Whenever there is doctrinal disagreement(s) between brothers in the Lord, it isn't very helpful to simply state what you believe certain passages to be teaching. It is often understood that someone has come to a different conclusion on a certain text of the Bible. What I'm asking is that you show me the money! To convince someone else that your particular view is Biblical, that will require you to: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Ti 2:15). I wish to emphasize the rightly handling of God's Word. Simply stringing together a bunch of verses and quoting them is not sufficient. It needs to be demonstrated how you are rightly handling the Word of God. In other words, you're starting off at point Z (your conclusion) and going back to point A (your string of proof texts) to show that your position is the correct one. What your opponent is looking for (or should be) is how you connect the dots and get from point A to point Z.
I have never had anyone say to me- "My position is less biblical than yours but I still think it's right." Of course everyone (those that adhere to Sola Scriptura) starts off with the premise that they're position is Biblical (why else would they hold to it?). Simply asserting that in the discussion is not very helpful. Why is it the Biblical one, while mine is not? Show me the money! Demonstrate for your opponent why your view is to be adopted. The whole goal of the discussion/disagreement is not to win the argument, for everyone goes in to the discussion thinking they already won (why else would they discuss the issue?), but to show why and how you won. And the idea of winning is not in the competitive and arrogant sense but to be understood in the view that your position is the one that comes from a consistent hermeneutic and sound exegesis. It is not really a matter of winning or losing but truth for the glory of Christ and the growth of the Christian(s). Again everyone wants to know how you got from point A to point Z.
It is of the utmost importance to demonstrate that you are rightly handling the Word of truth. Commentating on 2 Timothy 2:15 William Hendricksen writes, "The man who handles the word of the truth properly does not change, pervert, mutilate, or distort it, neither does he use it with a wrong purpose in mind. On the contrary, he prayerfully interprets Scripture in the light of Scripture. He courageously, yet lovingly, applies its glorious meaning to concrete conditions and circumstances, doing this for the glory of God, the conversion of sinners, and the edification of believers" (Baker New Testament commentary : Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. New Testament Commentary p.263). Can you be trusted with rightly handing the Word of truth? This is the question that everyone wants to see and know. Show me the money! Chances are if you're wrong in the handling of your proof texts, then you're wrong in your conclusion(s). Or if you start off with a preconceived idea, chances are you are going to go back into Scripture looking for your idea to be supported by it and read this idea back into your proof texts. D.A. Carson writes, "This requires effort—yet no-one can do more than his or her best. There are two requirements—an unashamed approach and a right handling of the word of truth. The latter will reinforce the former. The Greek verb translated correctly handles really means cutting a straight road and suggests straightforward exegesis. This must be the aim of all true teachers of the word. ‘Reading into’ the text what is clearly not there is of help to nobody but is depressingly common" (New Bible commentary ).
Recently I was sent a personal message, in response to my article "Why I Abandoned Dispensationalism" with a quotation of Gal 6:16 (and an article on an obscure quotation from Pseudo- Epraem that is presented, by Dispensationalists, to teach an early church understanding of a pre-trib rapture) with an emphasis on the word "and" and a statement that says: "I'm sure you will update your article to reflect these oversights!" Show me the money?! It was never demonstrated for me why I shouldn't understand the word "and" (given the context see my article on Gal. 6:16 here) to be epexegetical or explicative. It was never demonstrated for me that "and" should be understood to be identifying a different group of people ( believing Jews) from the "them" (believing Gentiles) when Paul never made that distinction in the whole Epistle of Galatians! In fact he says the contrary: "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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 3:24–29). What this man did is tell me his conclusion (point Z) and give me his proof text (point A) without connecting the dots in between (the context).
Simply citing proof texts may have duped me in the past and may suffice for some now but I want you to show me the money! I want for you to demonstrate for me that I can trust that you: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Ti 2:15). No one should settle for anything less. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
El "evangelio" de la prosperidad es falso
Habiendo escrito recientemente sobre el verdadero evangelio. Quiero centrarme en un evangelio falso que parece ser en la mayoría en la comunidad hispana. Definido- la teología de la prosperidad enseña que Dios quiere bendecir a quienes se le acercan con fe, dándoles la prosperidad en riquezas material y la buena salud. Los que enseñan este evangelio falso usan versículos como Juan 10:10.
" El ladrón no viene sino para hurtar, matar y destruir; yo he venido para que tengan vida, y para que la tengan en abundancia"
El enfoque en el texto de estos profesores se establece en el "en abundancia". Su razonamiento es que la "vida" en este versículo es esta vida- la vida material. El que consiste en las luchas diarias, trabajo, etc.. Luego, lógicamente, la abundancia debe significar bendiciones materiales, en sus mentes. Hay algunos problemas con esta interpretación.
1) El contexto no es compatible con esta interpretación. No hay nada en este capítulo de que Dios quiere que nosotros prosperemos materialmente.
2) Una regla común conocida de la interpretación es que la Escritura interpreta la Escritura. Esta interpretación no es coherente con la totalidad de las Escrituras.
