Christianity 201

February 15, 2017

Flexible Methodology; Fixed Message

For the last few days we’ve been reconnecting with writers with whom it’s been many years — in this case five — since they last appeared at C201. It’s great to go back and find people are being faithful to Bible study and devotion online. Dave Bish at the Blue Fish Project website is one of those. He’s doing a series on Galatians and at the end of this article, we’ll link you to another in the series.

Trampolines and Brick Walls: Don’t flex on the gospel, do flex on everything else to love the church and advance the gospel.

In his 2005 book Velvet Elvis Rob Bell argued that the church has a problem because we think of theology as like a brick wall – rigid and systematic, whereas we should look at our theology as being more of a trampoline – flexible and in which some of the springs can be safely removed. The analogy seems really attractive, though it’s pretty flawed – not least because you could removed more bricks from a wall than springs from a trampoline before everything would fall apart… but beyond that it’s also woefully ignorant.

In writing to Galatians Paul wont have any of this anti-doctrinal faith. He tackle gospel denial and says it’s Father-desertion… he speak of gospel truth and it’s about the Father’s revelation of the Son. It’s life-filled, relational, and write-down-able. And accuracy matters – because it’s curse-worthy to believe a different gospel, and to teach others to hope in something contrary to Christ. Theology is about the knowledge of the Father and his Son by the Spirit – it’s not cold and rigid, but without accuracy we’re not talking about the same God, just a similar one. Or in Galatian language a different gospel that is no gospel at all… a perversion of the gospel.” 

But, some things are flexible and some things aren’t. The gospel can’t be up for grabs, a lot of other stuff must be – at least when it comes to ministry practice.

In Galatians 2 Paul tells one of three stories to his Father-deserting friends that build his case that they should get back to where they began rather than heading off in a different direction. He tells that he went to Jerusalem to preserve the gospel for them (2v5). It’s worth a big detour upstream to Jerusalem to preserve the gospel in Turkey – just as later it’s worth a big detour to to Jerusalem to maintain the unity of the Jew and Gentile churches in Rome.

Though there were false brothers in Galatian – counterfeit-christians – the church itself hadn’t lost the plot and they recognize that God who was at work in Peter… was also at work in Pauland they recognized the grace given…to both Paul and the Jerusalem church. One gospel.

What’s curious is the test for finding out whether Jerusalem is true to the gospel.

  • Paul takes Titus in the expectation that gospel loss would mean he’d be compelled to be circumcised (v3). Meanwhile, in Acts 16v3 (possibly around the same time, depending on how you date Galatians), Paul gets Timothy circumcised so he can take him with him.  To be clear: If the Jerusalem church compels Titus to be circumcised that’s evidence that the gospel has been lost, but when Paul gets Timothy circumcised that’s the gospel advancing.
  • Likewise, in Paul’s next story – Peter stands condemned for putting himself back under food laws, and in effect saying to his Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch that they’re not welcome unless they take on the food laws too. But in Romans 14v21 Paul says it’s best not to eat if that’ll cause problems for your brother or sister from a Jewish background.

Context and motive call for different practices. It’s a recipe for inconsistency but necessary for the inclusion of diverse peoples and for taking the gospel diverse peoples. And it works because, the gospel isn’t a matter of out conformity. Habits, festivals, food laws and bodily markings aren’t the issue. Loving the church and reaching new people require different approaches at different times and in different places. What would we need to flex to ensure that the only obstacle is the gospel?

Paul embodies this by being prepared to become all things to all people to win some… and by his substantial detours – twice to Jerusalem – to demonstrate bond between the Gentile and Jewish churches.

The real mark of the gospel isn’t what we wear, eat or celebrate. It’s the Spirit of the Son indwelling the believer by faith and enacting our adoption. All else is flexible. Sadly churches fall out over loads of things, but a true gospel priority should mean most of those things – important as they are – are matter over which we’re more than happy to flex, to serve other believers and to reach those who aren’t yet believers. Sadly, we tend to hold on to things for the sake of having church how we want it to be.

If I get this then I’ll be radically committed to welcoming any other believer and removing things that are obstacles for their conscience out of the way, and to welcoming those who don’t believe by changing anything at all – apart from the gospel. If I get this I’ll be incredibly flexible and inconsistent in my view of almost everything in church life… though that’ll look messy, I suspect the gospel shines brighter against that messy backdrop.


Continue reading Dave’s writings on Galatians with this article, What’s GOOD in this foreign country?

December 27, 2016

Unconditional Election and Covenant

Filed under: Christianity - Devotions — paulthinkingoutloud @ 5:31 pm
Tags: , ,

NIV 2 Samuel 9:6 When Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David, he bowed down to pay him honour.

David said, ‘Mephibosheth!’

‘At your service,’ he replied.

‘Don’t be afraid,’ David said to him, ‘for I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan. I will restore to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will always eat at my table.’

Mephibosheth bowed down and said, ‘What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me?’

Then the king summoned Ziba, Saul’s steward, and said to him, ‘I have given your master’s grandson everything that belonged to Saul and his family. 10 You and your sons and your servants are to farm the land for him and bring in the crops, so that your master’s grandson may be provided for. And Mephibosheth, grandson of your master, will always eat at my table.’ (Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.)

11 Then Ziba said to the king, ‘Your servant will do whatever my lord the king commands his servant to do.’ So Mephibosheth ate at David’s table like one of the king’s sons.

Today we’re paying a return visit to Patrick Hawthorne came who blogs at Serving Grace Ministries. Click the title below to read it at source (with comments) and then click “home” to view other articles.

God of the Covenant

Over the last couple of years, during the time in which I discovered blogging, I have met some truly wonderful people.  Of those people, a few have unashamedly publicized their following of Calvinistic teachings.  While I greatly disagree with the unconditional election (God choosing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell) and limited atonement (Jesus died only for the Elect) portion of this doctrine, I can understand why many came to believe as they do.

The Church today has become so watered down by a feel good message that many forget that we serve a Mighty God, a sovereign and holy God.  Many have taken the verse, “Let us come boldly before the throne of grace,” to mean they are entitled to waltz before our Heavenly Father like a spoiled brat with a “Give me,” attitude.

Even so, why can I not subscribe to the teaching that God “elects” some to heaven and some to hell?  Why do I not pledge my belief to the idea that God would choose me but not another?  Better yet, how can I honestly believe that God will condemn a baby to hell who has no concept of right or wrong simply because they are not part of the “Elect?”  The answer is simple.  It all comes down to blood covenant.

In a Hebrew blood covenant, as with David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18-20), the terms of the covenant included family members, even those not yet born.  If the family member was not of age to make a determination as to whether or not to remain in the covenant, they were afforded the same protection as those under the covenant.  In other words, they were adopted into the covenant until such age as they could choose for themselves.

