Spirit baptism is one of the key issues that differentiates Charismatic/Pentecostal believers from other Christians, and I Corinthians 12:13 is one of the key verses that they say demonstrates that there are two baptisms of the Spirit, not just one.
There is usually little disagreement about the first half of this verse. Paul is teaching us that when we put our trust in Christ as our Savior, the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ, that is, the Church. We become members of the universal Church. Whether we are "Jews or Greeks...slaves or free" we are all equally members of Christ's universal Body.
The second part of this verse is where disagreement begins. Charismatics/Pentecostals say that the drinking of one Spirit is a 'second blessing' or second baptism of the Holy Spirit, and this one is for enablement and power. These Christian brothers and sisters also claim that this second baptism is something we have to 'pray' for, 'ask' for, 'be yielded' for, etc. In other words, we have to simcerely want it and want it bad enough that God will give it to us.
The problem with all this is that the last part of I Corinthians 12:13 says nothing about human effort, in fact, the verb here is passive, "we were all made to drink". The text is clearly saying that whatever is being talked about here, it is something that God does for us without any effort on our part. We are passive participants in whatever is being described.
Another problem with the Charismatic/Pentecostal perspective here is that Paul says "we were all made to drink". I don't think there is any doubt that not every Christian has received the 'second blessing' or second Spirit baptism that Charismatics/Pentecostals urge us to receive. I haven't yet. Therefore, whatever Paul is speaking of, it has to be something that every Christian has received.
I believe that Paul is referring to what our Lord spoke of in John 7:37-39. Jesus says, "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink". He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, "from his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." Verse thirty-nine goes on to say, "He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive."
The best understanding of the latter part of I Corinthians 12:13 is that Paul is saying that when we are baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, Christ also gives us the Holy Spirit to dwell in us. So, this is speaking not about another baptism of the Spirit, but the gift of the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord.
I am not saying that this one verse is the end of all discussion about one vs. two Spirit baptisms. What is clear is that I Corinthians 12:13 does not fit with the Charismatic/Pentecostal view of a second baptism.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Pray without ceasing - I Thessalonians 5:17
When I first read this verse I was completely overwhelmed by its implications. How in the world can one possible pray 24/7? This goes even beyond Martin Luther who I believe famously said that he had so much to do on one particular day that he was going to have to spend three hours in prayer in order to accomplish it all. Isn't God asking a little too much of us?
The key to understanding this verse is the imperfect tense of the word "pray". This indicates that we are to pray repeatedly at frequent intervals, not constantly without a break.
In the context, when the Holy Spirit brings certain people or circumstances to our mind we are to rejoice (v 16), "give thanks" (v 18), and pray for whoever or whatever the Spirit prompts to bring before the Father in prayer.
Sometimes as we are walking by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16), we will encounter people or circumstances that should cause us to momentarily stop what we are doing and pray. It doesn't always have to be out loud nor does it have to be long. The Lord's prayer can be said in less than 30 seconds and that is a model for us from Christ.
My dad's father, "Grampy", was the master practitioner of this kind of prayer. When I was with him as a boy he used to regularly embarrass me by breaking into prayer in all kinds of public situations. Whether it was a person we encountered in some kind of spiritual need or the Holy Spirit reminding him to pray about a particular person in crisis, my grandfather taught me how to live this verse. I don't apply it as frequently or as well as he did (he's with the Lord now), but I hope someday my children and grandchildren will say that I embarrassed them in the very same way.
The key to understanding this verse is the imperfect tense of the word "pray". This indicates that we are to pray repeatedly at frequent intervals, not constantly without a break.
In the context, when the Holy Spirit brings certain people or circumstances to our mind we are to rejoice (v 16), "give thanks" (v 18), and pray for whoever or whatever the Spirit prompts to bring before the Father in prayer.
Sometimes as we are walking by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16), we will encounter people or circumstances that should cause us to momentarily stop what we are doing and pray. It doesn't always have to be out loud nor does it have to be long. The Lord's prayer can be said in less than 30 seconds and that is a model for us from Christ.
My dad's father, "Grampy", was the master practitioner of this kind of prayer. When I was with him as a boy he used to regularly embarrass me by breaking into prayer in all kinds of public situations. Whether it was a person we encountered in some kind of spiritual need or the Holy Spirit reminding him to pray about a particular person in crisis, my grandfather taught me how to live this verse. I don't apply it as frequently or as well as he did (he's with the Lord now), but I hope someday my children and grandchildren will say that I embarrassed them in the very same way.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Is Jesus the Only Way? John 14:6 (Part III)
Is Jesus the Only Way? Part I and Part II
I believe that the teaching of Jesus as the only way to heaven is and will be the most divisive and offensive spiritual issue in the twenty-first century.
People all over the world like and admire Jesus. The Muslims call Him a prophet and say that He will return someday to help establish Islam as the world religion. Many Jews reject Him as the Messiah but see Him as a great teacher. A lot of people of faith today would even grant you that Jesus is a way to heaven and/or God. Many would not have a problem with calling Him "God", after all, they say "we're all gods!" But when someone says Jesus is the only way to heaven, that's when a lot of people take serious offense. This teaching is considered to be the height of spiritual bigotry and the most arrogant of all spiritual claims. It is the one spiritual issue that offends almost everybody, except the minority of evangelical Christians who still hold it to be absolutely true. I say "minority" of evangelical Christians because according to recent surveys and studies, including one by George Barna, less than half of all evangelicals still hold strongly to the belief that Christ is the only way to heaven. Most Christians today in America are like our current president who claims that Christ is his Savior, but that there are many paths to heaven. Our president dismisses John 14:6 as just one "particular verse" which is open to various interpretations. But as I have already demonstrated in Part I, if words and context mean anything, there can only be one interpretation of John 14:6, and there are other verses like Acts 4:12 and I John 5:12 that show clearly that Jesus is the only way.
The bottom line is that John 14:6 is the issue that divides people of faith and it is also beginning to divide evangelical Christians, and the future is even more a concern.
I believe that when the Antichrist is revealed, at a certain point he will create a "super church" of religious and spiritual people from all over the earth. This "super church" will include "Christians", but these "Christians" will be the ones who deny that Christ is the only way of salvation. This will be the key issue. Just about every other belief concerning Christ is acceptable to a greater or lesser extent, but this teaching cannot be tolerated at all and will determine who can be a part of the "super church" and who will be persecuted as an intolerant fanatic.
Every one needs to carefully examine this issue and come to a firm conviction about it because the stakes are incredibly high. The implications connected with John 14:6 are enormous. The teaching of Christ being the only way of salvation is the most important spiritual issue today, and I would say, of all time.
I believe that the teaching of Jesus as the only way to heaven is and will be the most divisive and offensive spiritual issue in the twenty-first century.