Este parece ser el versiculo fundacional que usan. Si hay otros versículos, estaré más que contento de ayudar. Pero siempre recuerda que las Escrituras son armoniosas. Y ahora por las Escrituras que refutan este falso evangelio :
19 No os hagáis tesoros en la tierra, donde la polilla y el moho destruyen, y donde ladrones entran y hurtan;
20 sino haceos tesoros en el cielo, donde ni la polilla ni el moho destruyen, y donde ladrones no entran ni hurtan, 21 porque donde esté vuestro tesoro, allí estará también vuestro corazón." -Mateo 6:19-21
Cuál es tu tesoro? Es Cristo o son las posesiones materiales?
Las Escrituras también nos enseñan acerca de estar satisfechos con lo que tenemos. Es Dios quien nos ha dado estas bendiciones materiales, sin duda. Todas las cosas buenas vienen de la mano de Dios. Pero debemos estar agradecidos con lo que tenemos. Algunos de nosotros en la pobreza y otros que son más
afortunados.
1 Timoteo 6:7-87 porque nada hemos traído a este mundo y, sin duda, nada podremos sacar.
8 Así que, teniendo sustento y abrigo, estemos ya satisfechos;
Las escrituras tambien nos dice de el peligro de tener muchas riquezas, en el siguiente versiculo.
9 pero los que quieren enriquecerse caen en tentación y lazo, y en muchas codicias necias y dañosas que hunden a los hombres en destrucción y perdición
Y dice en Marcos capitulo diez versiculo veintitres a el veinticinco:
23 Entonces Jesús, mirando alrededor, dijo a sus discípulos:
Cuán difícilmente entrarán en el reino de Dios los que tienen riquezas!
24 Los discípulos se asombraron de sus palabras; pero Jesús, respondiendo, volvió a decirles:
Hijos, ¡cuán difícil les es entrar en el reino de Dios a los que confían en las riquezas!
25 Más fácil es pasar un camello por el ojo de una aguja, que entrar un rico en el reino de Dios.
Como es esto? Cómo puede ser difícil para un rico entrar en el reino de los cielos?
Es simple: El rico ama a sus posesiones materiales mas que a Cristo. Es adonde esta su tesoro y corazon.
Esto es lo que paso con el joven rico en Mateo capitulo diez versiculo dieciseis a el veintisiete. Amaba a sus riquezas más de lo que amaba a Cristo. Y si seguir a Cristo significa dejarlo todo, no era para ell.
La Biblia nos invita a sufrir por Cristo
Esto no es la cosa más atractiva para decir-sin embargo es la verdad.
29 A vosotros os es concedido a causa de Cristo, no solo que creáis en él, sino también que padezcáis por él - Filipenses 1:29
El sufrimiento de Pablo.
Pablo es apedreado en Listra
19 Entonces vinieron unos judíos de Antioquía y de Iconio que persuadieron a la multitud; apedrearon a Pablo y lo arrastraron fuera de la ciudad, pensando que estaba muerto.[l]
20 Pero estando rodeado por los discípulos, se levantó y entró en la ciudad. Al día siguiente salió con Bernabé para Derbe.- Hechos 14:19-20
Pablo golpeado y encarcelados en Filipos
37 Pero Pablo le dijo:
--Después de azotarnos públicamente sin sentencia judicial y siendo ciudadanos romanos, nos echaron en la cárcel, ¿y ahora nos liberan encubiertamente? No, por cierto, sino vengan ellos mismos a sacarnos- Hechos 16:37
Pablo arrestado en el Templo
31 Intentaban ellos matarlo, cuando se le avisó al comandante de la compañía[o] que toda la ciudad de Jerusalén estaba alborotada.
32 Este, inmediatamente tomó soldados y centuriones y corrió a ellos. Cuando ellos vieron al comandante y a los soldados, dejaron de golpear a Pablo.
33 Entonces, llegando el comandante, lo prendió y lo mandó atar con dos cadenas, y preguntó quién era y qué había hecho.- Hechos 21:30-33
Pablo nos dice mas sobre lo que tuve que pasar.
25 Tres veces he sido azotado con varas; una vez apedreado; tres veces he padecido naufragio; una noche y un día he sido náufrago en alta mar;
26 en caminos, muchas veces; en peligros de ríos, peligros de ladrones, peligros de los de mi nación, peligros de los gentiles, peligros en la ciudad, peligros en el desierto, peligros en el mar, peligros entre falsos hermanos;
27 en trabajo y fatiga, en muchos desvelos, en hambre y sed, en muchos ayunos, en frío y desnudez - 2 Corintios 11: 25-27
Lo puedo ver ahora- los maestros de la prosperida diciendole a Pablo que le faltava fe. O que depronto estava en pecado por todo lo que lo pasava.
24 Ahora me gozo en lo que padezco por vosotros y cumplo en mi carne lo que falta de las aflicciones de Cristo, por su cuerpo, que es la iglesia.- Colosenses 1:24
En Cristo, Awretchsaved
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Bearing One Another's Burdens?
"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Ga 6:1–2).
