MENU

Theology
Category

On October 8, 2013 By In Theology, Wisdom

Witness-Bearing & Prosecuting God’s Case (Trusting God & Reasoning about Him)

paul mars hillBy Mark Horne

As Christians we all want to see non-Christians convert to faith in Christ by the grace of God. Even more, we probably want to be instrumental in such a conversion–for that would be a special blessing. But let’s be honest: we all hope that such an opportunity will be a peaceful encounter between us and someone who has never heard and/or understood the Gospel. We would like to see someone receive the Good News from us and immediately respond with joy, repenting and believing.

Well, it is fine for us to hope for a chance to share the Gospel without having to deal with conflict and confrontation, but that does not usually happen. No one has ever knocked on my door because an angel of heaven told him to come to my address and hear an important message from God. In real life people don’t often ask about the Gospel, and when they begin to get the gist of the message, they usually try to change the subject. The reason for this should be obvious; the good news of the Gospel is an offer of forgiveness–an offer which presupposes that all people are sinners against their Creator and deserving of His wrath.

Witnessing for Christ inevitably involves some level confrontation. While a Christian must do all he can to speak peacefully with unbelievers, trying to entirely evade the fact that there is a conflict involved will probably mute his message.

Defense & Offense

Confronted with the claims of the Gospel, people typically respond to our message by saying that it is not true or that it is an interesting hypothesis which MIGHT be true. It is at this second point that I personally am usually most tempted to compromise the claims of Christ. Perhaps you are too. Not wanting to give offense, we can easily be derailed from offering “a ready defense.” How does this happen?

In my experience, a person who is sharing the Gospel will almost invariably want to “prove” to the non-Christian that Christianity is true. “Let us reason together,” he might say to the unbeliever. “I don’t want you to accept the Gospel on ‘blind faith’.” And then he will go on to present arguments and evidences which he thinks, if his friend will consider them, will lead him to the conclusion that God exists.

While it is true that people should reason in order to believe the Gospel, and that our faith is not supposed to be blind, defending Christianity in this way involves a fatal compromise. It treats the person as if he is a “neutral” observer who has the right to evaluate the claims of Christ for himself and decide whether or not they are worthy of acceptance. This simply will not do. According to the Gospel, people are creatures who ought to submit to their Creator in ALL of their thinking, and are sinners who are ANYTHING but neutral regarding the true God.

A cursory study of Biblical terminology will reveal that “bearing witness” for Christ has judicial implications. We are bringing an accusation against the world. It is the creature and sinner who must be cleared before God’s judgment seat, not Jesus who stands awaiting the judgment of any mere man.

Without Excuse

But does this mean that the Christian faith is irrational–that it is to be believed without evidence? Far from it. All people everywhere are already confronted with evidence that God exists. They may say that they are unsure of God’s existence, but in fact they are surrounded by God’s personal testimony. God never “left himself without witness” to anybody (Acts 14.17). Each person without exception is especially confronted with the revelation of the true God in his own person. God

made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“In him we live and move and have our being”

as even some of your own poets have said,

“For we are indeed his offspring.”

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. (Acts 17:26-29, ESV)

Every single fact in human experience undeniably shows forth the face of God. And all unbelievers without exception are suppressing this fact in this experience. They do this, not only by disbelieving the Bible, but by denying His general revelation (in nature and history) and coming up with rationalizations to justify themselves–rationalizations that we know as false philosophies and false religions—“the art and imagination of man.” Instead of admitting that God is personally present with them, they insist that reality is ultimately impersonal. The only “god” they will accept is a finite being in the same impersonal surroundings. Or else they insist that “God” is a word to cover over the ultimately impersonal nature of reality.

By arguing as if an unbeliever is legitimately ignorant of God, by treating him as a neutral seeker of truth, we can deny the real situation and undercut the Gospel. For, if a person can be legitimately ignorant of God, then he cannot be sinning against Him. The Gospel is unnecessary. A person has an excuse for unbelief. Indeed, we are implicitly agreeing that reality is not a personal revelation of God, but an impersonal environment.

But if God is self-evident, and if the Bible is recognizable as the voice of the true God, then the Gospel makes sense. The fact that seemingly sincere people deny that it is true also makes sense. The Bible explains that people practice self-deception. Sinners don’t ultimately need new evidence to be persuaded of God’s existence. That need may arise because, as part of the process of suppressing the truth, there is disinformation that has been from generation to generation. But ultimately, people need a new ethical orientation so that they will stop suppressing the evidence they have and “seek God.”

They need a new heart.

A More Excellent Way

Does all this mean we cannot argue with unbelievers in any constructive way? Not at all! It only means we have to argue in a way that does not compromise the Gospel. We must argue in a way that does not undermine the universally evident truth of God’s existence and the sinful disposition of people to deny the His personal revelation in nature and history and in Scripture. Much more could be written about the various more specific ways we are tempted into such compromise, and the various ways we can avoid it. For the moment, consider a brief general explanation of how we might defend the Faith without compromising.