Later on, when the child became of age, they had to make the decision of whether or not they desired to remain in the covenant.  The only penalty for not choosing to be part of the covenant would be that they were not afforded the protection and the terms of the covenant.

We see this with the covenant made between David and Jonathan.  After Jonathan died, King David sought Mephibosheth (Jonathan’s son) so that he could fulfill his terms of the covenant. (2 Samuel 9).  David drew Mephibosheth to himself by having his soldiers retrieve him and bring him before the palace.

Once he was before King David, Mephibosheth had a choice to make. He could either accept King David’s offer of salvation (in a sense) and security, or he could deny the offer and suffer the consequences of living in a world where he had no guidance or protection from David.  It was his choice to make.  Had he chosen to walk away, King David would have no choice but to honor his refusal.  It was part of the covenant terms.

Some might think, “That was David but is not God.  Also, that was a covenant made between two men and does not apply to our covenant with God.”  To that I say, “Exactly.”  If David, a man after Gods own heart (Acts 13:22), would make a covenant that would extend to the family, how much more will God’s covenant with mankind, through our Lord Jesus, do likewise in this new and better covenant…The Covenant of Grace.  Be blessed.

October 21, 2016

A Personal Statement of Faith

Instead, regard Christ as holy in your hearts. Whenever anyone asks you to speak of your hope, be ready to defend it.  (I Peter 3:15 CEB)

Yesterday on the other blog I posted a link to a book review at The Little Friar, the blog of Julius McCarter. Further down the page I noted this statement of faith which I found so very refreshing. The link is in the title below — think about that title for a minute — which I hope you’ll click and read this at source. (If you know Latin, you’ll like the blog tabs.)

for now

Every now and then, I’m asked to produce a personal statement of faith.  I always find statements like that difficult to write, though I’ve written on that before.

But, in an effort to say what I believe, here’s what I’ve put down this morning.  I’m sure it’s incomplete, as all statements of faith must necessarily be.  And I’m sure that, given the varieties of life that will be tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, I’ll say it much differently.  Any way …

I believe in one God who created the universe for good, who sustains it in wondrous order, and who calls it to fulfill its purpose in God.

I believe that God created human beings, male and female, in God’s own image, for communion with God and with one another. I believe, therefore, that God, whom we experience as personal, intends authentic personhood and relationship as the highest purpose for human beings.

I believe that the manifestations of God’s active benevolence toward creation are manifold, including:

  • God’s character revealed in the beauty, order, and majesty of the universe;
  • God’s revelation of a moral order, mysteriously the common heritage of all humanity;
  • God’s special relationship with Israel, later to include the Church;
  • God’s unique revelation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ;
  • God’s steadfast and continual involvement in human affairs to this day.

I believe that, since human beings fail to respond fully to God’s call to live out the purpose for which we were created, and since God is ever faithful to God’s purpose, God has always eagerly forgiven and restored all of his creation. I believe, further, that as the clearest statement of God’s love for creation, God in Christ reconciles the world to God’s self.

I believe that sacred scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, bear trustworthy witness to God’s character, God’s intention for creation, and God’s unshakable determination to effect God’s good purpose, especially as scripture bears testimony to God’s relationship with Israel, with the church, and quintessentially with all creation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

I believe that God calls those who trust God and seek to fulfill God’s will to relate to individuals and to society in ways which reflect God-likeness as taught in the Torah, exhorted in the Prophets, and modeled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ: namely, to demonstrate authentic personhood, to act toward others with steadfast benevolence, and to work for rightness in all spheres of life.

I believe that God, who created for good purpose, who patiently and unwaveringly loves even the most errant with love surpassing that of human mothers and fathers.

I believe that God – who has not left any age or any individual without evidence of that good purpose and faithfulness nor without the testimony of the Word who comes to all as light, life, and truth – will not cease working out that purpose for which God created and to which God calls all.

I believe that my hope for the world, for our lives in it, and for eternity rests on God’s faithfulness shown to all humanity throughout all ages, in particular to Israel and the church, and most especially as evidence in the faithfulness of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

 

 

September 20, 2016

The Disappearance of the Triune God Doctrine

ESV Gen 1:2b And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

For today’s devotional, we went to the blog of one of my former employers, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. To read this at source, and look around at other articles, click the title below. Jonathan Rice is an editor and writer with InterVarsity.

holy_spirit_-_pentacost_jwisWho Is the Holy Spirit?

When describing God, the language of the Bible is not merely truthful but careful. For instance, biblical descriptions of the Holy Spirit in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek always use a personal pronoun. The Bible never refers to God’s Spirit as an “it,” as if the Spirit is merely an impersonal object.

Such care for language is evident in Genesis 1:2, where the Hebrew word for “spirit” (ruach) is grammatically feminine. And though in the New Testament, the Greek word for “spirit” (pneuma) is neuter, it is still a personal pronoun, implying that the Holy Spirit not only transcends gender but also possesses personhood. So in contrast to popular notions that speak of God’s Spirit in abstract terms, the Bible speaks most clearly of the Holy Spirit as a personal deity.

An impersonal deity, a mere force of energy, is incapable of loving us. Such an impersonal energy is emotionless, feeling neither joy nor grief about our lives. But in Ephesians 4:30, we read that the Holy Spirit is grieved by our unwholesome talk, among other sins. And in 1 Corinthians 12:11, the Holy Spirit personally determines the distribution of gifts among believers for the common good of the church. In each of these biblical verses, the Holy Spirit is portrayed as a thinking, feeling, choosing Being—a true personality.

The personality of the Holy Spirit is typically manifested through actions. The Bible shows the Holy Spirit acts in this world by creating (Genesis 1:2), empowering (Zechariah 4:6), guiding (Romans 8:14), comforting (John 14:26), convicting (John 16:8), teaching (John 16:13), restraining (Isaiah 59:19), and commanding people (Acts 8:29)—all of which require intelligence, emotion, and will. Other Scriptures indicate that the Holy Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3), another relational behavior that implies the Spirit is a person.

Regardless of these biblical evidences, some people continue to believe that the Holy Spirit is simply a convenient term to indicate God’s activity. While describing the Holy Spirit as being active is certainly consistent with the biblical revelation of the Spirit’s personality, descriptions such as Comforter, Encourager, Healer, etc., when relied upon alone, are detrimental to our building a sound biblical theology about the nature of God, since any abstract, depersonalizing, reductionist notion of the Holy Spirit undermines the doctrine of the Trinity. So whether one obscures or denies the personhood of the Spirit, the result is the same—the existence of the Trinity is undermined and the personal triune God of biblical Christianity fades away.