Of course this is something we as a body of believers are called to do. When a fellow Christian is "caught" (a passive verb which seems to mean that the believer was not setting out to be ensnared in this sin) in a particular trespass, the Christians who are bearing the fruit of the Spirit, I believe this is what Paul was referring to when he said "you who are Spiritual," are to gently and lovingly approach that struggling Christian and help restore them. They are to come up under him or her and help bear that burden. From the tone of the passage, I get the idea that this individual that is caught in "transgression" is grieved by the sin. It has brought dishonor to Christ, the body and is obviously harmful to the individual . Though they were not looking to become ensnared, nevertheless, it is still a sin and has become a "burden" to them. So it seems that this person is grieved by this "trespass" and needs help. Perhaps this is why Paul mentions doing it in a "spirit of gentleness." There is a time to be stern and harsh and a time for gentleness (you see both in Paul). And this is a clear case for the gentle approach. The last thing this struggling believer needs is a fire breathing, law wielding person thumping over the head with biblical passages pointing out their sin. They may be aware and grieved by it and need to know how to deal with it and get out of it. This is why local church fellowship is so important! This restoration, which is the goal, of the believer can only be done by the power of the Spirit and help of fellow saints.
I believe this to be the proper understanding and application of the text. I fear, however, that many misapply it. What tends to happen is a person claiming to be a Christian and is living in open unrepentant sin, of which they are neither grieved by, nor were "overtaken" but rather went seeking it out: homosexuality, adultery, fornication, pornography, e.t.c., these people are coddled and catered to by believers. These people don't give a rip about glorifying Christ with their lives! They want to be assured that they are "going to heaven" while they continue in their blatant sin filled life. These are the ones that if confronted quickly toss out "judge not lest you be judged." But these individuals do not need Gal. 6:1-2, they need to be evangelized as unbelievers! Sadly, many Christians do not recognize the distinction between a brother "overtaken" by a transgress and those claiming to be believers but lack the genuine fruit.
We are given Biblical steps to help us with this confusion. Matthew 18:15-17 is a good starting point. Even though the context is personal sins committed by person to another, I still think we can draw out some important principles: "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. But 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. 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" (Mt 18:15–17). Here the confrontation, as well as the response, is what is important. A genuine believer should repent at the their offense on the personal encounter. Yet two other steps are given to reinforce this idea. If the offender fails to repent at the face to face level, then one or two witnesses are to be brought for the next approach and finally if the offender fails to respond to that, then the matter is to be bought before the church. Failing to listen to the church means drastic measures are called for. If this person wants to act like an unbeliever then he should be treated like one. This is a far cry from coddling them and trying to "love them" back to the faith. Yet the loving thing to do is to follow what Christ commanded in Matthew 18:15-17! If the excommunicated person is indeed a Christian, then they will crave the fellowship of the saints in Christ and repent of their sinful ways and return to the church. This idea we will further explore, shortly.
I would like to point to the case of king David. We all remember his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband Uriah. When the Lord sent Nathan to confront David of his gross and evil sins. He didn't respond by killing the messenger, which he had the power and authority to do as king, but by repenting: "Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’ ” David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child who is born to you shall die.” Then Nathan went to his house "(2 Sa 12:8–15). This grieving over sin and repentance produced one of the most beautiful Psalms from David.- Psalm 51. God's people grieve and repent when falling in sin because we crave fellowship with God and his people.
The purpose of excommunication is to protect the church from contamination and to restore the fallen believer. When they persist in blatant sin they must be put outside the local body. Paul put it this way: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But 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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Co 5:9–13). Should this happen to a true believer they will most certainly crave the fellowship of other saints in their congregation. It is a product of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They will rid themselves, by the power of the Spirit of God, of their blatant sin. They will grieve and sorrow over it and seek restoration. Once this takes place the body should lovingly and thankfully receive the restored believer: "For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs"(2 Co 2:6–11). This my friends is how church discipline operates from both sides!
Bearing the burdens of fellow believers is to be done with those that are "overtaken" by a trespass. It should not be applied to to those professing Christ but care less about their sin. We long to come alongside our fellow believers to gently restore them. We are not called to convince unbelievers that they are believers by giving them words of encouragement as they blatantly sin. Once approached the response of the offender will lead us to which is the appropriate action. The one that is grieving over their burden is to be handled with a Gal. 6:1-2 approach, while the one who refuses to listen and is indifferent to their sin, should be treated as an unbeliever. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Of course this is something we as a body of believers are called to do. When a fellow Christian is "caught" (a passive verb which seems to mean that the believer was not setting out to be ensnared in this sin) in a particular trespass, the Christians who are bearing the fruit of the Spirit, I believe this is what Paul was referring to when he said "you who are Spiritual," are to gently and lovingly approach that struggling Christian and help restore them. They are to come up under him or her and help bear that burden. From the tone of the passage, I get the idea that this individual that is caught in "transgression" is grieved by the sin. It has brought dishonor to Christ, the body and is obviously harmful to the individual . Though they were not looking to become ensnared, nevertheless, it is still a sin and has become a "burden" to them. So it seems that this person is grieved by this "trespass" and needs help. Perhaps this is why Paul mentions doing it in a "spirit of gentleness." There is a time to be stern and harsh and a time for gentleness (you see both in Paul). And this is a clear case for the gentle approach. The last thing this struggling believer needs is a fire breathing, law wielding person thumping over the head with biblical passages pointing out their sin. They may be aware and grieved by it and need to know how to deal with it and get out of it. This is why local church fellowship is so important! This restoration, which is the goal, of the believer can only be done by the power of the Spirit and help of fellow saints.