I’ve already mentioned that, as witnesses for Christ, we are in a courtroom situation. We are pressing charges against sinners who need to seek clemency before it is too late. As everyone knows from watching fictional courtroom dramas or even real court cases, the primary objective of a defense lawyer is to present a plausible reinterpretation of the prosecution’s evidence. Sometimes this involves some key piece of new evidence, but usually both parties have an agreement at the outset about the evidence at hand for the case. One’s conclusion mainly hinges on how one interprets the mutually-acknowledged evidence. This non-Christian reinterpretation results in untrue “worldviews”–the false philosophies and religions I mentioned above.

As witnesses for our Lord, we must attempt to show unbelievers that their supporting false beliefs are insufficient and incoherent. An impersonal world, after all, is ultimately unknowable. By showing that only the Christian teaching of God, creation, and human destiny makes any sense at all, we will press home to the non-Christian that he is evading the God Who has surrounded him with testimony to His own existence.

Ambassadors of Peace

As we do this, it is important we never be unnecessarily combative. A person raised in an unbelieving environment is different from someone who walked away from knowledge of a Gospel. We do need to account for the fact that many people are not self-consciously aware of where they are going or why when they walk away from God in daily life. The fact that all people are sinning in how they evade knowledge of God does not mean they are all self-conscious enemies. Depending on who we are talking to, we can function as helpful counselors rather than debate gladiators.

While we need to not support ultimate neutrality when we make our intellectual case for Christianity, we also need to not treat people as self-conscious rebels. The deep mystery of self-deception is that one is somehow both the deceiver and the deceived. In many cases the “deceiver” has been helped by years of deceptions from an unbelieving culture. So nothing in what I am saying above is intended to justify a hostile style of witnessing as necessary to faithfully defending the Gospel.

(Cross-Posted)<>реклама на стойкахпродвижения ов в сети

Read more

On October 4, 2013 By In Theology

Reviewing Kirk Cameron’s “Unstoppable”

by Uri Brito

The thought of spending $12.50 on a movie frightens me. I am perfectly content watching my favorite latest series on Netflix. The thought of going to a movie theater no longer appeals to me as it did ten years ago. So what would compel me to visit the theater this time? I confess, I was intrigued. I have been following Kirk Cameron for some time now. Kirk’s rise to stardom occurred occurred in the late 80’s with Growing Pains. Since then, Cameron has come to Jesus and turned his career toward the Christian movie industry. His official entrance into the evangelical scene came in the 2000 movie, Left Behind. In those days, Cameron had drunk deeply of Tim Lahaye’s best sellers. The Left Behind series became a sensation. The 16-part novels emphasized the rapture, a popular evangelical doctrine of the end-times. The “Rapture” occurs when Jesus calls His Church home. The vision of falling airplanes, tightly folded clothes, and millions of people disappearing has become more than fiction; to many, it is Christianity in its purest form. And Cameron’s movies became the face of it.

Fast forward several years. Cameron’s involvement in broad apologetic and evangelistic work with Ray Comfort has given him some notoriety. He has spoken courageously on a host of moral issues and has received the type of media persecution expected from those who are antagonistic to the exclusivity of Jesus.

Cameron’s personal journey led him to some interesting theological figures. His youthful appeal can be deceiving. Kirk has actually become a fine thinker. And the greatest proof of his ability to engage the world of the Bible intelligently is his latest movie entitled “Unstoppable.” Originally presented to an audience of 10,000 people at Liberty University, Cameron explores the traditional question of theodicy: “If God is sovereign, why does He allow bad things to happen to good people?” a

A Case for Christian Activism

The theme song summarizes the basic thrust of the movie. There is a time to speak and that time is now. Cameron’s investigation provides an apologetic for Christian activism. The former Growing Pains star is now calling Christians everywhere to grow up. Speak for Christ. Defend Christ. The whole world has become a platform for the Christian vision.

This journey seeks to offer some answers to the broad questions of good and evil. Instead of entering into the philosophical arena, Kirk enters into the narrative of redemptive history. The drama of life is being enacted in this great stage. Unstoppable presents a narrative theology that is often unheard of in the evangelical pulpit. This narrative is both compelling and rich. It is a story that starts in the beginning.

Narratival Theology

Through very rich imagery, Cameron takes us through the formation of man. Man is created with authority and that is most clearly seen in his ability to name animals. In doing so, Adam mimics His Creator. God gives man a mission to heavenize earth.  The heavenification project began in the Garden. Adam then is put to sleep and, from his side, God forms woman, who is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. This beautiful, poetic, creative act, now puts man and woman at the center of God’s great plans for history.

Man was to have dominion over all things. And the first great test they faced came in the form of a beast. Adam should have smelt it a mile away. He should have crushed it. But the compelling drama goes from the safety of the garden into the danger of the forbidden fruit. Adam’s sin plunges humanity into chaos. But in the middle of this cosmic betrayal, God does not betray His creation. He makes a promise (Gen. 3:15). Even after Adam and Eve leave the garden He continues to provide for them.

But the narrative continues in bloody fashion. Humanity experiences its first death: the death of a son, the death of a brother. God then places on Cain the first true mark of the beast.

At this point, Kirk Cameron explores the persuasiveness of this narrative. This is a narrative, he argues, that would not sell. In Genesis, the Creator of the world destroys His own creation when He sent a great deluge to drown humanity in their sin. Why would the Protagonist do this? It is here when Cameron shines in his narration. He argues that God packs the whole world in a wooden box and then re-opens the box (the ark) to a new and better world. The new world is born through tragedy. The story is persuasive because it does not hide the consequences of sin.