Why the Loss of the Doctrine of the Trinity Is a Problem

The disappearance of the doctrine of the personal triune God is a problem, for the personhood of the Holy Spirit is a necessary truth of the whole gospel and should constitute a part of the theological legacy we leave for future generations. But these days the doctrine of the Trinity is again being questioned, though the church has repeatedly through the centuries affirmed the existence of the Trinity and the personhood of the Holy Spirit through historic church councils and creeds.

So just as the Bible is not merely truthful but careful in its use of language, our learning what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit is essential for our careful articulation of the whole gospel.

Today when you hear the Spirit’s gentle voice in your life, listen carefully and ask God to guide your thoughts, words, and actions. Through the person of the Holy Spirit, you can be a living testimony of the gospel and a worker for Christ in this world.


What is Christian doctrine? And do words such as eschatology, sanctification, and atonement really have anything to do with our everyday, going-to-class, working, hanging-out-with-friends lives?

Christian doctrines begin as interpretations of the Bible. Throughout the history of the church, Christians have preserved what they believe the Bible teaches. They form doctrines so that they may remember what other Christians have historically believed about God, humanity, and God’s mission in this world.

These days it’s no less important than in ages past for us to understand Christian doctrine. So we’re offering you brief posts about what Christians have historically believed are the core teachings of the Bible. We hope you find that these historic teachings not only broaden your understanding of Christianity but also deepen your love of God.

August 1, 2016

Did Your Spirit Exist Before Your Soul?

Filed under: Christianity - Devotions — paulthinkingoutloud @ 5:31 pm
Tags: , , ,
This image was not part of the original article. Click to source.

Note: This image was not part of the original article. Click to source.

This article comes from James Richardson at Apostles-Creed.org and is well-worth our consideration today. If you click the title below, and read the article there, you’ll find links to other items of equal interest. This is longer than most here at C201 — I didn’t want to edit it — so grab your coffee or tea first.

Could a person’s spirit have existed before their soul was created?

I recently received a couple questions from my friend ObeyAllGodCommands which stated,

Hello, James, I was wondering since spirit and soul are different things and a soul is the combination of a body and a spirit then could a person’s spirit have existed before their soul was created? Also, could different people share/ have the same spirit but have different souls? Is any of this possible?

This is a concept that predated the Christian church and is found in Greek philosophy. Below are quotes from the early Church Fathers and the Bible on the doctrine of the “pre-existence of the soul.”

NOTE! It is necessary for me to point out at the beginning that I personally would not divide, break fellowship, condemn or put any effort into arguing for or against the pre-existence of the spirit or soul. I believe it is more important for Christian unity to hold to essential doctrines over non-essential ones.

Could a person’s spirit have existed before their soul was created?

The idea of a pre-existence soul or spirit comes from Greek philosophy. Plato taught this prior to Christianity. It Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Pheado, he says,

We recall an ancient theory that souls arriving there come from here, and then again that they arrive here and are born here from the dead. If that is true, that the living come back from the dead, then surely our souls must exist there, for they could not come back if they did not exist, and this is a sufficient proof that these things are so if it truly appears that the living never come from any other source than from the dead. If this is not the case we should need another argument. Plato Pheado 70.d

The Christian teaching on the pre-existence of the souls is called “Neoplatonism” or Middle Platonism. Some of the early church Fathers taught the pre-existence of the soul.

The Early Church Fathers and the Pre-existence of the Soul

The main proponent of the doctrine of the pre-existence of the souls is the Church Father Origen. An example of this is found in Origen’s work Origen De Principiis.

But to arrive at a clearer understanding on these matters, we ought first to inquire after this point, whether it is allowable to suppose that they are living and rational beings; then, in the next place, whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their bodies, or seem to be anterior to them.
Origen De Principiis Chapter VII.—On Incorporeal and Corporeal Beings 3

I, for my part, suspect that the spirit was implanted in them from without; but it will be worth while to prove this from Scripture: for it will seem an easy matter to make the assertion on conjectural grounds, while it is more difficult to establish it by the testimony of Scripture. Now it may be established conjecturally as follows. If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly.”… “How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known to God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth?
Origen De Principiis Chapter VII.—On Incorporeal and Corporeal Beings 4

This view was not widely accepted or taught and was eventually condemned.

The Fifth Ecumenical council

The Fifth Ecumenical council also known as the Second Council of Constantinople condemned the teaching and Anathematized it as heresy.

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.
The Anathemas Against Origen I

As a whole, Christianity has not accepted the teaching that souls existed prior to the body being created and for the most part condemned such views.

Pre-existence of souls in Old and New Testament

The most important is the fact that there are no references in the Old or New Testament that say anything like souls pre-existing. The only references are about God knowing us before He created us. Typical verses used to support this are:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jer 1:5 KJV)
Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
(Psa 139:16 NAS)
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.
(Eph 1:4 NAS)

We do not need to exist prior to God knowing us. God knows that which existed, exists, and will exist in the future. God knew what he was going to create prior to creating it. Creation does not have to exist prior to Him creating it in order for God to know about it. There is no passage in the Bible that teaches a pre-existent soul or reincarnation.

The apocryphal book Book of Wisdom

There is a quote from apocryphal book Book of Wisdom that states a good soul entered into the body.

As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot;or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.
Wisdom of Solomon 8:19–20

This is a major quotation used for the pre-existence of the soul; however, the Book of Wisdom is not accepted as Bible Scripture.

With that said, I personally would not divide, break fellowship, condemn or put any effort into arguing for or against the pre-existence of the spirit or soul. I believe it is more important for unity in essential doctrines over non-essential ones.

Could different people share/have the same spirit but have different souls?

The words “spirit” and “soul” can only be defined in the specific sentence they are used. They sometimes mean the same thing and sometimes they don’t. I explain the differences in the article What is the spirit and the soul in man?. In that article the following points are essential.

  • The Bible uses the word “soul” as a living being or person which is both the body and the spirit.
  • In the Old testament for the word “spirit” is the “life” within the person.
  • A “soul” is a person body and spirit. When the body is killed it loses life or it’s spirit.
  • The word “spirit” is also the mind, desires, and will of the person
  • The New Testament usage of the word “spirit” refers to the metaphysical person like an angel.
  • The word “spirit” also can refer to a person’s attitude or frame of mind.

Christians do share the same Spirit Who is the Holy Spirit; however, we are not the Holy Spirit nor does the Bible teach that our spirit is the same as God.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
(1Co 2:11 NAS)

We share the spirit of faith which means we have the mind, desires, and will of the person. This does not mean we share the exact same inner life of a human.