I believe this to be the proper understanding and application of the text. I fear, however, that many misapply it. What tends to happen is a person claiming to be a Christian and is living in open unrepentant sin, of which they are neither grieved by, nor were "overtaken" but rather went seeking it out: homosexuality, adultery, fornication, pornography, e.t.c., these people are coddled and catered to by believers. These people don't give a rip about glorifying Christ with their lives! They want to be assured that they are "going to heaven" while they continue in their blatant sin filled life. These are the ones that if confronted quickly toss out "judge not lest you be judged." But these individuals do not need Gal. 6:1-2, they need to be evangelized as unbelievers! Sadly, many Christians do not recognize the distinction between a brother "overtaken" by a transgress and those claiming to be believers but lack the genuine fruit.
We are given Biblical steps to help us with this confusion. Matthew 18:15-17 is a good starting point. Even though the context is personal sins committed by person to another, I still think we can draw out some important principles: "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. But 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. 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" (Mt 18:15–17). Here the confrontation, as well as the response, is what is important. A genuine believer should repent at the their offense on the personal encounter. Yet two other steps are given to reinforce this idea. If the offender fails to repent at the face to face level, then one or two witnesses are to be brought for the next approach and finally if the offender fails to respond to that, then the matter is to be bought before the church. Failing to listen to the church means drastic measures are called for. If this person wants to act like an unbeliever then he should be treated like one. This is a far cry from coddling them and trying to "love them" back to the faith. Yet the loving thing to do is to follow what Christ commanded in Matthew 18:15-17! If the excommunicated person is indeed a Christian, then they will crave the fellowship of the saints in Christ and repent of their sinful ways and return to the church. This idea we will further explore, shortly.
I would like to point to the case of king David. We all remember his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband Uriah. When the Lord sent Nathan to confront David of his gross and evil sins. He didn't respond by killing the messenger, which he had the power and authority to do as king, but by repenting: "Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’ ” David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child who is born to you shall die.” Then Nathan went to his house "(2 Sa 12:8–15). This grieving over sin and repentance produced one of the most beautiful Psalms from David.- Psalm 51. God's people grieve and repent when falling in sin because we crave fellowship with God and his people.
The purpose of excommunication is to protect the church from contamination and to restore the fallen believer. When they persist in blatant sin they must be put outside the local body. Paul put it this way: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But 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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Co 5:9–13). Should this happen to a true believer they will most certainly crave the fellowship of other saints in their congregation. It is a product of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They will rid themselves, by the power of the Spirit of God, of their blatant sin. They will grieve and sorrow over it and seek restoration. Once this takes place the body should lovingly and thankfully receive the restored believer: "For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs"(2 Co 2:6–11). This my friends is how church discipline operates from both sides!
Bearing the burdens of fellow believers is to be done with those that are "overtaken" by a trespass. It should not be applied to to those professing Christ but care less about their sin. We long to come alongside our fellow believers to gently restore them. We are not called to convince unbelievers that they are believers by giving them words of encouragement as they blatantly sin. Once approached the response of the offender will lead us to which is the appropriate action. The one that is grieving over their burden is to be handled with a Gal. 6:1-2 approach, while the one who refuses to listen and is indifferent to their sin, should be treated as an unbeliever. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Friday, May 6, 2011
Why I Abandoned Dispensationalism
The short answer is because I don't believe the Scriptural data leads to it. Although it is often put forward as a position that comes from a solid exegesis of texts, I find that it is a systematic theological construct, which reads certain presuppositions back into passages. I say this as a former staunch Dispensationalist that taught this position for many years which includes in Sunday School and the pulpit. But as my once solid position was weakened years ago, namely, because of the Dispensational understanding of the rebuilt temple and sacrificial system on their understanding of Ezekiel 40-48. I decided to study outside of the Dispensational camp and became convinced by Scripture, as guided and taught by others, of Covenant Theology.
Of course this didn't all happen momentarily. It wasn't as if I picked up a book by a Covenant Theologian and abandoned ship. I first became troubled of the Dispensational view back in Bible college and as time passed by, more and more inconsistencies and flawed views of verses (which I believed violated their own view of a "literal" hermeneutic) arose. I tried my hardest to remain faithful to that system and bought as many Dispensational books that I could get my hands on. On top of my Dispensational text books from Bible college, I purchased more from Ryrie, Chafer, Ice, Showers, Benware, McLain, Pentecost, Toussaint, Walvoord and a few others. Looking for them to help me keep my Dispensationalism (I still have their books on my shelves) but to no avail. What I did notice was their tendencies to answer objections not from exegesis of texts but from a systematic approach, which has at it's foundation, interpreting the New Testament through the Old Testament with national Israel as it's root; with a return to the Old Testament types and shadows which the author of Hebrews warns not to return to. What I found ironic about the issue is not their systematic approach (I'm all for systematic theology) but that they take great pride in their hermeneutic and often chide Covenant Theologians for not taking the Bible at "face value" (which usually means not taking their rigid distinction between Israel and the Church) and constructing their own theological views not built on sound exegesis. Yet, while I was a Dispensationalist I had to be taught the Dispensational sine qua non (the absolute distinction between the Church and Israel)! Nor did I ever find a secret pre-tribulational rapture from any "face value" reading of Scripture. In fact, when I first became a believer I was a Covenant Theologian without knowing that term even existed. I believed the Church was the true Israel of God and that the Kingdom was a present reality for all believers. I didn't become a Dispensationalist until I was taught it's distinctives!
