned with this one term). All these redefinitions  have caused mass confusion in the Church. We do not glorify Christ by allowing these types of problems to persist without dealing with them. These aren't minor issues, they're big ones that have serious consequences if not biblically dealt with. The issue here is the Federal Vision definition of "Christian."

Now this article is in response to Steve Macias (a Federal Visionist) over on his blog found here. His general thesis is straight from Federal Vision playbook. He writes: "A Christian, in another sense, is anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost by an authorized representative of the Christian church." In Federal Vision language this means entrance into the Christian faith is objective, hence baptism. In the words of Doug Wilson, "Membership  in the Christian faith is objective-it can be photographed and fingerprinted" (Reformed Is Not Enough P.21. Found free here.) This is what Mr. Macias is communicating but note what is alarmingly missing is faith. For Mr. Macias faith is something secondary, if needed at all, for one to be a "Christian" by his definition of the word. That is why he can make the claim that "Christians" can go to hell. Now I recognize that he believes the "decreetally elect" will be "covenantally faithful" and repent, believe in Christ and never be lost. Lest I be accused of "straw-manning" him I feel it appropriate to acknowledge it. Yet, his sweeping redefinition of the word "Christian", as applied to the unregenerate Trinitarian baptized person, is just scripturally wrong.

One of his problems is that he is prone to make assertions and then read them back into Scripture. This is seen in his stringing together a list of proof-texts and reading back into them his preconceived ideas (that which is not there also known as eisegesis, the exact opposite of the all important exegesis) especially in the passages of he cited. This is quite astounding given that the Bible nowhere calls anyone apart from repentance from sin and faith in Christ alone a Christian. There is just not one iota of evidence in the Bible to support the idea that anyone apart from faith is a Christian. However, because a string of texts were cited, I will interact with a one to show there is enough doubt with the handling of it to seriously question Mr. Macias' use of the rest.

Romans 6:3-4 was cited and what is assumed is that Paul's mention of baptism in this text is only in reference to water baptism apart from faith. He offered no exegesis of the passage just emphasized the mention of baptism (not quite exactly sure what he is saying since the heading of his paragraph states: "A Christian is an individual who has been baptized." Yet, he seems to be using it as baptism, alone, for assurance?) in verses 3-4. What he fails to account for is how Romans 6 follows what came previously in chapters 1-5 and how they all come together. Unless he is willing to advocate baptismal regeneration (something I believe he denies) his understanding of the text makes no sense. A brief summary of Romans chapters reveals that in chapters 1-3 he is confining all of mankind under sin (both for personal sins committed and on account of our federal head Adam), condemnation and the wrath of God. Starting in 3:21- to the end of chapter 5 the Apostle Paul is declaring how a guilty, condemned sinner can be justified before a perfectly Holy God and this chiefly through the perfect law keeping life and penal substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This acceptance before God is on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (and Him alone) to be received though faith in Him. In theological terms Christ is the basis for our justification and faith, in Him, is the instrumental cause of our justification. This is what our Reformed fathers held because it's precisely what Paul is teaching in Romans 1-5. Also notice how much Paul is emphasizing faith in Christ for our justification: " 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..."(Ro 4:13–16).  Note especially the purpose clause in v. 16 ( "in order that") which teaches that justification before God must come through faith for it to be a promise of grace  and in 5:1 he proclaims that his audience have already been justified by faith in Christ. This concept of faith in Christ as a prerequisite for one to be a Christian (although he doesn't use that term) is key to Paul's whole foundation on justification but it is completely lacking in Mr. Macias' exegesis of 6:3-4. He (Steve Macias) seems to be implying that faith can be separated from baptism for one to be indentified as a "Christian." Of course Paul doesn't use the word "Christian" here but it is certainly appropiate to understand he is teaching how one becomes a Christian (it is fitting to acknowledge that he doesn't exclude baptism as no first century Christian would have understood the concept of an un-baptized Christian).