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit (1Co 12:4 KJV)

For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit
(1Co 12:8-9 KJV)

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak
(2Co 4:13 KJV)

This means that the life we posses at conception a unique, individual spirit that identifies and separates us from one another.

Thou dost hide Thy face, they are dismayed; Thou dost take away their spirit, they expire, And return to their dust. (Psa 104:29 NAS)

So in this sense we share the same spirit (the mind, desires, and will). That just means we should be of one mind and have the mind of Christ. This is not to be confused with the inner life or individual entity of that person. The Bible or Christianity does not teach people can share the same life or entity. If one person dies the other will still live and vise versa. The sharing of the soul or spirit like “the Corsican brothers” concept is pure Science fiction and not founded on Biblical Christianity.

June 17, 2016

Clear as Mud

It’s three verses that critics of the King James Version frequently use to show why we needed — and continue to need — new Bible translations.

For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you. For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ.  2 Corinthians 10:12-14 KJV

Did you get all that? Not the stuff of a great Bible study for today, but hopefully it leaves you with some empathy for those who struggle with Bible understanding, even if this is a rather extreme example. Can any of us say that our scriptures are “easily understood?”

All of this leads us to your word for today: “Perspicuity.” Say that ten times!

Instead, you might actually find the Latin easier, Claritas Scripturae means what you think it does, the clarity of scripture.

A bit of context is needed. The doctrine of Claritas Scripturae is a Protestant idea which stands in contrast to the Catholic view that the scriptures are not clear. Rather, the holy writings belong to the realm of mystery and the average person cannot fathom it; the lay-reader can never fully understand it. Instead, someone needs to be the broker of it, the arbiter of it for the rest of us. This could be the clergy class in general, or in a Catholic sense, it refers The Magisterium or what some simply call The Vatican.

The Protestant perspective stands in opposition to this. The gospel is so simple that a little child can understand it, and in fact, that is the only way you can experience salvation:

Then he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

There is a sense in which this is true. But we also realize that on a personal level, we are extremely grateful for the sermons, the podcasts, the commentaries, the Study Bible notes. Paul appeals to the idea that we need set apart ones or sent ones.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans 10:14)

In 2008, blogger Ben Johnson, then a Masters student at Western Seminary, put this far more succinctly than I can in this short blog post:

One of the things that becomes evident when you begin formal Bible study is that you begin to question the protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. Here is what I mean by this. As you begin your ‘formal training’ you begin to acquire what can only be called ‘special knowledge’ (sounds very gnostic). You now know Greek and Hebrew (and for those select few, Aramaic). You know more of the historical backgrounds of the texts (or at least what current scholarship thinks it knows about those backgrounds). You begin to exercise, what your professor tells you is a ‘sound hermeneutic.’ All this is ‘special knowledge’ that the average person in the pew does not have.

Now, imagine yourself in church and people begin asking you questions (they know you’re in seminary after all). You begin to rattle off what you heard in last week’s lecture on the book of Romans, talking about historical background and the Greek root of verbs, and the average person begins to doubt in their own ability to read the Bible themselves.

Here is my problem. The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture came about (at least the Protestant formulation of it) in rebellion against the medieval catholic view that only the church (i.e., non lay-people) could interpret Scripture. When I look at the church today, it seems to me that we have replaced the ‘church’ with the ‘academy.’ If you haven’t written a critical commentary on the Gospel of Mark who are you to interpret it? As I begin to be a true (whatever that means) student of Scripture I find myself utilizing my recently acquired ‘special knowledge’ and finding great insight from it. However, as a Christian and a churchman I have to maintain that the basics of the message are accessible to the average person in the pew given the illumination of the Spirit and the proper amount of study. All that is to stay, I think I still need to confirm the basic idea of the perspicuity of Scripture (to say nothing of post-modern, or reader-oriented hermeneutics) but I’m still working out how.

I really need to repeat Ben’s second-to-last sentence:

I have to maintain that the basics of the message are accessible to the average person in the pew given the illumination of the Spirit and the proper amount of study.

But in his final sentence, he affirms that it’s complicated.

Do you think the average person can process the basics of the gospel, or do they need the help of those better-trained in theology?


Here are some verses from the cutting room floor today!

The LORD our God has secrets known to no one. We are not accountable for them, but we and our children are accountable forever for all that he has revealed to us, so that we may obey all the terms of these instructions. (Deuteronomy 29:29 NLT)

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith– (Romans 16:26-27)

For who has known the Lord’s mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.  (1 Corinthians 2:16 HCSB)

All scriptures NIV unless otherwise stated, I think!


Go Deeper: Here’s a scholarly article by D.A. Carson where I first began today’s thoughts.

Note: The title of today’s article was deliberately provocative.

 

 

 

 

 

December 7, 2015

Have I Committed the Unpardonable Sin?

The question of “What is ‘the unpardonable sin?'” comes up often in church life. Many of you reading this have complete peace on this issue and don’t really feel you have anything to worry about, but would be at an absolute loss to explain it to someone who asked you. In part, we really don’t have a view of sin that goes beyond simple definitions, to see it from the point of view of a God who is full of both justice and grace; to see the things that grieve the heart of God.

This article by Patrick Hawthorne came recommended; it’s from his blog Serving Grace Ministries. Click the title below to read it at source (with comments) and then click “home” to view other articles.

Did I Commit the Unpardonable Sin?

The unpardonable sin!  Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit…  We read about it, but do we honestly understand it?  Is the unpardonable sin, a single sin by which there is no forgiveness?  Or is it, in actuality, a collection of sins stemming from an overall attitude, a willful blindness to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit?

The argument might be made, in my case anyways, that if the unpardonable sin were a onetime with no means of forgiveness sin then I should be found guilty.  In my younger and more stupid days, I had quite a few conversations with God in which I questioned His very existence.  In anger, I spoke harsh things to Him; I vilified Him which is exactly what blasphemy means.  Yet, here I am writing to you as a testimony to his His goodness and faithfulness.  Had I committed the unpardonable sin, I feel confident that I would be as the devil, completely void of any feelings of love towards my Heavenly Father.  Even so, what does the Word say about the subject?

In Mark chapter 3 we have the account of Scribes coming out of Jerusalem and confronting Jesus.  Seeing, yet belittling the miracles done before their very eyes, they mocked Jesus claiming that His healing powers were from Beelzebub.  Out of ignorance for their religious views, they made the claim that the power by which Jesus performed the miracles was unclean.  In other words, they likened the Holy Spirit to Satan. Notice the response of Jesus to their ignorance.

“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.”  (Mark 3:28-29)

By mocking Jesus and claiming that the miracles He performed were through the power of the devil, they were in essence mocking the Holy Spirit whom Jesus received real power.  But, did they commit the unpardonable sin? To answer this, look back at verse 29.  Jesus says, “But he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, BUT IS SUBJECT to eternal condemnation.  Jesus did not condemn them at that moment but let them know they were on very shaky grounds if they continued on their current path.