The Theology of Unstoppable

Unstoppable is a short commentary on Genesis, which is consequently a commentary on the whole Bible. The great rainbow (bow) serves as an instrument of war. God took that instrument and directed it to His only begotten Son at the cross. At the cross, Christ was brutally murdered by His own creation. But it is precisely at the cross, argues Cameron, that “Jesus flips death on its head by dying for His enemies.” After death came life. Life burst from the grave. In fact, every graveyard is a garden. And one day, “each seed will burst into a new world.”

It is in this resurrection theme that Cameron transforms the question of evil into a case for the God who redeems humanity and will bring humanity from the dust of the earth into a new creation. Cameron takes the death of his young friend and uses it as an example for how grieving is not the end of the story. God’s purposes are unstoppable.

This is not your typical Bible story telling. Cameron weaved into his narrative a robust view of creation. Creation is not something to be despised or rejected. Creation was not left behind by its God. Creation is being redeemed by its Maker. Redeemed humanity united to the Final Adam, Jesus Christ, is now commissioned to disciple the nations and make the glory of God known.

Evangelicals will be deeply shocked by its overwhelming optimism. Cameron does not end in lament, but in triumph. The Christian vision is not an escapist one. It is a mission grounded in resurrection joy. And because of this, evil does not have the final word. God cannot be stopped. His purposes will be accomplished in history. His glory will be known from sea to sea.

DVD AVAILABLE
JANUARY 28, 2014

CHURCH SHOWINGS BEGIN NOVEMBER 15!<>mobile rpg games onlineконтекстная реклама adwords

  1. Inherent in the question, is “How can He allow bad things to happen to Christians?  (back)

Read more

On October 4, 2013 By In Theology

“Transformationalism” Is A Derogatory Term for The Great Commission

Abraham_KuyperBy Mark Horne

One of the ways that Dispensationalists pretend their position is not only right, but the standard for orthodoxy, is to give a novel name to traditional Christian theology. Rather than admit that the Church throughout the ages, outside of their own recent sect, has understood the Church as the new Israel, the label such a view “Replacement Theology.”

Within the Reformed Tradition, the attempt to import Dispensational ideas about the difference between law and gospel is using a similar tactic. People who believe, as Christians have always believed until recently, that Jesus is Lord of all of life, are being called “Transformationalists.”

The term isn’t as inherently misleading as “Replacement Theology,” but the content of the term is not the issue. The point is that novel innovators press their case by labeling the traditional view by a novel name. This implies the falsehood that those defending and transmitting the traditional view are some kind of new school of thought.

When Abraham Kuyper wrote that Jesus claims the entire cosmos, he wasn’t developing a new position against other Christian theologies. He was staking the traditional Christian position against the modern world. To the extent that Christians have consciously collaborated with modernity, or been duped into it, his words do challenge other Christians. But from the standpoint of historic Reformed theology–or historic Christianity of any kind, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox–Kuyper was simply appropriating the Christian heritage.

There is a lot of other confusion evident in the “anti-transformationalist” movement. But I want to leave that alone and move on to a more important point.

The reason why all Christians until the post-enlightenment secular experiment have been “transformationalists” is because Jesus was “patient 0” of the spreading plague. Anyone who believes the Bible is accurate cannot escape this. Here is the only proof needed:

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Going therefore, disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:16-20)

I change the ESB slightly to match the koine. “Go, therefore, and make disciples from all the nations,” has a couple of problems. One minor problem is that, having declared himself the new king of the universe, Jesus didn’t need to issue a command to his disciples to go anywhere. By declaring himself the new lord and master of the cosmos he had already commanded his hearer to acknowledge his rule and authority everywhere. So I prefer to keep the participle form, “going.” As I understand it, the implication is, “Since you will be going…”

A more important and definite problem, in my opinion, is that the typical English translation settles for the reader that Jesus intends for us to pick out converts from all the nations. [Note: a reader pointed out to me that “of all the nations” does not have to mean “from out of” and could easily be interpreted better. He’s right. It just usually isn’t interpreted better these days]

Obviously, winning over individuals is the process we must take. The fact that Jesus refers to baptism proves that must be the foundational method for carrying out the Great Commission. You baptize people, not abstractions or collectives. However, in the Greek, “disciple” is a verb. There is no “make” in Jesus’ words. And while “disciple” is the verb, “nations” is the object of action–“all nations.” The English translation completely re-orients the Great Commission in a modern direction. While this hasn’t hurt earlier readers who were willing to take seriously the rest of Scripture in context and learn from it, I think in our own day it is important to let readers know what Jesus really said.

So we are told to “disciple all the nations.” And how? By baptizing and teaching. Teaching what? “Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Everything means our whole Bibles. Jesus said that “Scripture cannot be broken.” He condemned Pharisees for not keeping God’s law. Of course, I’m not saying that Jesus expected the Law to be kept in its Mosaic aspect. Noahic dietary freedoms are fine and blood rituals like circumcision and animal sacrifice are no longer to be practiced as they once were. But the whole Bible, properly interpreted, is our governing document. And by “our” I mean, all humans.

Every moment Iran or India or the United States spends disregarding the Bible as the king’s word to them, at any institutional or personal level, is a moment of treason. All peoples, tribes, nations are called to entrust themselves to the new king and be his subjects (not to mention that he actually wishes to make them his co-rulers).