People all over the world like and admire Jesus. The Muslims call Him a prophet and say that He will return someday to help establish Islam as the world religion. Many Jews reject Him as the Messiah but see Him as a great teacher. A lot of people of faith today would even grant you that Jesus is a way to heaven and/or God. Many would not have a problem with calling Him "God", after all, they say "we're all gods!" But when someone says Jesus is the only way to heaven, that's when a lot of people take serious offense. This teaching is considered to be the height of spiritual bigotry and the most arrogant of all spiritual claims. It is the one spiritual issue that offends almost everybody, except the minority of evangelical Christians who still hold it to be absolutely true. I say "minority" of evangelical Christians because according to recent surveys and studies, including one by George Barna, less than half of all evangelicals still hold strongly to the belief that Christ is the only way to heaven. Most Christians today in America are like our current president who claims that Christ is his Savior, but that there are many paths to heaven. Our president dismisses John 14:6 as just one "particular verse" which is open to various interpretations. But as I have already demonstrated in Part I, if words and context mean anything, there can only be one interpretation of John 14:6, and there are other verses like Acts 4:12 and I John 5:12 that show clearly that Jesus is the only way.
The bottom line is that John 14:6 is the issue that divides people of faith and it is also beginning to divide evangelical Christians, and the future is even more a concern.
I believe that when the Antichrist is revealed, at a certain point he will create a "super church" of religious and spiritual people from all over the earth. This "super church" will include "Christians", but these "Christians" will be the ones who deny that Christ is the only way of salvation. This will be the key issue. Just about every other belief concerning Christ is acceptable to a greater or lesser extent, but this teaching cannot be tolerated at all and will determine who can be a part of the "super church" and who will be persecuted as an intolerant fanatic.
Every one needs to carefully examine this issue and come to a firm conviction about it because the stakes are incredibly high. The implications connected with John 14:6 are enormous. The teaching of Christ being the only way of salvation is the most important spiritual issue today, and I would say, of all time.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Is Jesus the Only Way? John 14:6 (Part II)
For Part I of "Is Jesus the Only Way?" click here.
Some people today believe that when Jesus said, "I am the Way", He is not saying "Me personally" or "Me alone", but rather He is speaking about His "inner Christ". He's talking about that aspect of divinity that was in Him and that is in every human being. In other words, He is speaking of his "Christ consciousness" and we all just need to come to that higher consciousness of realizing that God is in all of us and we are all gods.
The problem with this interpretation is that if this is indeed what Christ was saying, why didn't He just tell Thomas to "look inside" for the answer to his question. When Thomas said, "How do we know the way?", Jesus should have said, "Look to your inner self. The Way is in you". But that is not what Jesus says. Rather, He points to Himself most emphatically. More importantly, He went to the cross willingly to die for all mankind, which was totally unnecessary if all we have to do is "look inside".
When you look at this passage, look at the context, look at the question being asked, and then look at Christ's response. There is no way to explain this as anything other than Jesus Christ saying, "I am the only way to God and to heaven". You may not like it. You may struggle to accept it. But that is what Jesus is saying and you and I am forced to come to one of three conclusions (with apologies to C.S. Lewis because I'm altering his formula a bit here). Either Jesus is deliberately lying; that is, He knows He's not the only way to God and He's lying by saying He is. Or Jesus was delusional and He thought He was the only way to heaven, but in fact He was a lunatic, and He was totally deluded about Himself. Or He really is the only way to God and heaven. You have to make a choice between those three options. There are no others. You can not say that Jesus is a really good man if He is a liar. You cannot say that He is a great teacher if He is delusional. You cannot say He is a prophet of God if He says, "I am the only Way", and He is mistaken. So what do you believe about Jesus? All the fuzzy thinking about Jesus has to be set aside when you come to passages like this. You've got to make a decision. Who is He? Liar? Lunatic? Or the only Savior of all mankind?
Look for Part III of this series on Sunday, August 29.
Some people today believe that when Jesus said, "I am the Way", He is not saying "Me personally" or "Me alone", but rather He is speaking about His "inner Christ". He's talking about that aspect of divinity that was in Him and that is in every human being. In other words, He is speaking of his "Christ consciousness" and we all just need to come to that higher consciousness of realizing that God is in all of us and we are all gods.
The problem with this interpretation is that if this is indeed what Christ was saying, why didn't He just tell Thomas to "look inside" for the answer to his question. When Thomas said, "How do we know the way?", Jesus should have said, "Look to your inner self. The Way is in you". But that is not what Jesus says. Rather, He points to Himself most emphatically. More importantly, He went to the cross willingly to die for all mankind, which was totally unnecessary if all we have to do is "look inside".
When you look at this passage, look at the context, look at the question being asked, and then look at Christ's response. There is no way to explain this as anything other than Jesus Christ saying, "I am the only way to God and to heaven". You may not like it. You may struggle to accept it. But that is what Jesus is saying and you and I am forced to come to one of three conclusions (with apologies to C.S. Lewis because I'm altering his formula a bit here). Either Jesus is deliberately lying; that is, He knows He's not the only way to God and He's lying by saying He is. Or Jesus was delusional and He thought He was the only way to heaven, but in fact He was a lunatic, and He was totally deluded about Himself. Or He really is the only way to God and heaven. You have to make a choice between those three options. There are no others. You can not say that Jesus is a really good man if He is a liar. You cannot say that He is a great teacher if He is delusional. You cannot say He is a prophet of God if He says, "I am the only Way", and He is mistaken. So what do you believe about Jesus? All the fuzzy thinking about Jesus has to be set aside when you come to passages like this. You've got to make a decision. Who is He? Liar? Lunatic? Or the only Savior of all mankind?
Look for Part III of this series on Sunday, August 29.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Is Jesus the Only Way? John 14:6 (Part I)
Those of you who are CNN fans and like to watch Larry King may have seen the panel discussion some time ago that had a number of ministers and holy men talking about theological and spiritual issues. There was a Muslim cleric, a New Age Leader, a Catholic Priest, a Rabbi on a television hookup, and John MacArthur from Grace Community Church in California. At one point in the discussion, John MacArthur pointed out that Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me." The New Age minister who was sitting next to him said, "There is another way to understand that passage." He didn't explain any further and John MacArthur didn't get a chance to respond. But what was left was a seed of doubt in the minds of a lot of people that what MacArthur shared wasn't really true or wasn't the only way to understand that verse of Scripture. Okay, let's look at the possibilities about what Jesus said in John 14:6.
Jesus is about to go to the cross. He is speaking to his disciples, and He says, "Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 4:1). Jesus is clearly saying that it is not enough to simply believe in God the Father. That is important, but that is not enough. Many people today say, "I believe in God", and that's good. That is super important. But it is not enough. As James points out, demons also believe that God exists (James 2:19). But that will not get them into heaven. And that is what Jesus is ultimately talking about. He says, "...in my Father's house there are many dwelling places, if it were not so I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you". What is "My Father's house:...Herod's Temple?
In John 14:2 it's clear that the place that He is talking about is a place He personally is going to prepare. Men are not going to build it. He is going to build it, and if you look down at verse five, Thomas says to Him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way?" Now if Jesus was talking about the way to the Temple in Jerusalem, all he had to say way, "Thomas, you need to look down the road. It is right there. You've been there many times." But He didn't, because Jesus was talking about heaven, which is also His Father's house. And this is a very important point because when people talk about many roads leading to heaven, they speak as if heaven is public domain. Heaven is not a universal public place that just anyone can enter. It is God's private residence. It is His home. And since it is His private residence, He gets to decide who comes in and on what terms. Each of us has a house or place of residence, and when people come to visit, they only come in if we want them to, and they stay there only as long as we want them to stay. That is only fair and that is only right. The same thing is true for God. So, one should not say it is unfair or unjust if God decides that people can only get into heaven through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is totally fair and just, as long as everyone has a chance, and the requirements are the same for everyone. But before we discuss that further, we need to explore the possibility that Jesus didn't really mean that He alone is the only way to heaven. This will be discussed in Part II tomorrow. Stay tuned!