So, what can we make of the unpardonable sin?  Is it a onetime ordeal, or is it a progressive attitude?  It is my personal belief that the unpardonable sin is a progressive attitude whereby the offender grieves the Holy Spirit to such a degree that He forever withdraws His convicting power.  Without His convicting power, there can be neither forgiveness nor repentance.

If you are reading this and have been concerned that you have committed the unpardonable sin, rest assured that you have not.  The mere fact that you are concerned indicates that the Holy Spirit is very active in your life and He is trying to maneuver you to a closer relationship with the Father.  Be blessed.

October 16, 2015

Can a Christian Be Possessed by a Demon?

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those with skin diseases, drive out demons. You have received free of charge; give free of charge.
-Matthew 10:8 HCSB

14 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, 15 and to have authority to cast out the demons.
-Matthew 3:14-15 NASB

If you’re going to read a blog called Christianity 201, you have to expect there are going to be days when we look at issues! This time we’re paying a return visit to Micael Grenholm at the blog Holy Spirit Activism, who responds to today’s somewhat Pentecostal question as only a “charismactivist” (his word) can. Click the title below to read at source.

Can Christians be possessed by demons?

The Assemblies of God (AoG), the biggest Pentecostal denomination in the US, has famously argued that it is impossible for Christians to be possessed; no one who has received the Holy Spirit, they say, can be overtaken by demonic forces. This differs from the view shared by many neo-Pentecostals, charismatics, Catholics as well as many Pentecostals in the majority world (Asia, Africa and Latin America), who all say that Christians might actually become demonized.

When John Wimber, the founder of the Vineyard movement, was asked if he believed that Christians could have demons, he provokingly replied “Well yeah, I’ve cast them out of pastors!” His wife Carol wrote in her biography about her husband something like: “When we encountered a demon, we simply cast it out – without checking baptismal records. What else could we do? Wait until they become Hindus and then cast them out?”

Now, AoG-folks and like-minded may object that such allegorical evidence does not mean much compared to arguments from Scripture. Which is generally true, although in this particular case the usual claim concerning extra-Biblical supernatural phenomena – it’s a demonic deception! – is quite counterproductive. But the Bible is always important in theological matters, so let’s have a look. 

In AoG’s position paper on the topic, their arguments can be boiled down to two categories: 1) The Bible never specifically says that Christians are or can be possessed, and 2) The Bible does state that God has “rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Colossians 1:13) and that “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4), meaning that because of the Holy Spirit’s presence in born-again believers, demonic possession is impossible.

To 1) I would respond that there are examples of faithful believers in God and Jesus who have some pretty serious problems with demons; the woman who had been disabled by a spirit in 18 years was described by Jesus as “a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years”. Being a child of Abraham is not so much about ethnicity, as it is about faith (Gal 3:7). Jesus clearly stated that his closest disciple Peter was briefly overtaken by Satan (Mt 16:23), and even though Judas clearly wasn’t a very good disciple, I think it’s very reasonable to say that he did join Jesus’ team because he actually wanted to follow Jesus radically, since Satan came and possessed him the same day he betrayed his Lord (Lk 22:3-4).

The 2) argument is even weaker: the same reasoning could be applied to sin with quite absurd consequences. God has rescued us from darkness and His Spirit within us is more powerful than the devil – therefore no Christian can sin. Most Christians would agree that it is true that God has rescued us from darkness and that no evil is within the Holy Spirit while it is equally true that we continuously fail to live up to God’s standards and fall in sin.

There is neither sin nor devils in the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit has not 100% control of us yet – that’s why we sin and that’s why some pastors can be demonized. While Christians won’t have the same amount of total possessions as some witch doctors can have – something that the Wimbers observed – we aren’t totally immune to demons unless we make sure that we are constantly sanctified through prayer and fasting.


Go Deeper: Click the title above to see the comments on this one, including a longer one that Micael really liked that offers some historical background.

October 11, 2015

Christian Cosmology and the Problem of Evil in the World

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. (Psalm 139:7–8, NIV84)

Today we return to visit the blog of John P. Richardson, but his regular readers of his blog in the UK knew him as the Ugley Vicar. Note: This is the middle 40% of a much longer article, you’re encouraged to click the title below to read everything.

Sadly this was the last thing that John posted on the blog.* He passed away later in 2014.

Christian Cosmology; Incarnation and ‘Evil’

Ugley Vicar - John P. RichardsonMorality Matters to Matter
…But why would God ‘uphold’ such a world, where undesirable states and circumstances occur so often? (This is the old ‘Why would a good God create a world of suffering?’ in another guise.)

It would be foolish to think we could answer such questions completely. Nevertheless, the points about the Universe we have considered already may give us some hints.

1. The Universe has a personal origin, being created by a personal deity for himself.

2. At the heart of God’s purposes in creation is the relationship between himself and human beings whom he has created in his image. The world exists ‘for them’ as well as for God.

3. The relationship between God and human beings, however, is flawed and distorted by their inclination to disobey him. Out of this flows sin and evil.

4. The Universe nevertheless continues in its existence moment by moment because it is ‘upheld’ by the personal creator, and yet the creatures who matter most in his creation are separated from him and mired in sin.

We venture to suggest, therefore, that this distorted relationship between God and his creatures impacts his ‘upholding’ of the Universe. What he ‘upholds’ is a Universe inhabited by and, as regards this planet specifically, presided over by creatures who reject him. There is a broken relationship between God and his ‘imaging-creatures’ at the heart of creation. We should not be surprised at the suggestion that this impacts the creation God upholds, so long as that situation persists. As the Apostle Paul puts it in his letter to the Romans:

19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Romans 8:19–21, NIV84)

The picture the Bible gives is that the created world is the way it is because of human sinfulness — in other words, that morality matters to matter. We have a clear indication of this early on when God is recorded speaking to Adam after the latter has disobeyed him:
To Adam he said,

“Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:17, NIV84)

It might seem odd that it is the ground which is cursed rather than Adam because of what the latter has done. Yet if we can posit a relationship between human moral actions and the fabric of creation uphold by the God against whom humanity rebels, this perhaps makes more sense. In any case, the curse on the ground rebounds against Adam and becomes a form of judgement on him as it makes his life more difficult.

Thus we suggest that the physical nature and behavior of the Universe is affected by human behavior because human behavior affects our relationship with the God who upholds that physical universe.