This means, by the way, that if we preach a gospel that doesn’t communicate to the hearers that the universe now has, by virtue of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, a new public king–that we aren’t preaching the real gospel. We see this is the explicit content of the post-resurrection sermon ever preached:

“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

“The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.“

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:29-36, ESV)

The Great Commission, on its face, outlaws secularism and cultures based on any other god or lord than our Lord Jesus Christ. And it tells all Christians to say so.

(Cross-Posted)<>проверка pr

Read more

On October 3, 2013 By In Theology, Wisdom

If You Clean Up As You Go, The Mess Never Spreads

messy office 03

by Marc Hays

This morning I woke up with a plan. I was going to come downstairs, put the coffee on, come into my office and clean it before I did anything else. No Facebook. No Blog and Mablog. No email. No phones, no pools, no pets. The state of disarray in my office had gotten awful. There were papers that needed to be sorted; many more papers that needed to be trashed; books that needed to be reshelved; drawings from the children that needed a museum to house them. And that was just my desk.

As it became cleaner, I noticed that the contrast between my now-clean-desk and the floor and tables around it was becoming starker. There were papers stacked everywhere! More books underneath them, and still more drawings from the kids. My entire office was atrocious, and until one part was clean, I didn’t notice the rest being in such disarray.

Recently, a friend called me and confessed a sin to me that I might pray for him throughout the day. It was a sin in his mind. He hadn’t acted on it yet- not with his eyes, his mouth, his hands, or his feet, but he knew where his heart was, and he knew this thought was a work of the flesh. He knew that man cannot take fire into his lap and not be burned. He knew that these types of thoughts spread like wild fire until there is no controlling them. He also knew that these types of thoughts wasted the life and breath that God had given him, and he didn’t want to waste those things. His heart was soft and humble and wise.

My office, being a negative example, and my friend’s confession, being a positive example, remind me of the same thing: If you clean up as you go, the mess never spreads.<>rpg mobile gameреклама в директе

Read more

On October 2, 2013 By In Theology

Biblical Manhood in the Marketplace: Working to Harmonize Vocation and Calling

Guest Post By Todd Leonard

I have heard it no less than several hundred times in the past ten years.  No doubt, it is always well-meaning and well-intended, and comes from a multitude of choruses, but the assertion leaves me a little perplexed, and, truth be told, somewhat discouraged. The refrain usually sounds something like this: “Todd, you missed your calling. You should have been” – then comes the rich and variegated occupations – pastor, teacher, motivational speaker, columnist, narrator, network anchor, broadcaster, politician, high school football coach; yes, even at times, nouthetic counselor, one that really puzzles me. Yet for the past twenty-two years, outside of four years as a Scout Platoon Leader in the United States Army, I have worked in some form of educational sales, marketing, and selling everything from textbooks, class rings, graduation cap and gowns, to varsity letterman jackets. Not exactly high glamour! The logical and difficult question thus becomes: Have I missed my calling? While I’m certainly no relativist, the answer is a bit more complicated and nuanced than what might appear on the surface and what I might have answered ten years ago. It goes beyond a simple yes or no, but I believe when we carefully understand the biblical basis and ground for work, the nature of primary and secondary callings, and the future orientation of our work, not only have I not missed my calling, but perhaps have come to understand it more completely and appreciate it more fully.

Learning From Kuyper and Luther

Abraham KuyperSadly, most Christians in our contemporary culture today have little if any theological framework for a doctrine of work. The secular culture lives for the weekend, and many Christians have adopted much of the same mentality. The famous cliché that we “work at our play, and play at our work” may be a cliché, but a truthful one at that. Many view work as a result of the fall, coming as a sort of punishment for man’s disobedience and rebellion. Pastors have, sadly in my estimation, failed the Church in this area by their failure to fully ground the doctrine of work in the “very good” declaration of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1:26-28, popularly described as the Cultural Mandate, God establishes His first command for Adam and Eve to take dominion over the earth, for His glory, and to be co-laborers in establishing his Kingdom over the vast expanse of the Cosmos. Kuyper’s famous declaration of the Crown Rights of Christ over every “square inch” of creation was a restatement of God’s original plan, one that most certainly involved work, and physical work at that. Post-fall, that command has not been rescinded, but given a new orientation and direction, as I shall briefly explore shortly below.  This concept gives immense dignity and meaning to every legitimate and moral enterprise; thus the great Reformer Martin Luther could declare: “God Himself will milk the cows through him whose vocation that is.  He who engages in the lowliness of his work performs God’s work, be he lad or king.”