I also abandoned Dispensationalism for obvious Scriptural reasons but also as result of a study of church history. I found how disingenuous we were being. For example, many Dispensationalists will quote from church fathers or leading historical Church figures to substantiate their view of an earthly thousand year reign of Christ on earth (which it is true that many church fathers held that position) and as a result of this, one is subtly led to believe that these same people held the Dispensational view of Scripture. In other words, when these people are quoted to support the historical view of a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, people often get the idea that these same people believed in a "pre-tribulational rapture" and the Dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church. But one will find it almost impossible to find the idea of this "rapture" before John Nelson Darby in the 1800's (of course it is likely he was influenced by Edward Irving but Darby still popularized the position) . And the distinction between Israel and the Church, as taught by Dispensationalism, is flat rejected.
I will give two examples. Justin Martyr is often quoted to support the Dispensational view of the kingdom yet he did not uphold their view of Israel and the Church. In his book Dialogue With Trypho, found here, he writes, "And besides, they beguile themselves and you, supposing that the everlasting kingdom will be assuredly given to those of the dispersion who are of Abraham after the flesh, although they be sinners, and faithless, and disobedient towards God, which the Scriptures have proved is not the case. For if so, Isaiah would never have said this: ‘And unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah" (Ch. 40). And,"For the true spiritualIsrael
Now Charles Spurgeon is often quoted by Dispensational premillennialists in their favor. Yet, he too rejected the sine qua non of their system. He is quite blunt about their position in regards to the Church. He says: "...we have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement" (from his sermon "Jesus Christ Immutable"). Not sure how one can use him to support their view, especially when you get down to the crux of it, when he calls your position stupid (his words not mine).
It is just a plain fact that history is not on their side and this is one reason why I abandoned the Dispensational system. Now I know they don't like to call or admit their view is a system. Especially from those that do not like to call themselves Dispensational (even though everything they believe is Dispensational) because they don't like labels and it seems far better to avoid the "label" and just say your position is from Scripture, built off of a sound exegesis of texts. But I still found it rather difficult to except the fact that the Dispensational view of Scripture was missed in the history of the Church (until John Darby in the 1800's) when their system should come from a simple "face value" reading of Scripture. I guess most of the Church did not know how to read the Bible until Darby! Or as Historic Premillennialist George Eldon Ladd aptly states, "The hope of the Church throughout early centuries was the second coming of Christ, not a pretribulational rapture. If the Blessed Hope is in fact a pretibulational rapture, then the Church has never known that hope through most of its history, for the idea of a pretribulational rapture did not appear in prophetic interpretation until the ninteenth century" ( The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study Of The Second Advent And The Rapture p. 19). This was not the final factor but it was a very big one!
I am not ashamed to admit that I learned Covenant Theology from others. Of course I believe it to be completely Scriptural and this is ultimately what moved me to embrace the position. I've spent four years studying this view and testing the teachings with Scripture. I find their hermeneutic to be the right one and consistent. Time will not permit me, in this article, to deal with all the debatable verses but I have dealt with some and will continue to deal with others in different articles. So the objection- that to learn a theological position from others makes it less Scriptural than yours-just doesn't hold water. Especially when your position cannot be found before 1800 and has been learned and built on by others. In my own personal experience, I have never met one Dispensationalist (this includes the ones that do not admit they are Dispensational) that has just opened the Bible, for however many years, and came away with all the distinctives of that system! Of course they believe their views to be Biblical but they were still taught those views by someone.
Finally, it was not an simple road for me. Anyone that has left that system can testify to it. All my personal friends, family, the church that I pastor and the associating churches are Dispensational and often look at Covenant Theologians with suspicion and as inferior. Yet, my allegiance is not to any man or church association but to Christ and His Word. I still love my Dispensational brethren but believe them to be in error on certain important matters and my change in theological positions comes from the Word of God and Church history which includes the use of creeds and confessions. In the words of Philip Mauro, "Yet I was among those who eagerly embraced it (upon human authority solely, for there is non other) and who earnestly pressed it upon my fellow Christians. Am deeply thankful, however, that the time came when the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of the system itself, and above all, the impossibility of reconciling it s main positions with the plain statements of the Word of God, became so glaringly evident that I could not do otherwise than to renounce it." Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Now we have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement.