Jesus is about to go to the cross. He is speaking to his disciples, and He says, "Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 4:1). Jesus is clearly saying that it is not enough to simply believe in God the Father. That is important, but that is not enough. Many people today say, "I believe in God", and that's good. That is super important. But it is not enough. As James points out, demons also believe that God exists (James 2:19). But that will not get them into heaven. And that is what Jesus is ultimately talking about. He says, "...in my Father's house there are many dwelling places, if it were not so I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you". What is "My Father's house:...Herod's Temple?
In John 14:2 it's clear that the place that He is talking about is a place He personally is going to prepare. Men are not going to build it. He is going to build it, and if you look down at verse five, Thomas says to Him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way?" Now if Jesus was talking about the way to the Temple in Jerusalem, all he had to say way, "Thomas, you need to look down the road. It is right there. You've been there many times." But He didn't, because Jesus was talking about heaven, which is also His Father's house. And this is a very important point because when people talk about many roads leading to heaven, they speak as if heaven is public domain. Heaven is not a universal public place that just anyone can enter. It is God's private residence. It is His home. And since it is His private residence, He gets to decide who comes in and on what terms. Each of us has a house or place of residence, and when people come to visit, they only come in if we want them to, and they stay there only as long as we want them to stay. That is only fair and that is only right. The same thing is true for God. So, one should not say it is unfair or unjust if God decides that people can only get into heaven through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is totally fair and just, as long as everyone has a chance, and the requirements are the same for everyone. But before we discuss that further, we need to explore the possibility that Jesus didn't really mean that He alone is the only way to heaven. This will be discussed in Part II tomorrow. Stay tuned!
Monday, August 23, 2010
Tongues: Gift or Private Prayer Language?
In Rolling Stone magazine (August 10, 2010), Katy Perry of "California Gurls" fame says, "speaking in tongues is as normal to me as 'pass the salt". She goes on to say, "...it's a secret, direct prayer language to God." Some people may have a problem with Katy Perry claiming she is a Christian, and others may take issue with her for "speaking in tongues" and it being her "prayer language to God". What I have a problem with is people referring to this practice as the "gift of tongues", because these are two very different spiritual things.
First of all, like all the spiritual gifts or manifestations of the Spirit, the gifts are not for the edification of individual Christians, but rather "for the common good" (I Corinthians 12:7). This is why Paul says that the gift of tongues has to be interpreted whenever it is used (I Corinthians 14:27). In addition, only "two or at the most three" are allowed by scripture to exercise this gift in any given worship service (I Corinthians 14:27). So, if someone has the actual gift of tongues, it is not for them to use for their own edification or whenever they so desire. It is to be used publicly for whatever congregation he or she is a member of and it's use is highly regulated by scripture. I would never forbid someone from exercising the gift of tongues in a service I was involved in (See I Corinthians 14:39), but I would insist that it is used according to scripture, and I have only heard of one time in forty-five years of being a Christian where it was exercised biblically.
This instance was many years ago when two African university students visited an evangelical church in the Midwest on a certain Sunday morning. During the worship, a man in the congregation stood up and spoke in tongues. Everyone looked around for someone to interpret. The two Africa students stood up and announced that the man had spoken in their native language and he had explained the story of Jesus, which they then shared with the whole church. The message was completely in line with what is already in scripture, which is important because otherwise the "tongues" would be extra-biblical new revelation. The bottom line is that this was apparently a legitimate example of someone speaking with the gift of tongues. I believe it happens, but it is rare, and it only happens on occasions when God sees fit to make it happen.
On the other hand, people praying to God in a private prayer language, like Katy Perry, is very common. I know of many people who claim to have this ability and they say they pray in this way often. This is apparently described in I Corinthians 14:14-15. This is something to be done at home or in a private place, not when the church is gathered. When believers tell me they speak in a private prayer language, I say "wonderful...just remember not to bring it to church." If praying to God in a private prayer language is edifying for you, I am very happy for you and I hope you continue to be blessed. You can do this whenever you please or God gives you utterance. But just not during the worship of the church gathered. When Paul says that "all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner" (I Corinthians 14:40), in the context, he is addressing the use of tongues and the gift of prophecy. We should not forbid, but we must insist on following what scripture says. To do this we must delineate between the gift of tongues, which is always public, and prayer language, which is always private. One is for the edification of everyone, the other is just for one person. Viva la difference and to God be the glory!
First of all, like all the spiritual gifts or manifestations of the Spirit, the gifts are not for the edification of individual Christians, but rather "for the common good" (I Corinthians 12:7). This is why Paul says that the gift of tongues has to be interpreted whenever it is used (I Corinthians 14:27). In addition, only "two or at the most three" are allowed by scripture to exercise this gift in any given worship service (I Corinthians 14:27). So, if someone has the actual gift of tongues, it is not for them to use for their own edification or whenever they so desire. It is to be used publicly for whatever congregation he or she is a member of and it's use is highly regulated by scripture. I would never forbid someone from exercising the gift of tongues in a service I was involved in (See I Corinthians 14:39), but I would insist that it is used according to scripture, and I have only heard of one time in forty-five years of being a Christian where it was exercised biblically.
This instance was many years ago when two African university students visited an evangelical church in the Midwest on a certain Sunday morning. During the worship, a man in the congregation stood up and spoke in tongues. Everyone looked around for someone to interpret. The two Africa students stood up and announced that the man had spoken in their native language and he had explained the story of Jesus, which they then shared with the whole church. The message was completely in line with what is already in scripture, which is important because otherwise the "tongues" would be extra-biblical new revelation. The bottom line is that this was apparently a legitimate example of someone speaking with the gift of tongues. I believe it happens, but it is rare, and it only happens on occasions when God sees fit to make it happen.
On the other hand, people praying to God in a private prayer language, like Katy Perry, is very common. I know of many people who claim to have this ability and they say they pray in this way often. This is apparently described in I Corinthians 14:14-15. This is something to be done at home or in a private place, not when the church is gathered. When believers tell me they speak in a private prayer language, I say "wonderful...just remember not to bring it to church." If praying to God in a private prayer language is edifying for you, I am very happy for you and I hope you continue to be blessed. You can do this whenever you please or God gives you utterance. But just not during the worship of the church gathered. When Paul says that "all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner" (I Corinthians 14:40), in the context, he is addressing the use of tongues and the gift of prophecy. We should not forbid, but we must insist on following what scripture says. To do this we must delineate between the gift of tongues, which is always public, and prayer language, which is always private. One is for the edification of everyone, the other is just for one person. Viva la difference and to God be the glory!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Pick Your Poison - Mark 16:17-18
Years ago a guy wrote a letter to, I believe it was, World Magazine. In it he challenged anyone to give him a chapter and verse to prove that Mark 16:17-18 was no longer valid for Christians today. I did not respond then, but now I am ready to address it with him.