The Difference Between Calling and Vocation

While every legitimate vocation may have worth, we must go a step further and delineate between calling and vocation (by which I mean the work we are employed to do), something many in the Church fail to do and which engenders much disagreement. Over the years, I have examined the notion of “vocation” and “calling” from a multitude of angles, and while I used to hold firmly to the belief that both held much the same meaning, careful study has led me to cautiously make a distinction between them.  Hugh Whelchel, in his marvelous book, How Then Should We Work, distinguishes between our primary calling and secondary callings as Christians. Our primary call is to follow Christ and receive the gift of salvation; many secondary callings flow out of this one primary calling. While certainly not setting up any kind of dualism between the sacred and the secular, something the Reformers vehemently opposed, this framework recognizes our secondary callings in the realm of family, church, and society. We are called to be husbands, fathers, elders, deacons, and into vocational work that glorifies God and serves the common good. With regard to the last, Whelchel labels this secondary calling ourvocational calling and says this: “A Christian’s work is not a specific type of occupation but rather an attitude that sees work ‘not, primarily as a thing one does to live, but the thing one lives to do…Work is, or should be, the full expression of the worker’s gifts, the thing in which he finds spiritual, mental, and bodily satisfaction, and the medium in which he offers himself to God.’  Under this definition you may have different careers and jobs at different points in your life, but your vocational calling from God will stay constant.” There it is! Many jobs may come, but the God-given passion and skills uniquely granted by the Creator and refined through years of discovery will remain and be brought to bear upon whatever vocational task that may constitute one’s “career path” for a particular season. In short, your job may not fully harmonize with your “calling” but the thoughtful Christian will constantly be seeking to integrate them as fully as possible. For some, this task is much easier than others, as there is more coherence and unity between the two. I think about many of my friends who have a passion for teaching and actually make their living doing it; the pilot who loves to teach and serves as a flight instructor; the skilled artisan who has a passion for restoration and runs a paint business; the astute and savvy business-minded friend who loves legal documents and research and supervises operations and title search at a major title company. For that matter, I think of my wife, a woman who loves numbers, finance, data, and spreadsheets and works as a CPA out of our home, and a great one at that! For most of us, however, the landscape is a bit more uncertain and requires that we constantly evaluate how our talents and treasures are brought to bear upon our vocational endeavors.

Work has Eternal Significance

Finally, work must be done with a view toward God’s overarching plan to unite all things in Christ, “things in heaven and on earth,” as the Apostle Paul states in several places in Scripture.  When we are tempted to despair, and fail to understand in any remote manner how what we do from day to day has significance and meaning, we must remember that God has redeemed us, and thus, by extension, our vocational pursuits, and has promised to bring the best of those efforts and undertakings into the New Heavens and the New Earth. With redemption comes a new orientation for all of our efforts; we know that “our labor is not in vain” and that if the Kings of the Earth will bring their glory into eternity in some sense (Rev. 22), then what we do now, no matter how trivial and miniscule it might appear to us at the time, carries with it some transcendent and eternal purpose which is known perhaps only to God and which will find its way into the Consummation.

Several years ago, I had the privilege of hosting Pastor Greg Strawbridge in my home, along with ten other men, for an evening of theological discussion. He began the meeting by asking each man present what he did for a living. When he heard my response, he said, “so you work in the glory business.” It left a deep impression on me, for I had never really thought of it in those terms before.  From that point forward, I began to see, sometimes more so than at others, the profound difference that the products I provided made in people’s lives. I also began to see how all of the unique skills, like those of speaking, teaching, motivating, and narrating, were employed in my vocational calling. I’m not sure how a class ring or a cap and gown will find its way into the New Heavens and the New Earth; most likely it won’t! What I am certain of is that it will be a place full of Glory where wise stewardship will be called for, where unique gifts will be employed in the service of the King for all eternity, and where God’s original purpose for man will be fully and finally realized. Perhaps, just maybe, what I’m doing here is but preparation for what I will forever do there. I can think of no better reason to work!

–

Todd Leonard has worked in Educational Sales for the past eighteen years and was previously a Scout Platoon Leader in the U.S. Army. He is married to Trina and the proud father of six children. He is a recreational triathlete who loves the pursuit of the strenuous life. He is also the leader of Micah 6:8 ministries, a member of Providence Church in Pensacola, Florida, and blogs at micahmandate.blogspot.com. You can follow him on Twitter at @micah68min.

(Originally published at CBMW)<>vklomинтернет реклама продвижение ов

Read more

On October 1, 2013 By In Theology

The Gospel of the Ten Commandments

SStill Life with Bible, Oil on Canvas [source: unknown]As American Protestants drift further from their Reformation roots…

I should stop there and try to avert confusion. Neither the sixteenth nor the seventeenth centuries contain the climax of all church history. I am not saying that all and every change since some point in the past represents a decline. The climax of church history will be in the future at the climax of human history, which I can safely promise will be over a hundred thousand years from now.

Still, in my opinion, some changes in American Protestantism have not been done intentionally nor correctly, but are rather accidents of a kind of community amnesia.

So, with that in mind: As American Protestants drift further from their Reformation roots, we see a lot of people disparaging the Ten Commandments (“Law”) and holding up the Gospel as a different form of life. The call to trust in Christ is held up as an alternative to hearing and obeying the Ten Commandments.

This is a foolish mistake that is caused by incoherent theology and which then produces even worse confusion.

The First Commandment teaches us to trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.