Of course this didn't all happen momentarily. It wasn't as if I picked up a book by a Covenant Theologian and abandoned ship. I first became troubled of the Dispensational view back in Bible college and as time passed by, more and more inconsistencies and flawed views of verses (which I believed violated their own view of a "literal" hermeneutic) arose. I tried my hardest to remain faithful to that system and bought as many Dispensational books that I could get my hands on. On top of my Dispensational text books from Bible college, I purchased more from Ryrie, Chafer, Ice, Showers, Benware, McLain, Pentecost, Toussaint, Walvoord and a few others. Looking for them to help me keep my Dispensationalism (I still have their books on my shelves) but to no avail. What I did notice was their tendencies to answer objections not from exegesis of texts but from a systematic approach, which has at it's foundation, interpreting the New Testament through the Old Testament with national Israel as it's root; with a return to the Old Testament types and shadows which the author of Hebrews warns not to return to. What I found ironic about the issue is not their systematic approach (I'm all for systematic theology) but that they take great pride in their hermeneutic and often chide Covenant Theologians for not taking the Bible at "face value" (which usually means not taking their rigid distinction between Israel and the Church) and constructing their own theological views not built on sound exegesis. Yet, while I was a Dispensationalist I had to be taught the Dispensational sine qua non (the absolute distinction between the Church and Israel)! Nor did I ever find a secret pre-tribulational rapture from any "face value" reading of Scripture. In fact, when I first became a believer I was a Covenant Theologian without knowing that term even existed. I believed the Church was the true Israel of God and that the Kingdom was a present reality for all believers. I didn't become a Dispensationalist until I was taught it's distinctives!
I also abandoned Dispensationalism for obvious Scriptural reasons but also as result of a study of church history. I found how disingenuous we were being. For example, many Dispensationalists will quote from church fathers or leading historical Church figures to substantiate their view of an earthly thousand year reign of Christ on earth (which it is true that many church fathers held that position) and as a result of this, one is subtly led to believe that these same people held the Dispensational view of Scripture. In other words, when these people are quoted to support the historical view of a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, people often get the idea that these same people believed in a "pre-tribulational rapture" and the Dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church. But one will find it almost impossible to find the idea of this "rapture" before John Nelson Darby in the 1800's (of course it is likely he was influenced by Edward Irving but Darby still popularized the position) . And the distinction between Israel and the Church, as taught by Dispensationalism, is flat rejected.
I will give two examples. Justin Martyr is often quoted to support the Dispensational view of the kingdom yet he did not uphold their view of Israel and the Church. In his book Dialogue With Trypho, found here, he writes, "And besides, they beguile themselves and you, supposing that the everlasting kingdom will be assuredly given to those of the dispersion who are of Abraham after the flesh, although they be sinners, and faithless, and disobedient towards God, which the Scriptures have proved is not the case. For if so, Isaiah would never have said this: ‘And unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah" (Ch. 40). And,"For the true spiritual
Now Charles Spurgeon is often quoted by Dispensational premillennialists in their favor. Yet, he too rejected the sine qua non of their system. He is quite blunt about their position in regards to the Church. He says: "...we have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement" (from his sermon "Jesus Christ Immutable"). Not sure how one can use him to support their view, especially when you get down to the crux of it, when he calls your position stupid (his words not mine).
It is just a plain fact that history is not on their side and this is one reason why I abandoned the Dispensational system. Now I know they don't like to call or admit their view is a system. Especially from those that do not like to call themselves Dispensational (even though everything they believe is Dispensational) because they don't like labels and it seems far better to avoid the "label" and just say your position is from Scripture, built off of a sound exegesis of texts. But I still found it rather difficult to except the fact that the Dispensational view of Scripture was missed in the history of the Church (until John Darby in the 1800's) when their system should come from a simple "face value" reading of Scripture. I guess most of the Church did not know how to read the Bible until Darby! Or as Historic Premillennialist George Eldon Ladd aptly states, "The hope of the Church throughout early centuries was the second coming of Christ, not a pretribulational rapture. If the Blessed Hope is in fact a pretibulational rapture, then the Church has never known that hope through most of its history, for the idea of a pretribulational rapture did not appear in prophetic interpretation until the ninteenth century" ( The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study Of The Second Advent And The Rapture p. 19). This was not the final factor but it was a very big one!
I am not ashamed to admit that I learned Covenant Theology from others. Of course I believe it to be completely Scriptural and this is ultimately what moved me to embrace the position. I've spent four years studying this view and testing the teachings with Scripture. I find their hermeneutic to be the right one and consistent. Time will not permit me, in this article, to deal with all the debatable verses but I have dealt with some and will continue to deal with others in different articles. So the objection- that to learn a theological position from others makes it less Scriptural than yours-just doesn't hold water. Especially when your position cannot be found before 1800 and has been learned and built on by others. In my own personal experience, I have never met one Dispensationalist (this includes the ones that do not admit they are Dispensational) that has just opened the Bible, for however many years, and came away with all the distinctives of that system! Of course they believe their views to be Biblical but they were still taught those views by someone.