I believe that there are verses in the New Testament that indicate that certain gifts and manifestations of the Spirit are no longer sovereignly being given by Him today (but that is a subject of a different post). The point is that this guy does have a point. If we grant that verses 9-20 of Mark chapter sixteen are authentic (and a lot of conservative scholars do not), and if we don't have absolute, indisputable evidence that this passage is no longer in effect, then perhaps we should accept Mark 16:17-18 and start living it...all of it! Here is my challenge to whoever wrote this letter to the editor many years ago. If you are reading this, you bring the cyanide and I'll round up some particularly venomous snakes, and you and I will party, spiritually-speaking, of course.
Here's the problem with accepting this passage as a description to be followed by believers today. Not many believers want to follow the whole thing. Some want to "speak with new tongues", some desire to heal the sick, and there are a bunch of Christians who are traveling around trying to exorcise demons. But picking up serpents and drinking poison, not so much. There are a few Christians willing to do this, and I have to say, at least they are consistent.
If this passage is for today, the whole thing has to be for today. We can't just pick out the parts we like and discard the rest like fish bones. Either Mark 16:17-18 is what all believers should be doing and these "signs" identify us as believers, or we have to go back to the Word and rethink this entire passage.
We need to ask the Lord if perhaps this is a description of signs for the apostolic age. Hebrews 2:3-4 seems to indicate that these kinds of phenomenon were in the past by the time the writer of Hebrews penned his letter. I believe that the application of Mark 16:17-18 for us today is that God is going to do "signs" through his people that give evidence that we belong to Him and that Christ is the only true way. It could be through these particular signs, but God doesn't have to limit Himself to these signs in every age. But if you are the person who wrote the letter, and you still think Mark 16:17-18 is directly and completely applicable for us today, let me know when we are getting together to pick up the snakes and drink poison. One more thing...you go first!
I believe that there are verses in the New Testament that indicate that certain gifts and manifestations of the Spirit are no longer sovereignly being given by Him today (but that is a subject of a different post). The point is that this guy does have a point. If we grant that verses 9-20 of Mark chapter sixteen are authentic (and a lot of conservative scholars do not), and if we don't have absolute, indisputable evidence that this passage is no longer in effect, then perhaps we should accept Mark 16:17-18 and start living it...all of it! Here is my challenge to whoever wrote this letter to the editor many years ago. If you are reading this, you bring the cyanide and I'll round up some particularly venomous snakes, and you and I will party, spiritually-speaking, of course.
Here's the problem with accepting this passage as a description to be followed by believers today. Not many believers want to follow the whole thing. Some want to "speak with new tongues", some desire to heal the sick, and there are a bunch of Christians who are traveling around trying to exorcise demons. But picking up serpents and drinking poison, not so much. There are a few Christians willing to do this, and I have to say, at least they are consistent.
If this passage is for today, the whole thing has to be for today. We can't just pick out the parts we like and discard the rest like fish bones. Either Mark 16:17-18 is what all believers should be doing and these "signs" identify us as believers, or we have to go back to the Word and rethink this entire passage.
We need to ask the Lord if perhaps this is a description of signs for the apostolic age. Hebrews 2:3-4 seems to indicate that these kinds of phenomenon were in the past by the time the writer of Hebrews penned his letter. I believe that the application of Mark 16:17-18 for us today is that God is going to do "signs" through his people that give evidence that we belong to Him and that Christ is the only true way. It could be through these particular signs, but God doesn't have to limit Himself to these signs in every age. But if you are the person who wrote the letter, and you still think Mark 16:17-18 is directly and completely applicable for us today, let me know when we are getting together to pick up the snakes and drink poison. One more thing...you go first!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
How Powerful is God? Jeremiah 32:27
When I think about the awesome power of God my mind returns to Jeremiah chapter 32 again and again. In this passage God speaks to the prophet Jeremiah and tells him to buy a piece of land outside Jerusalem even though the Babylonians have already captured it, and are about to take possession of Jerusalem. God promises Jeremiah that this particular piece of real estate will be a valuable commodity again someday (v 15). Jeremiah obediently buys the land and begins to pray in praise to God, but as he he is praying he begins to have doubts about the wisdom of his purchase. The Lord breaks in to speak to him again and says, "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?" (v 27). The answer of course is "no", but what exactly is God teaching Jeremiah and us about His power? The phrase "too difficult" means, more specifically, "extraordinary". God is saying that nothing is extra-ordinary for Him to do. God looks at creating the universe the same way He looks at causing one blade of grass to grow. Both are 'no sweat' at all for Him. Nothing requires extra effort. He speaks the word and the universe is formed. He says it and you have the job you've been praying for. God is so powerful that nothing is more difficult or a little easier for Him. Everything is the same, nothing is extraordinary.
Now this truth has profound implications for us. Sometimes people ask me if something they are concerned about is too small and insignificant to bring before God in prayer. I say, "what would be big to God?" The answer is nothing. Nothing is big or small. It is all just ordinary to Him in terms of His ability to fix it. So whatever problem we are facing, we need to stop thinking that it is either too small to bother Him with or too big for Him to easily address. Every problem is the same to Him...ordinary. Just tell Him what you need and trust Him to do what is best for you. He has all the power in the universe!
Now this truth has profound implications for us. Sometimes people ask me if something they are concerned about is too small and insignificant to bring before God in prayer. I say, "what would be big to God?" The answer is nothing. Nothing is big or small. It is all just ordinary to Him in terms of His ability to fix it. So whatever problem we are facing, we need to stop thinking that it is either too small to bother Him with or too big for Him to easily address. Every problem is the same to Him...ordinary. Just tell Him what you need and trust Him to do what is best for you. He has all the power in the universe!
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Difficulty Interpreting Scripture? I John 5:12
Some times people tell me that the Bible is very confusing and difficult to interpret. Indeed there are verses and passages that I am still uncertain about even after many years of prayer and study. Having said that, if anyone is honestly and openly seeking to understand the Bible, the central themes and truths are not that hard to grasp. As Mark Twain used to say, "it's not the difficult passages in the Bible that upset me, it's the ones that are clear!"
The other thing that I hear people say from time to time is that one can interpret the Bible just about any way a person desires. Now it is true that a lot of scripture can be understood many different ways, but there are certain important verses and passages that just can't be interpreted more than one way. A good example is I John 5:12 which says, "He who has the Son has the life, and he who does not have the Son does not have the life." I like to toss this verse out to people who say either the Bible is too difficult to understand or it can be interpreted any way one wants. Usually there is shunned silence or quiet agreement. There is really not a whole lot here to misunderstand or misinterpret. Either we have the Son, which is the "Son of God" (v 10) and we have "the life", which is "eternal life" (v 11) or we don't have the Son and we don't have the life. It can't get much easier or clearer than that. If one asks what it means to "have the Son" the very next verse tells us that it means to "believe in the name of the Son of God" (v 12). Those who believe, that is, put their trust in Jesus Christ, have eternal life. We may or may not like what we read in the Bible, but it is very clear from I John 5:12 that the most important question for everyone is, "Where do you stand in regard to Jesus Christ?"