All Will be Redeemed

A Christian cosmology, however, also contains the fundamental principle that all is not lost. Certainly there are profound problems, but they are not without resolution. On the contrary, God has always intended that the problem of sin would be resolved. And as we have seen above in the words of St Paul, this will have cosmological implications: ‘the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay’.

The key to this act of rescue is, in Christian theology, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus Paul again writes,

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:19–20, NIV84)

We may wonder why the death of this particular individual should have such massive implications, but the claim of this passage, and of Christian theology in general, is that the being of God interpenetrated the physicality of this person: ‘all his fullness [dwelt] in him’. Thus what happened to this person happened, in a sense, to the creator and upholder of the universe. Moreover, it brought about reconciliation between God and his image-bearing creatures. Given that the outcome of that broken relationship is an hostility between the fabric of the world and the human race and that the ultimate expression of this hostility is God, we should not be surprised that the effecting of reconciliation involves death in particular — both the act of dying, which is the ultimate physical judgement, and the overcoming of death…

[continue reading at the link in the title]


* There’s a background story to how we came to use this today, and learn, more than a year later, of the author’s passing. Click here to read that.

July 16, 2015

Perhaps Today’s Devotional Is One Too Many

We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up.  – Matthew 18:3b

Do you ever feel spiritually stuffed? Like someone at an all-you-can-eat banquet table who just wants to try one or two more entrées? Consider today’s thoughts.

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. – Matthew 18:3

Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”   -Luke 18:17

One thing the internet has brought us is so much more knowledge. But it can’t, by itself, bring us more grace. You need both, as Peter reminds us.

But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.  – 2 Peter 3:18

Common Sense Not NeededToday I had to go to our local equivalent of Home Depot. I am always completely intimidated in that environment. I think I’m going in with a fair bit of confidence, but then they ask, “These are the outside measurements, what are the inside measurements?” The what?

And then someone asked me, “Are you sure this isn’t your own insecurities?” Well, yes maybe.

But the point is that in all this I really felt God saying to me, “You know, you do this to people in your environment.” Maybe you know what I mean. You work in a local church. Or you’re a Christian counselor. Or you’re leading a midweek Bible study in your home. Or you work at a Christian bookstore.

Someone asks you for something, and you’ve got so much knowledge that it just comes spilling out. It’s part of the overflow of your life. But it’s too much for the person you’re dealing with.

And Christianity has done that. Especially in certain circles, trusting God has increasing become an intellectual exercise. Make sure you buy this book. Make sure you listen to that sermon podcast. Make sure you understand that doctrine fully. Make sure you can articulate the basics of this systematic theology.

And Jesus is saying,

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”  – Matthew 19:14

All it takes to get ‘in’ is child-like faith. Yes, you will never end finding the intricacies and complexities of God’s word, but all you need, all the basics, you can grasp with the faith of a child, and the intellectual capacity of a child.

…We know her for working in her dad’s watch and jewelry shop, and for the Jewish people her family harbored in “The Hiding Place” on the top floor of their home; but in addition to all that Corrie Ten Boom worked with developmentally challenged people. In the wonderfully titled little book, Common Sense Not Needed, she explains that even these adults and children, despite limited mental abilities, can respond to God.

That should be ever be in our minds; we don’t have to teach people doctrines before they can experience the grace and love of God. Both the first and second testaments let us see the ways of God in narrative form and we can do the same. The theology stuff can wait.


Related (somewhat) is today’s book review of The First Time We Saw Him at Thinking Out Loud.


Image adapted from the cover of Corrie Ten Boom’s book mentioned in today’s devotional.

 

January 11, 2015

The Scandal of Particularity

The Message John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life. No one gets to the Father apart from me.

NIV Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2a but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…

Why’d you choose such a backward time in such a strange land?
If you’d come today you could have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4BC had no mass communication.  (Song – Superstar)

one-way-jesusToday’s topic is something a little different. Don’t worry if this seems a little obscure, but scan the quotations below and try to get a handle on what’s under discussion. Some of it can be simply reduced to the questions, “Why one chosen people?” and “Why only one way of redemption?” Note: Not all the sources used today are necessarily Christian writers; they were selected for the relevance to the topic.

I noticed the phrase “scandal of particularity” in re-reading a favorite Phillip Yancey book, Reaching for the Invisible God; and decided to dig into it a little. He wrote:

Moses saw a burning bush that bedazzled him, changing the course of his life and of history.  Out of flames of fire he heard the voice of God speaking.  Yet God experienced that same burning bush as an accommodation, a limitation.  The bush appeared before Moses in the Sinai wilderness, but not in China and not in Latin America.  Thus began what critics call the “scandal of particularity.”  Why would God choose Israel out of all the available tribes?  Why would God incarnate himself in the person of Jesus and settle in a backwater province of Palestine?  God had little choice, to put it crudely, if he wished to communicate in a way humans could understand.  To impinge on our world, God must subject himself to the rules of time and space.  Any correspondence between the invisible and visible worlds, between God and human beings, works two ways, affecting both parties.  (p. 115)

At the blog Ex Cathedra:

That’s a theological phrase. It refers to the resistance many people have to the idea that God, the creator of the universe, would enter human history in a very localized way. For example, choosing the Hebrews to be in a peculiar covenanted relationship with him. Or in Christianity, becoming incarnate in one man only and making him the gateway to salvation for the whole world.

For people who assume that a Big God would never restrict himself to such a particular and peculiar path, but would teach universal moral truths through the varied prisms of every religion, this is an outrage, an offense, a scandal.

Lots of Christian theologians nowadays simply assume that in our “global and multicultural post-colonial world”, the assertion that only one religion (theirs) is true would be grotesque. They never notice, however, that certain other religions like, oh, I don’t know, Islam hold exactly the same view and without qualification or apology. And even for the dharmic faiths, one would have to ask, if Hinduism were sufficient, why did Gautama go to all that trouble to get himself enlightened?  Etc. etc.

Dan Wilt:

What if there is actually one way in the world? What if it’s a wide road in the coming to it, but a narrow road in the progressing on it? What if there indeed is a way of living for human beings, that one unique faith system (I include the faith systems of naturalism and evolutionism, all part of the “humanity’s best guess” club), at its essence, promulgates? What if the scandal of particularity is exactly the plan, and a way has been made that addresses hatred, death, love, goodness and the strangeness of the human condition.

…Jesus is the reason that Christian faith is a problem. “…No one comes to the Father but by me” is the bone of contention, and a Jesus who has been aligned with the Crusades, Inquisitions and Acquisitions of history is an unacceptable personage in the 21st century world…

…Jesus keeps us on my toes, I do declare. I believe that God is willing to live there on this rocky edge as well (I note here that in those times, for some beautiful reason, it is the music of worship that anchors and renews me in mind and heart). My layman’s studies of world history and civilization tell me that the “my god is better than your god” game is a long-standing past time. We view particularity, in some fields, as lacking in academic sophistication. However, in other fields, to be increasingly particular and specific leads us also the greatest of discoveries, and even to the answering of macro questions that have haunted us for time immemorial. Particularity is not always a bad thing. Certain us/thems, on sides of ideas and explorations, can be helpful to the whole – disagreement is not always the enemy.