  1. The First Commandment reads (I’m using NASB throughout): “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Obviously, trusting in someone or something else (even one’s own good works) for justification, sanctification, and eternal life” is to have another god beside the true God. It is a rejection of Jesus and his work. It is a violation of the First Commandment.
  2. As a matter of the historic record, at the time of the Reformation, that Protestants invoked the First Commandment precisely for the purpose of defending the doctrine of sola Christo and thus of sola fide. The took the First Commandment as a condemnation of Rome’s superstitions and her teaching of salvation by works. For example, consider the Heidelberg Catechism

    Q94: What does God require in the first Commandment?
    A94: That, on peril of my soul’s salvation, I avoid and flee all idolatry,[1] sorcery, enchantments,[2] invocation of saints or of other creatures;[3] and that I rightly acknowledge the only true God,[4] trust in Him alone,[5] with all humility [6] and patience [7] expect all good from Him only,[8] and love,[9] fear [10] and honor [11] Him with my whole heart; so as rather to renounce all creatures than to do the least thing against His will.[12]

    1. I Cor. 10:7, 14
    2. Lev. 19:31; Deut. 18:10-12
    3. Matt. 4:10; Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9
    4. John 17:3
    5. Jer. 17:5
    6. I Peter 5:5-6
    7. Heb. 10:36; Col. 1:10b-11; Rom. 5:3-4; I Cor. 10:10
    8. Psa. 104:27-30; Isa. 45:6b-7; James 1:17
    9. Deut. 6:5
    10. Deut. 6:2; Psa. 111:10; Prov. 9:10; Matt. 10:28
    11. Deut. 10:20
    12. Matt. 5:29-30; 10:37; Acts 5:29

    (a) Notice the prooftext for the demand that we “rightly acknowledge the only true God” is John 17.3: “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” The other New Testament texts are interesting as well.

    (b) Notice also that this a Christian (see question #1) is told that disobeying the First Command will imperil his or her salvation. If the First Commandment does not teach us to trust in Christ alone then this would be problematic.

    (c) Finally, notice the mention of the invocation of the saints. The First Commandment was not only about never sinning; it was about trusting the true God and mediator to deal with your many continual sins. The Roman Catholics rationalized prayers to the saints and hope on their merits. The Protestants said that we should pray to and trust in Christ alone. And they used the First Commandment to prove this.

  3. Having no other gods before Yahweh meant never sacrificing animals to any other god but Him. This is not only the obvious context of Exodus and the Pentateuch, but only a few sentences after the giving of the Decalogue God gives instructions on how to properly sacrifice “ascension offerings and peace offerings.” These sacrifices pointed to Christ. The First Commandment teaches us to trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
  4. Some Christians, claiming to be loyal to the Reformed heritage insist that the Decalogue cannot command us to repent and believe because the Moral Law was imposed on both unfallen Adam and later Jesus. Since they didn’t need to repent and trust in a mediator then the Decalogue cannot contain such a command. This is bogus reasoning. The fact that neither unfallen Adam, nor Christ, needed to be forgiven is entirely irrelevant. The First Commandment tells us to trust in God alone for all that we need. For us sinners, that means that we must trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life. For Jesus it meant trusting the Father for vindication, growth in grace (Luke 2.51), and resurrection to glory. If we need anything, then the First Commandment tells us to look for God as he has revealed his will in reference to that need. We need justification, sanctification, and eternal life. Those can only be found in Christ. Christ is true God as well as true Man. Thus, the First Commandment teaches us to trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
  5. The Ten Commandments as given at Sinai are part of the administration of the covenant of grace. They were not stipulations given to sinless beings in which they were expected to persevere in perfect obedience. They are stipulations given to sinners expected to constantly sin. When an Old Testament Hebrew sacrificed to Baal in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, he was violating the First Commandment. When a Church member decides to pray to the god of the Mormons for the forgiveness of sins, he is violating the First Commandment. The First Commandment teaches us to trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
  6. Thus the preamble to the Decalogue makes it clear that the Ten Commandments are given for the saved community to live by faith in God’s grace. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Thus, the Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches:

    Q44. What doth the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?
    A44. The preface to the Ten Commandments teacheth us, That because God is The Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all His commandments [Deut. 11:1; Luke 1:74-75].

    The Decalogue explicitly appeals to God as Redeemer, the one who frees God’s elect from all sin and brings them into an esate of salvation (See question 20 and then 21 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism).

I can only hope this brief essay is totally superfluous for most readers. As usual, Francis Turretin’s wisdom is worth reading today:

Although faith in Christ (which is prescribed in the gospel) can be called new in respect of its object (which is revealed in the gospel alone), still it belongs to the law in respect of act and of obligation because we are bound to believe in God and all his word. Repentance also belongs to the law; not as it was made for the first man, but as repeated for the sinner and illustrated by the gospel; and materially, if not formally, because it teaches and prescribes the mode of repentance.

(Cross-Posted)<>услуги поддержки ов

Read more

On September 27, 2013 By In Books, Theology

Why Virtue?

after-you-believe

Click to see the book at Amazon.

 

N. T. Wright has a wonderful book called After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters.   I would strongly recommend it to anyone, whether a new Christian, or one who has been in the faith for many years but wants to grow in discipleship and faithfulness.

 

WHY BE VIRTUOUS?

One of the key insights that Wright brings to light in the book—and there are many—has to do with the Why? of Christian virtue. In other words, what is the reason for pursuing holiness, discipline, character, and virtue? What is our motive? Here he offers something fresh—something that I think moves us further along than many of the common answers to this question, and it does so by inspiring the imagination.