All the previous paragraph to say that Paul has already laid the ground work for reminding the believer that they have been justified by grace, through faith, in Christ alone. He then deals with a forseen objection that if it is all of grace and grace reign's in righteousness (the gift of righteousness) then does that lead to anti-nomianism? He responds with a resounding "by no means!" He answers why a Christian cannot be dominated by a life of sin in verses 2-14 of chapter 6. What I find interesting is that Mr. Macias only quoted v.3-4 which, has a context that he left unotouched, in his presentation of his understanding of those verses! We will get to the issue of why Paul mentions baptism (I concede that it does include water baptism) but first I would like to point out that when he does remind them of their baptism what is true of their baptism is also true of verses 1-11. That is those baptized are dead to sin (v.2), baptized into Christ and his death (v.3), raised with Him and will walk in a newness of life and united to Him in His resurrection (v. 4-5), the old man was crucified and no londer in bondage to sin and will live with Christ (v.6-11). When Paul uses the indicative verb "ἐβαπτίσθημεν" (baptized) he is saying that, for the believer (he's made it clear in chapter 1:6-7 that they are believers) that has been baptized, all those things are a reality, not a potentiality. This puts Mr. Macias in a strange predicament. He believes that anyone baptized, irregardless of faith in Christ, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an "authorized" representative in the Chrsitian church is a Christian (remember he used Romans 6:3-4 as his supporting text). Again, unless he is willing to stake his cards on baptismal regeneration, his position is nonsensical. He has baptized unregenerates experiencing all things mentioned of only a Christian. Is he really saying that a person devoid of faith in Christ, baptized in a Trinitarian formula is really dead to sin, freed from it's bondage and walks in a newness of life in Christ? Yet, that is what Paul says of those believers in their baptism. Or is Steve Macias saying that a person baptized in the Name of the Triune God does have these things but must remain "covenantally faithful" (which would include repenentance, faith and obedience) to keep these realities? Since he has left faith optional for a "Christian" and has used Rom. 6:3-4, he has no third option other than the two mentioned above. I know that he will lament he is being misunderstood or misrepresented but let the reader decide where his assertions and proof-texts lead. How is his position any different than the classic Arminian?

Geerhardus Vos writes this about Romans 6:3-5: " Romans 6:3-5 has nothing to do with the mode of baptism, which is not there under discussion; the subject under discussion is sanctification, not baptism; baptism is introduced into the argument to prove a point about sanctification" (The Westminster Large Catechism:A Commentary).

For the sake of time, I turn to the commentary of Thomas Schreiner on Romans 6:3-4: "Indeed, baptism itself is not the central theme of the text; the main theme is the believer’s participation with the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Schnackenburg 1964: 58; Frankemölle 1970: 10; Siber 1971: 217). Nonetheless, union with Christ in his death and burial and his resurrection becomes a reality for believers through baptism...The reference to baptism is introduced as a designation for those who are believers in Christ. Since unbaptized Christians were virtually nonexistent, to refer to those who were baptized is another way of describing those who are Christians, those who have put their faith in Christ.  Thus Paul is saying here that all Christians have participated in the death and burial of Christ, for all Christians had received baptism" (Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (305–306)). 


Now is this only the position of the credobaptist in regards to who is a Christian? Most defintely not. Heidelberg Catechism Q.32 reads: "But why art thou called a Christian?
Answer. Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus am partaker of his anointing, that so I may confess his name, and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: and also, that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life, and afterwards reign with him eternally, over all creatures." 

And one if its authors writes this on his commentary of the HC: "The name Christian, was first given to the disciples of Christ at Antioch, in the time of the Apostles. Prior to this they were called Brethren and Disciples. The name Christian is derived from Christ, and denotes one who is a disciple of Christ—one who follows his doctrine and life, and who, being engrafted into Christ, has communion with him. There are two kinds of Christians; some that are only apparently such; and others that are really and truly such. Those who are Christians merely in appearance, are those who have been baptized, and who are in the company of those who are called, and profess the Christian faith; but are without conversion, being nothing more than hypocrites and dissemblers, of whom it is said: 'Many are called, but few are chosen.' 'Not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,' &c. (Matt. 20:16; 7:22.) Those are true christians who are not only baptized and profess the doctrine of Christ, but who are also possessed of a true faith, and declare this by the fruits of repentance; or, they are those who are members of Christ by a true faith, and are made partakers of his anointing. All true Christians are such also in appearance, because it is said, 'Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good work, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.' 'Show me thy faith by thy works.' (Matt. 5:16. James 2:18.) But it is not true, on the other hand, that all who are apparently Christians are also such in reality; because it will be said of many, 'I never knew you'” (Matt. 7:23.) ( The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (176–177). 