The other thing that I hear people say from time to time is that one can interpret the Bible just about any way a person desires. Now it is true that a lot of scripture can be understood many different ways, but there are certain important verses and passages that just can't be interpreted more than one way. A good example is I John 5:12 which says, "He who has the Son has the life, and he who does not have the Son does not have the life." I like to toss this verse out to people who say either the Bible is too difficult to understand or it can be interpreted any way one wants. Usually there is shunned silence or quiet agreement. There is really not a whole lot here to misunderstand or misinterpret. Either we have the Son, which is the "Son of God" (v 10) and we have "the life", which is "eternal life" (v 11) or we don't have the Son and we don't have the life. It can't get much easier or clearer than that. If one asks what it means to "have the Son" the very next verse tells us that it means to "believe in the name of the Son of God" (v 12). Those who believe, that is, put their trust in Jesus Christ, have eternal life. We may or may not like what we read in the Bible, but it is very clear from I John 5:12 that the most important question for everyone is, "Where do you stand in regard to Jesus Christ?"
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Two Kingdoms or Just One?
What I believe,and it is the official position of our church, is that Jesus is going to return someday soon to establish His kingdom literally and physically here on earth as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, and most importantly, God's plan for this world. Having said that, sometimes we sing a song in our worship service that speaks about us being in God's kingdom now or I say something that indicates we are serving God as members of His kingdom today. This unfortunately freaks some people out and confuses others. So I want to clarify this as succinctly as I can for a preacher.
The Bible teaches that the one, true and living God is "King" (Psalm 145:1). This kingdom is from eternity past through eternity future (Daniel 4:34, Psalm 145:13),and His dominion is over all land, sea and people (Psalm 96:3-7). So there is a sense in which we can speak of "God's eternal kingdom." We are all in it and subject to His rule. Although some deny it and resist Him, He is still King and He is still sovereignly in charge of the entire universe (see Daniel 4:34-35). Therefore, it is theologically and biblically correct to worship God as King, obey Him as King, and speak of being in His kingdom right now. But, that is different from the "Millennial Kingdom" which is a future kingdom not yet established by the personal return of Christ to earth (see Revelation 19-20 as just one passage that confirms and describes this truth).
The question some have is this: Is Christ on the throne of David right now in heaven? I don't believe so, although some friends have tried to convince me of it. I just don't see the scriptural evidence. What I do believe is that Christ has already been given "the name which is above every name" (Philippians 2:9), and that name is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Revelation 19:15). I also don't have a problem with the concept of Christ ruling God's eternal kingdom with the Father from the right hand of power and authority. That does not negate the truth that God has always desired His rule to be literally and completely carried out on earth, and since man has failed miserably to do so (and always will), God's plan from the beginning is for His Son to come and complete His rule on earth. That millennial kingdom is not yet. But we can correctly speak of two kingdoms: God's eternal kingdom now and Christ's millennial kingdom in the future.*
*For a Reformed perspective on this issue that I believe has a lot of truth in it see Kevin DeYoung's post on the issue of one or two kingdoms.
The Bible teaches that the one, true and living God is "King" (Psalm 145:1). This kingdom is from eternity past through eternity future (Daniel 4:34, Psalm 145:13),and His dominion is over all land, sea and people (Psalm 96:3-7). So there is a sense in which we can speak of "God's eternal kingdom." We are all in it and subject to His rule. Although some deny it and resist Him, He is still King and He is still sovereignly in charge of the entire universe (see Daniel 4:34-35). Therefore, it is theologically and biblically correct to worship God as King, obey Him as King, and speak of being in His kingdom right now. But, that is different from the "Millennial Kingdom" which is a future kingdom not yet established by the personal return of Christ to earth (see Revelation 19-20 as just one passage that confirms and describes this truth).
The question some have is this: Is Christ on the throne of David right now in heaven? I don't believe so, although some friends have tried to convince me of it. I just don't see the scriptural evidence. What I do believe is that Christ has already been given "the name which is above every name" (Philippians 2:9), and that name is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Revelation 19:15). I also don't have a problem with the concept of Christ ruling God's eternal kingdom with the Father from the right hand of power and authority. That does not negate the truth that God has always desired His rule to be literally and completely carried out on earth, and since man has failed miserably to do so (and always will), God's plan from the beginning is for His Son to come and complete His rule on earth. That millennial kingdom is not yet. But we can correctly speak of two kingdoms: God's eternal kingdom now and Christ's millennial kingdom in the future.*
*For a Reformed perspective on this issue that I believe has a lot of truth in it see Kevin DeYoung's post on the issue of one or two kingdoms.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Holy Kiss - I Corinthians 16:20
I never really thought a lot about the Pauline exhortation to "greet one another with a holy kiss" until I traveled to Russia and the Ukraine in 1990. That's when I found out that the Christians there practiced this command very literally. Women kissed women on the lips and men kissed men on the lips when meeting one another. About two hundred Russian and Ukrainian men kissed me before I finally met with some of the leaders to discuss their interpretation and application of I Corinthians 16:20, and other similar verses.
What I did not want to do is fall into the contemporary trap of saying this verse is 'culturally conditioned'. This is where Christians look at the cultural context of a particular verse or passage, like I Corinthians 16:20 and pronounce it completely inapplicable for us today. One could say that the 'holy kiss', which was apparently a kiss on both cheeks with an embrace, was a cultural phenomenon in the ancient Middle East and is not appropriate for say, the American Midwest culture. But this is a very slippery slope. The reality is that one can go to almost any New Testament command and find a cultural connection and then dismiss it as "culturally conditioned".
Before setting aside any verse or passage of Scripture as irrelevant or inapplicable to us today, it would be best for us to err on the side of literal application like our Russian brothers and sisters. After all, II Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." What I take away from this verse is that there isn't any New Testament scripture that we can completely dismiss as culturally inapplicable. You may ask, 'what about the Old Testament'?
That is the scripture that Paul had at the time he wrote to Timothy, the New Testament was still being written. Most Old Testament scriptures do apply primarily and directly to Israel, but for us in the Church they still have an application. It is not prohibited any longer for us to eat lobster because we are no longer under the Law (see Romans 7:6 for example) But having said that I believe that OT prohibitions still have an application for us today based on II Timothy 3:16. We need to be careful, for instance, about when and how much we eat things like lobster. There were reasons why God prohibited them for Israel beyond ceremonial uncleanness. But for certain in this age, every single New Testament command has a timeless truth that applies to us in some way today, and you may ask, what would that be for I Corinthians 16:20?
I would say the timeless truth is this: When believers meet, they should greet each other with some physical display of affection. It needs to be "holy", not impure or inappropriate. It needs to be physical, not just verbal, and it needs to show genuine affection. It could be a handshake, a hug, a pat on the back, or any number of ways that are appropriate in a particular culture. But the "holy kiss" is not a option, it is a command of Scripture and should be obeyed.
How did my conversation with the Russian leaders go? Very well. Most of them agreed that it was not necessary to kiss others on the lips to obey this command. But a few people still insisted on kissing me on the lips, and I cooperated, not because I liked it (in case you were wondering) but because it is much better to apply Scripture a little too literally than to dismiss it altogether.