Often the answer to such a question seems to boil down to brute command: Do it because the Bible says so. Which amounts to: “Do it because God says to.  Just obey.  Don’t ask why, just get to it.” There is, of course, a certain amount of validity to the notion that God as creator has the authority to command, and that we as creatures have a duty to obey, whether we understand or not; however, that kind of misses the point.  God is not like the exasperated parent who says, “because I said so,” in response to a sincere search for understanding. After all God doesn’t want a bunch of brow-beaten children; he wants us to grow up in doing his will and to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12.2). He wants us to know why we obey, so that we can obey with wisdom, discerning not only the letter, but also the spirit of the law of liberty. (more…)

Read more

On September 27, 2013 By In Theology

What Is A Word Worth?

by Marc Hays

worth 1000 words william beasleyIt has been said that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” but it ain’t necessarily so. This old adage implies that in the marketplace of communication pictures are far scarcer than words, i.e., it takes 1000 words to equal the value of one picture, but is that always the case? To say, to the contrary, that words are worth more than pictures would be to make the same mistake, i.e. to set up a false dichotomy. Worth is often tied to purpose, which provides the determining factor for the solution of many disputes. What are we trying to do with our words? What are we attempting to accomplish via our pictures? The answer is found in the “both/and” rather than the “either/or.”

Interestingly enough, the phrase, “a picture is worth a thousand words,” is not a picture at all, but a collection of words, logically organized into a sentence. The earliest example of this phrase in print is in newspaper advertising in the early 20th Century. The advertiser wanted the consumer to come by the showroom and see the advertised product in order to be convinced to purchase it, i.e. seeing the items will be more convincing than reading a description of them.

In a sense, pictures are empirical and words are rational. Pictures are data, not devoid of meaning, but always in need of interpretation. Words are similar in lacking inherent meaning, but interpretation is unavoidable due to the inability of any person to speak a “neutral” sentence. A photograph communicates what we can see with our eyes and nothing more. A sentence communicates a necessarily biased opinion about what we’ve perceived. So, if our purpose is to show, then a picture may be far more appropriate than a paragraph, but if the goal is to tell, then you probably need more than just an image.

One sterling example of an effective use of both pictures and words is N. D. Wilson’s bookumentary “Notes From The Tilt-A-Whirl.” Here, the cinematography is amazing, stunning, breathtaking, and 997 other positive modifiers, but the message of the pictures is always subservient to the narrative. The pictures are a hand-maiden to the text, serving to enhance the presentation of the meaning, not establish it.  Many of the images would still be breathtaking without Nate’s narration, but the story could never be told if the TV was muted (with no subtitles.) Here’s the trailer as a taste of what I’m getting at.

The preeminent example of image and word kissing, is the Son of God who is both image and Word. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15). There can be no necessary dichotomy between word and image, as both are manifest in the man Christ Jesus. In Him, thousands of thousands of words will never tell all of His glories. “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25). So what about pictures? Can one picture of Christ tell us 1000 times more than all these “insufficient” words? Well, one day we’ll see Him face to face (1 Cor. 13:12), but until then, only one thought comes to mind: the Bible is not a picture book.

 

Nate Wilson’s book, Notes From The Tilt-A-Whirl can be purchased here.

And the DVD bookumentary here.

The featured image in this article is a mixed-media collage entitled “Worth 1000 Words” by William Beasley. Prints of this artwork can be purchased here.<>wicrack.comбренд в интернете

Read more

On September 26, 2013 By In Theology

Does Baptism DO Anything? Is the Bible true?

baptism christLots of Evangelicals want to answer “no” to this question.

Actually, that understates the situation. Evangelicals typically look at you as if you are insane to bring up the questions, let alone to state the affirmative.

The problem with this position is that Evangelicals are bound to believe what the Bible teaches. And the Bible says inconvenient things, like

  • “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3.21),
  • “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3.27, 28),
  • “by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free” (1 Corinthians 12.13),
  • “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death… Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6.3, 4),
  • “in Christ you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Colossians 3.11, 12).

Many people have decided that since they know the Bible could not possibly be saying such things about baptism, the baptism being referred to must be a dry “spiritual” baptism, not water baptism.

But again there are some inconvenient statements in the Bible. For example, in the book of Acts in the first sermon of the Church, Peter gives this altar call: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2.38). Here, there is no question that normal water baptism is intended, because the text goes on to record that three thousand were baptized that day in response to Peter’s words.

Or consider Paul’s testimony about what Ananias said to get him to submit to baptism:

“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, “Brother Saul, receive your sight.” And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, “The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:12-16, ESV)

Yet Peter’s statements about baptism are quite similar to those in the New Testament Epistles quoted above. On what basis do we claim that the Epistles must not be speaking of water baptism? Are not the quotations from Acts just as challenging? There is no evidence that readers of the apostles’ letters to them would regard there mentions of baptism as not referring to the baptism which they had undergone and which they practiced with water.

We can be sure, of course, that baptism does not absolutely guarantee that a person will inherit glory and escape condemnation at the resurrection. The Apostle Paul says amazing things about baptism in chapter 12 of his first letter to the Corinthians, but he warns them earlier that baptism does not mean they will escape the wrath of Jesus if they worship other gods (1 Corinthians 10.1-12). Likewise, Acts tells us of a man named Simeon who was baptize but then manifested an unbelieving heart (Acts 8.9-24). Also, when the Apostle Peter writes, “baptism now saves you” he compares baptism to the Noah and his family brought to safety through the flood on the Ark. Yet Ham apostatized and rebelled as both Peter and his readers must have known.