Finally, it was not an simple road for me. Anyone that has left that system can testify to it. All my personal friends, family, the church that I pastor and the associating churches are Dispensational and often look at Covenant Theologians with suspicion and as inferior. Yet, my allegiance is not to any man or church association but to Christ and His Word. I still love my Dispensational brethren but believe them to be in error on certain important matters and my change in theological positions comes from the Word of God and Church history which includes the use of creeds and confessions. In the words of Philip Mauro, "Yet I was among those who eagerly embraced it (upon human authority solely, for there is non other) and who earnestly pressed it upon my fellow Christians. Am deeply thankful, however, that the time came when the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of the system itself, and above all, the impossibility of reconciling it s main positions with the plain statements of the Word of God, became so glaringly evident that I could not do otherwise than to renounce it." Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Now we have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Giving The Sense Of Scripture
"They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading" (Ne 8:8). This is also known as preaching. It is the pastor's job to open a text of Scripture and explain what it means to the congregation. Not only is it the pastor's job but any that come before the flock of God to give a message from the Word of God. To do otherwise is to become what Dr. Al Mohler termed a "pulpit babbler." But to be gifted by God to open the His Word and explain what it means to His people is a huge task. It is a joyful, awesome and dangerous task.
It is dangerous because people will hate and dislike you for it. They may even slander you. But this comes with the calling. Examine the ministry of Paul whom was often slandered and misunderstood by those he ministered to and by his enemies (2 Cor. 2:17-4:6, Gal. 1:10, Gal. 5:11, Ph. 1:15-18 e.t.c.). The same can be said of Peter and John ( 2 Pe. 1:16-21, 1 John 1:1-4 and see the whole epistle). To proclaim the Word of God is to preach pure truth and truth can be painful and is often despised by even believers (observe the detestation of God's sovereign election of some and rejection of others). The author of Hebrews writes, "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Heb 4:12–13). And this is what the pastor, preacher or elder is called to do. He proclaims the sense of Scripture. He must open the text before Him and say "thus saith the Lord" and explain. This is why he has been raised up, called and gifted by God. It is how the sovereign Lord is glorified in the context of the local church. To do otherwise is make a mockery of God.
The pastor is not called to make the congregation feel good, he is not called to please them. He is called to shepherd the flock of God and this is done primarily through giving the sense of Scripture, known today as preaching the Word of God. The writer of Hebrews says "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith...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 13:7,17). The only way to maintain the well being of Christ's sheep is to preach the Word of God and to be in the sheep's pen and minister to them. This is also why congregations must submit to the leadership of the local church. It is a joyful and difficult calling. Giving the sense of Scripture, often, causes rejection rather than submission to the elder's of the church. Families and individuals will often leave a church because the pastor gives the plain sense of the Word to which does not line up with their traditions or because the sermons do not make them "feel good." Others looking to join a local church will attend a local congregation and determine if that church is "for them" on the basis of how well they are welcomed, the age of the congregation or how many of their friends attend it. Rarely, is the ultimate criteria if the pastor gives the sense of Scripture. It is a contradiction to say that the "pastor" loves people but fails to preach the Word of God to them! And by preach the Word, I mean, give a sermon based on the actual meaning of a text of Scripture. Not giving his own ideas or thoughts or visions but opening a passage and giving the sense of it. However, when a pastor faithfully does declare what the Lords says, he is often rejected or his church may be small and his ministry viewed as a failure.
A large part of this stems from the fact that many "pastor's" have deceived their way in the pulpit and do everything but preach the Word! They preach their own ideas about God and read back into Scripture how they think God should be. They aim to tickle the ears of people because they are concerned with the quantity of people rather than the quality of them. They get the title "pastor" when in reality they are nothing more than charlatans that have not met the qualifications of and elder given in 1 Timothy and Titus. Their messages are nothing more than humanistic speeches classified as a sermon because the have a few out of context verses sprinkled about in their speech. They do not give the sense of Scripture because they don't know how and haven't been called and gifted by God to do so. They are then left to their own creativity which has as its goal to tickle and please the people before them. Their messages, devoid of giving the plain sense, becomes the way in which people determine how they should view a "sermon." Thus, when one truly gives the meaning of a certain text, it is rejected and sometimes belittled. People often mock true biblical preaching because they don't know what it is and why it is done. Concerning these shenanigans Spurgeon said, "A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats.
Where you do not have the plain sense of Scripture given by an elder, you do not have a true local church! It matters not how many Christians are gathered there or how well the community speaks of your works done in it or how many others praise the "family environment" present. Apart from the proclamation of God's Word we are left to human ideas, feelings, emotions and traditions all of which, do not produce disciples of Christ. We, as minsters of the Word of God, are called to preach the Word of God and nothing less. It is how God is glorified and His people grow in relation to Him and are equipped for the work of ministry: "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" (Eph 4:11–14). Not only do we edify the people of God through giving the sense of Scripture but it is also how we protect the flock from false teaching and the foolishness that can be found in pulpits today: "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry" (2 Ti 4:1–5).
A failure to stand in the pulpit and give the sense of Scripture is to a failure to love Christ and His sheep. I leave you with a quote from Michael Lawrence: "God's Word has the power to change lives. Therefore, as people we have a vested interest in knowing how to understand and apply the Word correctly...God has spoken through his Word, he has revealed who he is, who we are, and how he calls humanity generally and his people specifically to live. Non-Christians are saved and Christians grow in grace through the the preaching, teaching, counseling and speaking of God's Word, applied by God's Spirit. Our goal as pastors and Christians in ministry is to present this Word to others, so that the Word might do its work. We hold it up and say, 'Here it is. This is what God says. Please, hear and heed.' We're called to read it, yes, and we're called to 'give the sense' of it for our hearers (Neh. 8:8)." If you are in the pulpit and doing everything but giving "the sense," you need to step up or step down. Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bin-Laden's Death
What is the appropriate biblical response to Bin Laden's death? In other words- how should we react to the news of him dying?