What I did not want to do is fall into the contemporary trap of saying this verse is 'culturally conditioned'. This is where Christians look at the cultural context of a particular verse or passage, like I Corinthians 16:20 and pronounce it completely inapplicable for us today. One could say that the 'holy kiss', which was apparently a kiss on both cheeks with an embrace, was a cultural phenomenon in the ancient Middle East and is not appropriate for say, the American Midwest culture. But this is a very slippery slope. The reality is that one can go to almost any New Testament command and find a cultural connection and then dismiss it as "culturally conditioned".
Before setting aside any verse or passage of Scripture as irrelevant or inapplicable to us today, it would be best for us to err on the side of literal application like our Russian brothers and sisters. After all, II Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." What I take away from this verse is that there isn't any New Testament scripture that we can completely dismiss as culturally inapplicable. You may ask, 'what about the Old Testament'?
That is the scripture that Paul had at the time he wrote to Timothy, the New Testament was still being written. Most Old Testament scriptures do apply primarily and directly to Israel, but for us in the Church they still have an application. It is not prohibited any longer for us to eat lobster because we are no longer under the Law (see Romans 7:6 for example) But having said that I believe that OT prohibitions still have an application for us today based on II Timothy 3:16. We need to be careful, for instance, about when and how much we eat things like lobster. There were reasons why God prohibited them for Israel beyond ceremonial uncleanness. But for certain in this age, every single New Testament command has a timeless truth that applies to us in some way today, and you may ask, what would that be for I Corinthians 16:20?
I would say the timeless truth is this: When believers meet, they should greet each other with some physical display of affection. It needs to be "holy", not impure or inappropriate. It needs to be physical, not just verbal, and it needs to show genuine affection. It could be a handshake, a hug, a pat on the back, or any number of ways that are appropriate in a particular culture. But the "holy kiss" is not a option, it is a command of Scripture and should be obeyed.
How did my conversation with the Russian leaders go? Very well. Most of them agreed that it was not necessary to kiss others on the lips to obey this command. But a few people still insisted on kissing me on the lips, and I cooperated, not because I liked it (in case you were wondering) but because it is much better to apply Scripture a little too literally than to dismiss it altogether.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Open Theism - Ephesians 1:11
Some time ago I purchased the book by Greg Boyd, "God of the Possible". His basic thesis is that God does not know everything about the future, and that opens up many possibilities for Him and us.I have to admit that I wasn't very 'open' to what he had to say but I am willing to listen to anyone who interacts with Scripture and Boyd does address a lot of pertinent passages. But I noticed in the scripture index that he never referred to Ephesians 1:11. This verse, in my opinion, is the most important verse in the entire Bible when discussing God's knowledge of the future.
The context of Ephesians 1:11 is God's plan for our "salvation" (v 13) and our "inheritance" (v 11) in Christ. As Paul is discussing this, he describes God as the One "...who works all things after the counsel of His will" (v 11). This is an all-encompassing statement about everything that happens or ever will happen, i.e., "all things". Paul is giving us two very important truths about this subject.
First of all, everything that happens in this world is according to "the counsel of His will." The word "counsel" is not just advice, it should be translated "plan". In other words, everything that happens is ultimately according to God's plan.
The second truth is that God "works all things" according to His plan. The word "works" does not mean that He directly causes everything that happens. That would make God the direct cause of evil and sin, which cannot be (see Matthew 5:48 and James 1:13). But God is ultimately in control of all things and He makes sure that all things work out exactly as He plans.
To say that God doesn't know everything about the future is false because He is the One planning the future and making sure that it happens exactly as He plans. Until someone can satisfactorily explain to me how Ephesians 1:11 fits with open theism, I have to reject it. What about you?
The context of Ephesians 1:11 is God's plan for our "salvation" (v 13) and our "inheritance" (v 11) in Christ. As Paul is discussing this, he describes God as the One "...who works all things after the counsel of His will" (v 11). This is an all-encompassing statement about everything that happens or ever will happen, i.e., "all things". Paul is giving us two very important truths about this subject.
First of all, everything that happens in this world is according to "the counsel of His will." The word "counsel" is not just advice, it should be translated "plan". In other words, everything that happens is ultimately according to God's plan.
The second truth is that God "works all things" according to His plan. The word "works" does not mean that He directly causes everything that happens. That would make God the direct cause of evil and sin, which cannot be (see Matthew 5:48 and James 1:13). But God is ultimately in control of all things and He makes sure that all things work out exactly as He plans.
To say that God doesn't know everything about the future is false because He is the One planning the future and making sure that it happens exactly as He plans. Until someone can satisfactorily explain to me how Ephesians 1:11 fits with open theism, I have to reject it. What about you?
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Issue of Defective Faith - Luke 8:13
Most people, and certainly most Christians, have heard of Billy Graham, arguably the greatest evangelist of the twentieth century. But there was another man that many thought would be greater. His name is Charles Templeton. But something shocking happened. After preaching Christ for a number of years suddenly Charles denied the deity of Christ and repudiated his faith in Jesus.
This kind of spiritual defection is very troubling to evangelical Christians. Most of us know someone personally who has willingly walked away from his or her belief in Christ. A lot of Christians are still trying to figure out exactly how this is possible. Over the years I have heard three different explanations about faith and apostasy over and over.
The first is that those who are given faith by God to believe will continue to believe and will never apostasize, i.e., permanently repudiate their faith in Christ. Therefore, anyone who becomes an apostate never really had faith to begin with. The big problem with this view is that some people, like Charles Templeton, certainly seem to have faith in Christ for a long time before they finally reject Him.
The second view is that some people have genuine faith in Christ for a while but because of Satan's schemes or their own sinfulness they 'lose' it and willingly walk away from Christ. The problem with this is that there are a number of passages in Scripture that indicate the impossibility of someone believing in Christ and then willfully rejecting Him. This is not because we as Christians are so spiritually strong or because we are incapable of losing our faith, but because the Bible teaches that ultimately God is the One who makes sure those who believe, continue to believe and make it to the finish line (see I Thessalonians 5:24 especially, but also I Peter 1:5).
The third view, which was very popular when I was in seminary, is that people can have genuine faith, but then stop believing in Christ completely, and yet still be saved. I like to refer to this as the 'extreme grace' position. I admire the emphasis on eternal security, but it makes no sense to say that someone who no longer believes in Jesus is still saved. It is both a logical and biblical contradiction. I Peter 1:5 says that we are "protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
So what is the answer? All three of these views have some truth in them, but they all have at least one serious error. The biblical answer is in Luke 8:13. This is the parable of the sower. In the context, "the seed is the Word of God" (v 11) and there are four types of soil that represent four distinct responses to God's Word. The second soil is "rocky" and this refers to people who hear the Word and respond with joy and belief for a while, but then," in a time of temptation fall away". Clearly, in the context this means they stop believing, and as we see from verse twelve, when that is the case they cannot be saved. But how can this happen? These people are explicitly said to "believe". That cannot be disputed. The problem is that they have "no root". This is a reference to their belief. They do believe, but their faith is defective in one or more ways. The person either does not understand and/or embrace Christ as the completely sufficient basis for his or her salvation, or the individual without "root" does not understand and/or embrace the truth that he or she is a sinner deserving of eternal condemnation apart from Christ. It is either one or the other or both. The person may say, "I believe in Jesus" and his or her faith is real as far as it goes. But it doesn't go deep enough or far enough, and in a "time of temptation" that person will abandon what faith they have, i.e., "fall away".