It is true that Ursinus does recognize two kinds of Christians (I don't disagree with him). The true Christian is baptized and professes faith in Christ and bear fruits in keeping with repentance. The other Christian is the baptized person that professes faith in Christ and are part of local churches or gathering saints but are hypocrites. There is a huge difference between calling a person that professes faith in Christ a "Christian" than calling someone who is just simply baptized with the right formula, regardless of faith, a "Christian." Not only do the Scriptures not agree with Mr. Macias but the confessions he's bound to do not agree with him either! Now I suspect that the same way Mr. Macias reads the Scriptures is the same way he'll read the confessions- reading back into them his own ideas and theological construct.


Time will not permit me to deal with all the passages he used but I do believe that based on his misuse of Romans 6:3-4 it is sufficient enough, on the severity of the error, to call into questions his other understandings of his proof-texts. His arguments aren't new and neither are my answers and obejections. Many books have been written from both sides of the baptism spectrum dealing with this kind of error. I encourage others to read those books written in defense of the historic Christian faith.

On a final note I find it rather silly and confusing, as others have pointed, to claim that assurance of ones "Christianity" is found soley on the "obejectivity of the covenant" in baptism and then turn around and say that not all baptized persons ( "Christians") will end up in the presence of God. How does that assure anyone? And furthermore, it gives sinners false assurance.

I stand with the Apostle Paul: "I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me" (2 Ti 1:12). Christians perish in hell? Away with such a thought! Unbelievers professing faith will perish, yes, but never Christ's people. Soli Deo Gloria


For His Glory,
Fernando

Is Asherah God's wife?

Sometime last week, I received a link from a friend linking me to this article on whether God has a wife: click here. Now, this is of course, old news- It has been tried before. And I'm sure, even before that. But of course, it is a good way to boost ratings for a new show. Surely someone has to compete with the History's Channel specials on Aliens and the Bible! And what better way to do it than to claim that the eternal, self-sufficient God, of the Old and New Testament, has a wife. But if you want stories about God having a wife and what not, look no further than here. So, did the Old Testament writers attempt to remove "God's wife" Asherah from the Bible. Negative. Actually, the Bible has lots to say about Asherah. It attempts to hide nothing because there is nothing to hide. 

This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.- Deuteronomy 7:5

Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles- Exodus 34:13

You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.- Deuteronomy 12:3

The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth. Judges 3:7

Now on the same night the LORD said to him, "Take your father's bull and a second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it- Judges 6:25

and build an altar to the LORD your God on the top of this stronghold in an orderly manner, and take a second bull and offer a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah which you shall cut down." -Judges 6:26

For the LORD will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the LORD to anger.- 1 Kings 14:15

He also removed Maacah his mother from being queen mother, because she had made a horrid image as an Asherah; and Asa cut down her horrid image and burned it at the brook Kidron.- 1 Kings 15:13

Ahab also made the Asherah. Thus Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him.- 1 Kings 16:33

Nevertheless they did not turn away from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel sin, but walked in them; and the Asherah also remained standing in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:6

Furthermore, the altar that was at Bethel and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin, had made, even that altar and the high place he broke down. Then he demolished its stones, ground them to dust, and burned the Asherah- 2 Kings 23:15 

But there is some good in you, for you have removed the Asheroth from the land and you have set your heart to seek God.- 2nd Chronicles 19:3

We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm- Jeremiah 44:17 

These are just some verses out of plenty more found in scripture on Asherah. 

Further, this archeological evidence found in Syria (of Asherah) provides a strong case for the historical accuracy of the Bible. 

Did God have Asherah as His wife? Negative.

Did the Israelites believe He did? It is possible that some did, especially when looking at Jeremiah 44:17. 

Was this encouraged by God or the prophets? Nay. It is condemned and blasphemous. 

In Christ, Awretchsaved

Let The Texts Speak For Themselves!

People may be wondering why I am coming so strong against my dispensational brethren. Let my affirm that I do indeed love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am confident that we will spend eternity bowing before Christ our Lord of Glory. Therefore, if I am to spend eternity in the presence of the Almighty with them, I certainly can maintain friendship and fellowship with them in this present age. Furthermore, I have learned a great amount from Dr. John MacArthur ( a "leaky dispensationalist" whom I voted, on Facebook, as one of the greatest preachers). So my issue here is not one of fellowship or friendship but as Dr. Kenneth Gentry Jr. writes, "However, though recognizing dispensationalism as a form of evangelical Christianity, we believe that it is a seriously defective, misguided, embarrassing, and naive form." This was manifested the other day when I had a conversation with a friend who stated, in a conversation he had with some dispensationalists, that they maintained certain parables have no application to the church since they are for the nation of Israel. This not only grieved me but it also angered me that Christ's body would be treated in such a second rate status compared to an unbelieving ethnic people. Now as a former dispensationalist, I sat on the sidelines assessing things, trying to avoid the heated exchanges in the body that result over this discussion. However, I can only sit on the sideline for so long. Comments like "Matthew is for the Jews and not the church" move me to action. Not that I am any authority in the matter but I do love my Lord and His Bride.