I've seen friends of mine post verses such as:
"When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting. (Proverbs 11:10)"
The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10)
On the otherside, others have posted
"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles." (Prov. 24:17)
Honestly, this blogger has felt a sense of both.
On one hand, I understand that a mass murderer has been stopped. He will no longer be able to plan any more attacks upon innocent civilians. The state has brought him to justice (Romans 13:4). For those who lost loved ones on 9/11, this brings some sort of peace. At the same time, it is true, that Bin Laden (has) will give an account for all that he has done. God will hold him responsible for every evil thought, and evil deed he committed. To this, I do not rejoice. Why? Well, I know my own thought life/deeds and understand that apart from the grace of God- I too would stand condemned before God. I too would be told to go "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41).
Unbelievers are also posting comments such as "rot in hell". They believe that hell is a place (only) for murderers, rapists, etc. Not realizing that breaking one law is breaking the whole law (James 2:10). They believe that Osama deserves to be in a place of everlasting torment, not realizing that they will be in the same place- unless they repent. We often think we are better than most. Quickly forgetting that it is ONLY grace that keeps us from hell. There were some people around Jesus's time who thought the same. This is what Jesus told them:
1There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."- Luke 13
In Christ, Awretchsaved
I've seen friends of mine post verses such as:
"When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting. (Proverbs 11:10)"
The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10)
On the otherside, others have posted
"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles." (Prov. 24:17)
Honestly, this blogger has felt a sense of both.
On one hand, I understand that a mass murderer has been stopped. He will no longer be able to plan any more attacks upon innocent civilians. The state has brought him to justice (Romans 13:4). For those who lost loved ones on 9/11, this brings some sort of peace. At the same time, it is true, that Bin Laden (has) will give an account for all that he has done. God will hold him responsible for every evil thought, and evil deed he committed. To this, I do not rejoice. Why? Well, I know my own thought life/deeds and understand that apart from the grace of God- I too would stand condemned before God. I too would be told to go "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41).
Unbelievers are also posting comments such as "rot in hell". They believe that hell is a place (only) for murderers, rapists, etc. Not realizing that breaking one law is breaking the whole law (James 2:10). They believe that Osama deserves to be in a place of everlasting torment, not realizing that they will be in the same place- unless they repent. We often think we are better than most. Quickly forgetting that it is ONLY grace that keeps us from hell. There were some people around Jesus's time who thought the same. This is what Jesus told them:
1There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."- Luke 13
In Christ, Awretchsaved
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Jesus Refutes Anti-Nomianism
Lately, our articles on the blog have dealt with the Law of God and it's relation to believers. Fernando's last article dealt with an assertion that 2 Corinthians 3:7 abrogates the law of God. I've been deemed a legalist because I believe Jesus did not abrogate the moral law. On facebook, a gentleman said such:
"Christ Abolished The Law which includes the Ten Commandments. So your assertion that they were perpetual is false or else we would still be required to tithe and keep The sabbath day, a commandment in the decalougue. This clearly demonstrates that your assertion on perpertuity is false for We Christians certainly do not keep the Sabbath as demanded by The Whole Law."
This brother is nothing short of confused. Let us have He who is the law-giver, refute his assertions:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.- Matthew 5:17-20
So, who will we believe?
To clarify- we are no longer bound by the ceremonial aspects of the law (Col 2:16, Acts 15). Neither do we have theocratic Israel to enforce its civic or judicial laws. But the moral law of God abides forever. This is the Reformed Position. I apologize to the five point predestinarians who don't like it.
Here is my first article on the "issue".
Here is a small article I highly recommend.
97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.
98 Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.
99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.
100 I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.
101 I have kept my feet from every evil path
so that I might obey your word.
102 I have not departed from your laws,
for you yourself have taught me.
103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.- Psalm 119
In Christ, Awretchsaved
"Christ Abolished The Law which includes the Ten Commandments. So your assertion that they were perpetual is false or else we would still be required to tithe and keep The sabbath day, a commandment in the decalougue. This clearly demonstrates that your assertion on perpertuity is false for We Christians certainly do not keep the Sabbath as demanded by The Whole Law."
This brother is nothing short of confused. Let us have He who is the law-giver, refute his assertions:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.- Matthew 5:17-20
So, who will we believe?
To clarify- we are no longer bound by the ceremonial aspects of the law (Col 2:16, Acts 15). Neither do we have theocratic Israel to enforce its civic or judicial laws. But the moral law of God abides forever. This is the Reformed Position. I apologize to the five point predestinarians who don't like it.
Here is my first article on the "issue".
Here is a small article I highly recommend.
97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.
98 Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.
99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.
100 I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.
101 I have kept my feet from every evil path
so that I might obey your word.
102 I have not departed from your laws,
for you yourself have taught me.
103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.- Psalm 119
In Christ, Awretchsaved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)