I am leaving out many possible further allusions to baptism in the New Testament. I think the way baptism is somehow kept out of such passages and Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in John 3 (despite the surrounding context of the work of John the baptizer), or Titus 3.5, or Hebrews 10.22 is rather amazing. But I stick with the even more obvious statements so as not to quibble.

So what are we to think of baptism?

First of all, we need to remember that we ourselves can do things through signs and God is no less powerful than we are. We enter marriage through ceremonies, many cultures effect adoption by ceremonies, and the simple words “I promise” are means of doing something through a statement. The baptizer is not acting on his own, but is acting as God’s representative. Just as God is the one who marries a man and woman through human agency (Matthew 19.6; Mark 10.9), so baptism is God’s act, not man’s.

If we try to solve this puzzle of baptism without considering anything besides the ritual itself, I don’t think a solution is available. However, what if we consider the fact that Jesus established a new society, His Church?

The Church is “the household of God” (1 Timothy 3.15; 1 Peter 4.17). She is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5.32) and the mother of all believers (Galatians 4.26). She is a corporate priesthood and royal dynasty (1 Peter 2.5, 9; Revelation 1.6). The Church has been given Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.22, 23) with all his benefits and gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12.4ff).

Here we have an angle that allows baptism to be something incredibly important and yet avoids superstition or false assurance. Baptism is how one enters the Church. If the Church is the family of God (1 Timothy 3.15; 1 Peter 4.17) and the mother of all believers (Galatians 4.26), and if baptism is how one is admitted into the Church (1 Corinthians 12.13), then naturally, baptism would be the normal way one is adopted into God’s family as one of his children (Galatians 3.26, 27).

While members of the Church are promised forgiveness, the Spirit, and many other benefits, the Bible does not say that all members of the Church will take advantage of these great things. Sadly, some do not persevere in what they have been given. They must receive God’s promises and gifts by faith. One is justified by faith, after all–a persevering faith (Hebrews 10.35-39).

But the fact that baptism and membership among God’s people does not guarantee one will inherit eternal life, does not mean that we should disregard it as of no significance. We should not be like Esau who despised his birthright and traded it for red stew. We should regard the promises made to us by God in baptism to be so precious that we would never trade them for all the treasures of creation.

The point here is that it is easier to trust Christ to save us and bring us to the resurrection in glory if one is confident that one has been entrusted to Christ. The Church is Jesus’ special trust and we receive in baptism God’s promise that we belong to him and he to us. We must respond to this in faith by following Christ all our days.

No one should presume on his baptism as a “free pass” into heaven, but neither should anyone despise his baptism in unbelief.<>продвижение а по трафику москваподобрать ключевые слова для а онлайн

Read more

On September 24, 2013 By In Theology

Hooked

Lure 1

Recently my son brought his fishing pole into the basement.  We have rules about these types of things.  Fishing poles belong in the shed or possibly on the porch. They do not come into the house.  Fishing poles are like sticks, big rocks, snakes, and lizards. They belong outside. My son knows this.  But like all of us, he sometimes does not do what he is told.

The bait on the pole looked like the one pictured above. It was big with numerous hooks designed to snare some large fish lurking beneath the surface of a local lake or river.  Each of these hooks has a barb designed to keep the fish from getting off the hook.  These barbs make extraction of a hook only slightly easier than extracting a tooth.

What do you think happened when my son brought his rod into the house?  It would be nice if I could tell you that all went well, that the lure just slid across the tile floor and caused no trouble. But then I wouldn’t have anything to write about. No. The hooks, all three of them, eventually got snagged on our blue couch cushion. (Lures do this. They gravitate, almost like they are alive, towards the place they can do the most harm.) My son tried to remove them, but hooks are designed to embed themselves deeper the more you mess with them. By the time the cushion was laid contritely on my desk all three hooks were firmly entangled in the pillow.

After about thirty minutes of labor that included a knife, pliers, and more than one muttered word of frustration, I finally removed all three hooks. The pillow was still usable, but it was no longer whole. The hooks had left their mark.

As I sat extracting the lure, I thought how much this reminds me of my own life.  I know what God tells me to do. Do not lose your temper. Do not get bitter.  Do not be proud. Love your neighbor.  [Insert your own sin here.]  Yet I still bring sin into the house. Maybe I assume, like my son did, that the sin will not cause much trouble. It will innocently slide across the tile floor with little damage.  But that rarely happens.  Sin gravitates towards the place it can do the most harm.  Sin has barbs. When sin enters it finds a target and embeds itself deep. The unfortunate person hooked may be my wife or my children or myself.  But sin never leaves its catch whole.  It can be removed but, there is always damage.  If I am lucky the damage only takes a day or two to fix.

I am grateful for Christ and his forgiveness. He takes away my sins and gives me grace that I might be restored. The glory of this truth is beyond compare. But I do not want to just keep coming back for forgiveness. I want to learn to leave sin where it belongs.  I want to listen to the Lord with an ear to obedience.   Christ has not just given me grace to be forgiven, but he has also given me grace to overcome. When I lean on his grace sin is not given the chance to hook me or my family. It is left where it belongs, outside.<>live chat для апозиции а в поисковых системах

Read more