At the blog The Three Taverns:

…This scandal rocks the Church, that is, the holy Christian and apostolic Church, and it offends the world at large.

It is the scandal of particularity. It is not some deep dark secret that God has been trying to hide. It doesn’t uncover some character flaw in God or moral failing on His part. It is not some devious and sadistic action on His part that brings Him joy in bringing upon people needless pain and harm. What it is is simply the way He does things. What He does and how He does it is scandalous. It is offensive.

The reason is it is? Because it is specific. So specific, in fact, that it is exclusionary. Not meaning that His love is exclusionary. His love is anything but. His love is inclusive. His salvation is for everyone. God loves everyone. He has offered salvation to every person. Jesus died for everyone. So, no, it’s not His love. It’s the way He brings about His love.

And here is the scandal of particularity. God’s love is in His Son Jesus Christ. It is in Him alone. That’s the scandal. That’s the particular nature of it. If you casually read the Scriptures you may not see it. If you read them carefully and take them to heart you will see more and more the scandalous nature of God and how He relates to us. You will see that no matter how you would like to view yourself God sees you in your sin. No matter what you think that you think of God, God knows that as you stand He is your enemy. No matter how you would like to shy away from your sin and the consequences that go along with it, God doesn’t shy away from it, He meets it straight on…

At Sacra Doctrina:

[Lesslie] Newbigin time and again underscores the importantly historical character of the Christian faith, that the concrete particularity of the Christian gospel is precisely what makes it relevant for all times and cultures.

This is the trajectory of the biblical witness, a continual narrowing of God’s electing and redeeming purposes (Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, a remnant, etc.) until they all come to focus upon the person and work of Jesus Christ, in order that the universal purpose of blessing might come to all nations.

Newbigin explains the Scriptural “scandal of particularity” in relation to the universality of the gospel. These two themes appear in Scripture side by side, without any apparent sense of tension. Newbigin explains this in terms of the biblical view of humanity, which doesn’t begin by “looking within and finding at the core of human reality a purely spiritual entity that is the object of God’s saving purpose” (70). Rather the biblical focus is upon “this real world of real people” in all of their created materiality and interconnectedness.

 

 

September 14, 2014

Are You a Berean or a Pharisee?

Filed under: Uncategorized — paulthinkingoutloud @ 5:31 pm
Tags: , , ,

Pharisees

This is Mary Agrusa’s third time here at C201; if you want to visit her blog, The Thought Just Ocurred To Me, just click the title of today’s post below.

Bereans vs. Pharisees

“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” Acts 17:11 (NIV).

How do you spell Pharisee: pompous, haughty, arrogant, rude, ingratiating, sarcastic, educated, egotistical, snob? It’s unfair to paint them all with that broad brush, but many that Jesus tangled with fell into this category. The largely uneducated Jewish population were under the tutelage of these religious teachers of the law. Unlike us, the Jews had no other options. We can at least change churches.

Mark Virkler described the difference between a Pharisee and a Berean. Pharisees look to prove someone wrong; Bereans look to prove them right. What would happen if Christians as a whole took a more Berean approach toward those who threaten to tip over their personal sacred cows? Would this methodology put us in a better frame of mind to investigate challenges to our belief systems? It might.

To entertain the remote possibility that you just might be wrong can be grounds for serious heartburn and possible excommunication (just kidding…maybe not). If our foundation’s not as firm as believed isn’t it better to adjust as opposed to pretending our concrete footers aren’t grounded in quicksand?

To clarify, there are basic non-negotiable tenets of the faith. These aren’t the issues I’m talking about (although some may disagree). We all have our pet doctrines. As I look back over forty plus years of being a Christian I’ve revised my position on subjects I once thought were indisputable. That said, in the coming years I’ll probably make even more changes as I grow in the knowledge of how ignorant I really am about God.

I’ve come to accept that God is so much bigger and complex than my personal theology can handle or even dream up. Daily I’m reminded how small my understanding is. He constantly challenges my shallow thinking and I’ve become more comfortable not being a know it all. I get lots of opportunities to grow and prove myself wrong.

If I chose to explore a different idea as opposed to defending my own (and of course correct) position, my study habits change. Rather than search for arguments to bolster my case, with fresh eyes I can look for and find things I’ve missed. I may come to the conclusion that my original premise is sound and intact. My attitude, however, will be very different. I can ditch the haughty I-told-you-so demeanor and experience the let down that comes when you root for the underdog who doesn’t pull a “Rudy” off in the final seconds of the game. If you don’t know who Rudy was, Google him. Hint: he played Notre Dame football. My heart has changed. There are no longer any quacks or adversaries, just those I agree to disagree with. No corresponding feelings of superiority are needed.

The world and the church could use a lot more Bereans and a whole lot less Pharisees. Do you think the pre-Christians would take note if we didn’t name call and fight over incidentals? What if we sat down and investigated conflicting claims in an effort to prove the other guy right? Think that might garner some attention? Much of what we come to blows over has nothing to do with the key issue – salvation through Christ alone.

How about you? Has someone yanked your doctrinal chain? If so, will you react as a Berean or a Pharisee?;

August 13, 2014

Justification, Sanctification and Glorification

Filed under: Uncategorized — paulthinkingoutloud @ 5:22 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin–
For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.
 (Romans 6:6-7 NLT)

Jeremy Myers has been running a series of word studies at his blog, Till He Comes, concerning words that do not refer to eternal life, even though we think of them in terms of it. This is actually part three; you might want to click the link in the first paragraph to read the parts sequentially. To read the first one at source, click the title below.

Words that DO NOT Refer to Eternal Life (Part 3): Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification

In previous posts we looked at several words that do not refer to eternal life: salvation and Kingdom of Heaven, and inheritance and reward. This post we will look at three more.

Justification

While it may be true that justification and eternal life are very closely related, they are nevertheless distinct in biblical theology.

To be justified is to be “righteousified.” That is, justification is to be declared or considered righteous by God. It is not the same thing as being “made righteous.”

It may be best to think of justification as being “in right standing” with God whereas eternal life is the actual reception of God’s life in us. The two are closely related and occur simultaneously when we believe in Jesus, but are still distinct.

The critical point to remember is that neither the reception of eternal life, nor the declaration of righteousness actually makes one righteous in all their thoughts, actions, and behaviors. If it did, we would never sin again. But we do sin, which brings us to the topic of sanctification.