Now one of the main problems I have with the system know as dispensatinalism is it's hermeneutic that calls for two peoples of God. This framework is allegedly built on a "plain, literal meaning of the text" or a "consistent literalism" or "plain meaning." This, in my opinion, is a straw man. It is often presented that dispensationalists are the ones that believe and teach the "plain meaning" of Scripture or are consistent with interpreting the Bible literally. In fact, this was ingrained in me so much that I avoided reading covenant theologians because I thought they were just as bad as Origen in allegory. Luther said of him, "Origen's allegories aren't worth so much dirt!" Nope, I didn't want to read anyone like that! So I faithfully stuck with the dispensational "plain meaning, " which I soon realized, thanks to the help of my paedobaptist covenant theologian brothers, that sometimes the "plain literal meaning" requires the dreaded "spiritualizing" of passages. Take for instance Romans 14:17: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Ro 14:17). The "plain literal" meaning of this verse requires that the kingdom be understood in terms of something spiritual! For the dispensationalist the kingdom is primarily thought of in terms of something that is future, earthly and for the nation of Israel. Well, obviously that won't work here. A "plain meaning" here, requires use of the dreaded "spiritualizing" that they so strongly detest. It is this very failure to understand the "plain literal meaning" requires the use of "spiritualizing," which has led them to all sorts of madness. Let the texts speak for themselves. If Christ says, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Mt 12:28). Take it at face value that the Kingdom of God came with His first advent and will be fully experienced in the "age to come" at at His second coming and is not for national Israel (Matt. 12:28, Matt. 21:43). Again, I repeat, let the texts speak for themselves.

What also troubles me about the dispensational way of understanding of Scripture is that they are not consistent with their own hermeneutic. As Jeff Johnson writes, "What many Dispensationlists mean by the word 'literal' is something that is physical and earthly." This has caused them much trouble and when taken to its logical conclusion they abandon it after it suits their preconceived beliefs only to return to it sometimes in the same context! According to Ezekiel chapters 40-48, by the dispensational "literal" hermeneutic, this requires that a future temple will be rebuilt with a return to the Levitical sacrificial system. Here is where the dispensationalist will take a large part in a "literal" way and then take a part of the same passage and make it non literal. The temple, the sacrificial system is to be taken "literally" but when it comes to the purpose of the animal sacrifices then the "literal' is abandoned and subtly substituted with the non-literal. According to them the animal sacrifices are a "memorial" and non atoning as that would take away from the only perfect and sufficient sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the text does not say the animal sacrifices are for a "memorial" but for a "sin offering." Here is what the text says, "And he said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: These are the ordinances for the altar: On the day when it is erected for offering burnt offerings upon it and for throwing blood against it, you shall give to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who draw near to me to minister to me, declares the Lord GOD, a bull from the herd for a sin offering. And you shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the ledge and upon the rim all around. Thus you shall purify the altar and make atonement for it. You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area. And on the second day you shall offer a male goat without blemish for a sin offering; and the altar shall be purified, as it was purified with the bull" (Eze 43:18–22).  
Here is a prime example of where they recognize their hermeneutic will lead them into heresy if they stick with it. So they abandon it where it suits them (which is probably a good idea but need to do away with it all together). Thus, they cannot even let the texts speak for themselves by their own interpretive system! Now time will not allow me to go into these chapters. I do recommend G.K Beale's book: "The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God," for an in depth study.

If you let the text's speak for themselves you come to a conclusion vastly different than what is taught in dispensationalism. They, however, won't allow for it. They already have preconceived ideas that they must read into passages for their system to work. Dispensationalists have recognized this and abandoned classic dispensationalism for "progressive" dispensationalism.  Dr. Kenneth Gentry writes, "Dispensationalist theologians are now even forsaking so-called literalism. For instance, John S. Feinberg, a noted contemporary dispensationalist, complains of one of Ice’s mentors: 'Ryrie is too simplistic' in his literalism. Craig A. Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary warns that: 'consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists.'” 


Let the texts speak for themselves and you will say a hearty amen to Paul: "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), in a non dispensational way! Soli Deo Gloria

For His Glory,
Fernando

The Israel of God

"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