In summary, Luke 8:13 addresses all the weaknesses of the three most popular views of faith and apostasy, and it helps us to understand how people who appear to have genuine faith in Christ can later reject Him. Their faith is defective from the very beginning. Understanding this won't make the problem go away, but it is comforting to know that those with genuine faith in Christ will never apostasize. (II Tim.2:19)
This kind of spiritual defection is very troubling to evangelical Christians. Most of us know someone personally who has willingly walked away from his or her belief in Christ. A lot of Christians are still trying to figure out exactly how this is possible. Over the years I have heard three different explanations about faith and apostasy over and over.
The first is that those who are given faith by God to believe will continue to believe and will never apostasize, i.e., permanently repudiate their faith in Christ. Therefore, anyone who becomes an apostate never really had faith to begin with. The big problem with this view is that some people, like Charles Templeton, certainly seem to have faith in Christ for a long time before they finally reject Him.
The second view is that some people have genuine faith in Christ for a while but because of Satan's schemes or their own sinfulness they 'lose' it and willingly walk away from Christ. The problem with this is that there are a number of passages in Scripture that indicate the impossibility of someone believing in Christ and then willfully rejecting Him. This is not because we as Christians are so spiritually strong or because we are incapable of losing our faith, but because the Bible teaches that ultimately God is the One who makes sure those who believe, continue to believe and make it to the finish line (see I Thessalonians 5:24 especially, but also I Peter 1:5).
The third view, which was very popular when I was in seminary, is that people can have genuine faith, but then stop believing in Christ completely, and yet still be saved. I like to refer to this as the 'extreme grace' position. I admire the emphasis on eternal security, but it makes no sense to say that someone who no longer believes in Jesus is still saved. It is both a logical and biblical contradiction. I Peter 1:5 says that we are "protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
So what is the answer? All three of these views have some truth in them, but they all have at least one serious error. The biblical answer is in Luke 8:13. This is the parable of the sower. In the context, "the seed is the Word of God" (v 11) and there are four types of soil that represent four distinct responses to God's Word. The second soil is "rocky" and this refers to people who hear the Word and respond with joy and belief for a while, but then," in a time of temptation fall away". Clearly, in the context this means they stop believing, and as we see from verse twelve, when that is the case they cannot be saved. But how can this happen? These people are explicitly said to "believe". That cannot be disputed. The problem is that they have "no root". This is a reference to their belief. They do believe, but their faith is defective in one or more ways. The person either does not understand and/or embrace Christ as the completely sufficient basis for his or her salvation, or the individual without "root" does not understand and/or embrace the truth that he or she is a sinner deserving of eternal condemnation apart from Christ. It is either one or the other or both. The person may say, "I believe in Jesus" and his or her faith is real as far as it goes. But it doesn't go deep enough or far enough, and in a "time of temptation" that person will abandon what faith they have, i.e., "fall away".
In summary, Luke 8:13 addresses all the weaknesses of the three most popular views of faith and apostasy, and it helps us to understand how people who appear to have genuine faith in Christ can later reject Him. Their faith is defective from the very beginning. Understanding this won't make the problem go away, but it is comforting to know that those with genuine faith in Christ will never apostasize. (II Tim.2:19)
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Is Imminency Biblical?
One of the fundamental truths of historic Christianity is the belief that God is one God in three persons, that is, a trinity. However, the word "trinity" never occurs in Scripture. But the concept of God being a trinity is taught in a number of passages (see Matthew 28:19 for one example). The same is true for the doctrine of imminency. The word is never actually used in Scripture but the concept is taught in a number of places. This is clearly the case when Peter and James use the term 'at hand' in their writings about the return of Christ.
In I Peter 4:7, Peter says that "the end of all things is at hand". The term "at hand" or "near" means more specifically "to approach" or "draw near". When used in the perfect tense, it means "to come near". It indicates that the person or event is already in position to arrive and the arrival can be at any moment. It does not mean something is necessarily going to happen soon. If so, then Peter was wrong about "the end of all things".
To avoid this problem, some attempt to limit what Peter is saying here to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or some other past event, but there is nothing in the immediate context to limit the all encompassing terminology. The "end of all things" can only be the end of this planet as we know it, including the return of our Lord to bring this about. And James addesses the Lord's coming using the same term in James 5:8.
In this verse James explicitly says, "the coming of the Lord is at hand." This is the same verb, same perfect tense use of the verb. James is telling us to be patient and take heart because the Lord's coming is ready, that is, it can happen at any time. Not necessarily soon, or quickly, but at any time.
The doctrine of imminency may not fit with everyone's eschatological system but it is definitely taught in Scripture. The rap that imminency is an obstacle to holy living is unbiblical and illogical. Peter urges his readers to live soberly in prayer, love, hospitality and service knowing that the end of all things is at hand (I Peter 4:7-10). The truth is that if someone truly believes the return of Christ is imminent, there cannot be a greater incentive for holy living, logically speaking. If the return of our Lord is sometime in the future and we are going to have plenty of signs and warnings, we can live however we want now, and repent later. But if the Lord could return today, we need to be ready and stay ready.
This post is not an argument for a particular view of the rapture or a specific perspective of the millennium. I simply want to point out that the doctrine of imminency cannot be denied, and that may cause us to rethink other end time issues as well.
In I Peter 4:7, Peter says that "the end of all things is at hand". The term "at hand" or "near" means more specifically "to approach" or "draw near". When used in the perfect tense, it means "to come near". It indicates that the person or event is already in position to arrive and the arrival can be at any moment. It does not mean something is necessarily going to happen soon. If so, then Peter was wrong about "the end of all things".
To avoid this problem, some attempt to limit what Peter is saying here to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or some other past event, but there is nothing in the immediate context to limit the all encompassing terminology. The "end of all things" can only be the end of this planet as we know it, including the return of our Lord to bring this about. And James addesses the Lord's coming using the same term in James 5:8.
In this verse James explicitly says, "the coming of the Lord is at hand." This is the same verb, same perfect tense use of the verb. James is telling us to be patient and take heart because the Lord's coming is ready, that is, it can happen at any time. Not necessarily soon, or quickly, but at any time.
The doctrine of imminency may not fit with everyone's eschatological system but it is definitely taught in Scripture. The rap that imminency is an obstacle to holy living is unbiblical and illogical. Peter urges his readers to live soberly in prayer, love, hospitality and service knowing that the end of all things is at hand (I Peter 4:7-10). The truth is that if someone truly believes the return of Christ is imminent, there cannot be a greater incentive for holy living, logically speaking. If the return of our Lord is sometime in the future and we are going to have plenty of signs and warnings, we can live however we want now, and repent later. But if the Lord could return today, we need to be ready and stay ready.