Sanctification

It is because of this ongoing sin that we need sanctification. This is the life-long process of being sanctified, that is, of becoming more holy.

Sanctification occurs as we follow Jesus in discipleship and learn to love others like Jesus through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Sanctification often leads to the temporal experience of eternal life, but is not eternal life itself.

Through sanctification we begin to understand what it means to live under the rule and reign of God, and we begin to see other people as God sees them, and ourselves as well. Based on this brief description, you may realize that sanctification is vitally important for the Christian life.

Indeed, it is probably not an overstatement to say that the vast majority of the New Testament is concerned with Christian sanctification.

Glorification

Glorification then, is the future event when we finally gain our perfect, glorified bodies. It is with these redeemed and sinless bodies that we will live forever with God and will serve Him and one another for all eternity.

justification-sanctification-glorification

Though it is an oversimplification, we could say that if justification is deliverance from the penalty of sin, and sanctification is the deliverance from the power of sin, then glorification is the deliverance from the presence of sin.

So justification, sanctification, and glorification are not themselves eternal life, but maybe it would be safe to say that they are aspects of eternal life. Justification is when we receive eternal life; sanctification is when we learn to live within eternal life; and glorification is when we fully experience eternal life.

April 23, 2014

Timothy Keller on Jesus in the Old Testament

Filed under: Uncategorized — paulthinkingoutloud @ 5:39 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

jesus-star-of-david-2Via Darryl Dash’s blog:

All About Him

“Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:27)

  • Jesus is the true and better Adam who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us (1 Corinthians 15).
  • Jesus is the true and better Abel who, though innocently slain, has blood now that cries out for our acquittal, not our condemnation (Hebrews 12:24).
  • Jesus is the true and better Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void “not knowing wither he went!” to create a new people of God.
  • Jesus is the true and better Isaac who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us. While God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love, from me,” now we can say to God, “Now we know that you love me, because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love, from me.”
  • Jesus is the true and better Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved, so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us.
  • Jesus is the true and better Joseph who, at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them.
  • Jesus is the true and better Moses who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant (Hebrews 3).
  • Jesus is the true and better Rock of Moses who, struck with the rod of God’s justice, now gives us water in the desert.
  • Jesus is the true and better Job, the truly innocent sufferer, who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends (Job 42).
  • Jesus is the true and better David, whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.
  • Jesus is the true and better Esther who didn’t just risk losing an earthly palace but lost the ultimate and heavenly one, who didn’t just risk his life, but gave his life to save his people.
  • Jesus is the true and better Jonah who was cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.

jesus-star-of-david-1Jesus is the real Rock of Moses, the real Passover Lamb – innocent, perfect, helpless, slain so the angel of death will pass over us. He is the true temple, the true prophet, the true priest, the true king, the true sacrifice, the Lamb, the Light, the Bread.

The Bible is not about you — it is about him.

(Tim Keller, Ockenga Preaching Series 2006)

February 24, 2014

The Hope of Healing for the Broken

Filed under: Uncategorized — paulthinkingoutloud @ 5:11 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s C201 takes a different course. It’s a snapshot of some personal correspondence that I wrestled with five years ago. While it’s one thing to write and format something here each day, it’s a whole other matter to engage one-on-one with someone, and frankly if that’s what you do online, I think it’s a more noble calling than having a high traffic blog. I’ll let the rest explain itself:

Depending on where you stand on the cessationist or dispensational continuum, you may or may not believe that supernatural healing is still available. Personally, I believe that God is predisposed to healing, but may withhold it if there are greater lessons he has for us. I don’t believe that stops us from asking. In fact, I believe God is constantly saying, “Ask me.”

When it comes to inner healing, we often place it into a separate category. There are people reading this who are asking God for a physical healing that perhaps has been at the top of their prayer list for some time. But there may also be some people reading this who are asking God for victory over some sinful habit or lifestyle and in a way very similar to those seeking physical healing are wondering why this prayer request remains unanswered. To them the question is, “I keep praying and asking God to take away these sinful desires, but day after day they are still there.”

I am not completely lacking in understanding on this — my certificate of sainthood is not yet in the mail — but as I navigate through the blogosphere each week, I try to offer encouragement where I can. (Update: I now have about 500 or more bookmarked in my computer and read many of them each fortnight.)

Part of that encouragement is to follow up and see where people are at a week or two later; I don’t think you should just drop your little kernels of truth and then take off.

So I was a little disappointed to discover that one blogger who seemed to be wrestling with the question of inner healing had taken his blog offline.

Trying to keep things concise, this is what I had written to him:

Some sins can be habitual or even addictive behaviors, but for the most part I think our sin is the result of our choice.

As long as we are in the world, we will have temptation. Paul wrestled with the idea of wanting to do right and finding himself back doing wrong until finally he cries out, “Who will save me from this body of death?” (see Romans 7: 15-25)

I like your concept of exploring this with a parallel look at the subject of healing. We often speak of this as “inner healing,” or “healing of the mind.” Of course, we can’t expect God to rid of us all evil desires in the way he might rid of us disease, or the effects of injury.

Instead, the Bible gives us another concept to consider: Holiness. While the righteousness of Christ is “imputed” to us at salvation; and while we are encouraged to pray “lead us not into temptation;” holiness is going to require a greater effort on our part.

So if, as I started, sin is a result of choice; holiness is going involve making different choices. For God’s part, then what needs to happen is a work of “cleansing.”

Then, the questions would be:
(1) Is miraculous, supernatural cleansing still available? and,
(2) Why do some Christians experience a dramatic before-versus-after cleansing, entering into more holy living; while others continue to grapple with sin?

I think the answer to (1) is yes; God can intervene and take away desires, or send circumstances so that those desires diminish. The answer to (2) is more complex, though some elderly, “holy” people will admit they still struggle with wrong thoughts and desires.

If I had it to write over again, I would have added this: Part of what transacted on the cross was that we were freed from sin having power over us. I no longer have to serve sin. Christ has freed us from the power of sin. Yet still, I may choose to sin.

And one thing I’m learning is that the more I know of Christ and of Biblical teaching, the more that choice to sin is an informed choice. In other words, I am increasingly more responsible for my choices than a blogger in his teens or twenties who may be wrestling with parallel issues.

So how would you answer the two above questions? Which is the bigger request, to ask God to heal someone’s thought life, desires or impulses; or ask God to heal someone of disease? 

Update: Feb. 2014 — While watching an episode of the children’s video series What’s in the Bible, I was reminded that God frees us from the stain of sin, the power of sin and the effects of the presence of sin in the world. Each of these is however, a different focus.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.