This post is not an argument for a particular view of the rapture or a specific perspective of the millennium. I simply want to point out that the doctrine of imminency cannot be denied, and that may cause us to rethink other end time issues as well.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
What is "all things"? Philippians 4:13
A verse frequently quoted by Christian athletes, motivational speakers and a host of others today is Philippians 4:13; "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."
What is often implied, if not explicitly stated, is that if we tap into the power of Christ we can do anything. We can raise our batting average, close the big deal or accomplish anything our minds can dream up. As long as it is not immoral, illegal or contrary to Scripture in any other way.
While it is true that God can and does help us in every area of life and is still doing miracles today (that is the subject for another post), it is wrong and harmful for us to understand the verse in this way. That is, that Christ will help us to succeed in whatever we desire to do if we trust in Him completely.
First, this can be an attempt to put Christ in the place of a servant who is helping us to achieve our dreams and ambitions, rather than His rightful place as Master and Lord of our lives. What's more, it almost certainly leads to disappointment or disillusionment when things don't turn out as we believed they would.
In the context of Philippians 4:13 is Paul explaining how he is content in any circumstance of life, whether he has a little or a lot. This is the key to understanding what he is saying. Paul is boldly stating that Christ will help him to live successfully and godly in any circumstance that God sovereignly places him.
Recently a good friend of our family lost her father and then eight days later her mother in what the world would call a 'freak accident'. The truth is that as difficult as this situation is, God was in control of the universe when it happened, and He has a plan that is wise and loving for all involved. My wife talked with this dear friend just a few days after this terrible incident. It was clearly evident from the conversation that although she was grieving, she hadn't lost her perspective and she was confident that God will help her through this incredible shock.
This is what Philippians 4:13 is really all about. Not that we can be confident that Christ will enable us to do whatever we set out to do, but that we are able to do what is right, good and humanly impossible through the supernatural power of the Lord Jesus Christ!
What is often implied, if not explicitly stated, is that if we tap into the power of Christ we can do anything. We can raise our batting average, close the big deal or accomplish anything our minds can dream up. As long as it is not immoral, illegal or contrary to Scripture in any other way.
While it is true that God can and does help us in every area of life and is still doing miracles today (that is the subject for another post), it is wrong and harmful for us to understand the verse in this way. That is, that Christ will help us to succeed in whatever we desire to do if we trust in Him completely.
First, this can be an attempt to put Christ in the place of a servant who is helping us to achieve our dreams and ambitions, rather than His rightful place as Master and Lord of our lives. What's more, it almost certainly leads to disappointment or disillusionment when things don't turn out as we believed they would.
In the context of Philippians 4:13 is Paul explaining how he is content in any circumstance of life, whether he has a little or a lot. This is the key to understanding what he is saying. Paul is boldly stating that Christ will help him to live successfully and godly in any circumstance that God sovereignly places him.
Recently a good friend of our family lost her father and then eight days later her mother in what the world would call a 'freak accident'. The truth is that as difficult as this situation is, God was in control of the universe when it happened, and He has a plan that is wise and loving for all involved. My wife talked with this dear friend just a few days after this terrible incident. It was clearly evident from the conversation that although she was grieving, she hadn't lost her perspective and she was confident that God will help her through this incredible shock.
This is what Philippians 4:13 is really all about. Not that we can be confident that Christ will enable us to do whatever we set out to do, but that we are able to do what is right, good and humanly impossible through the supernatural power of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Monday, August 9, 2010
Christ's Kingdom not of this World? John 18:36
Probably once a week I hear or read, "Christ's kingdom is not of this world." The point the person is trying to make may vary but the bottom line is they are using this quote as 'Exhibit A' to prove that the kingdom of our Lord was not and never will be something physically or literally on planet earth.
However when Christ says to Pilate in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world", He is not saying....
This passage is not a proof-text for a non-literal, spiritual kingdom. Whether the kingdom of Christ is present or future, literal or spiritual, or all of the above, can be reasonably discussed from other passages. But this verse is simply teaching that Christ's kingdom will not come by this world's means of establishing kingdoms. Christ's authority comes from the Father and He will establish His kingdom by His power and authority (see Psalm 2).
This may cause some people to reevaluate their view of the kingdom. But at the very least, it should encourage all of us to recognize who's doing the establishing and how it is being done. God is doing it His way. Not us, our way.
However when Christ says to Pilate in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world", He is not saying....
- That His kingdom is in another place or
- That His kingdom is purely spiritual or
- That His kingdom is in another dimension.
This passage is not a proof-text for a non-literal, spiritual kingdom. Whether the kingdom of Christ is present or future, literal or spiritual, or all of the above, can be reasonably discussed from other passages. But this verse is simply teaching that Christ's kingdom will not come by this world's means of establishing kingdoms. Christ's authority comes from the Father and He will establish His kingdom by His power and authority (see Psalm 2).
This may cause some people to reevaluate their view of the kingdom. But at the very least, it should encourage all of us to recognize who's doing the establishing and how it is being done. God is doing it His way. Not us, our way.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
To Judge or not to Judge; to Blog or not to Blog
I hear a lot of people today quote Jesus from Matthew 7:1; "Judge not that you be not judged." Most of these people are not of the Christian faith and their point is that Christians are way too judgmental. As someone who has been a Christian for many years I agree to a great extent. We are too judgmental and it is a huge problem.
But having admitted that, we must understand that Jesus is not prohibiting all judgments by His followers. He qualifies it by saying that before we make a judgment we must remove the 'log' in our own eye. In other words, we need to be sure of the righeousness of our motives and the correctness of our perspective before we make judgments about others.
You may ask, 'How do I know that it is okay with Jesus to judge others?' In Matthew 7:6, in the immediate context, Jesus tells his followers not to 'throw pearls before swine'. This requires us to make a judgment about people. People do not usually walk around with shirts that say, "I am a swine". We have to talk to them, observe them, and listen to them in order to make this judgment. Having carefully done that, Jesus commands His followers to make a judgment in this case, and I believe from His other teachings, in many other situations as well.
So who are the 'swine'? These are people who truly have no interest in or regard for spiritual truth. They just want to argue, put others down and trash anything that is morally pure or related to God. When we throw 'pearls' of spiritual truth out to them, they just tear them up and 'trample' them. Jesus commands us not to throw out spiritual truth before those who are definitely opposed to it.
This creates a problem for bloggers. They cannot control who reads their blogs, myself included. I am starting this blog after much time and prayer to throw out what I believe is spiritual truth from years of study and meditation on God's Word, the Bible. My goal is for people who are interested in spiritual truth to interact with it. I hope it will encourage them to think critically about what is truth and how it relates to their lives.
But, I know there will be people who will read this blog and disagree with me and what I am saying. That's okay as long the person is interacting with Holy Scripture and is ultimately pursuing truth. But some will come to this blog seeking to assault the truth or me. When this happens, I will not respond to personal attacks nor will I continue to engage in a dialogue with those I perceive are not really interested in the truth of Scripture. This is how I propose to follow Christ's command in Matthew 7:6.
What do you think? Is it possible for us to make righteous judgments about people? Is blogging inherently and unavoidably throwing pearls before swine? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)