Author Archives: Dan C.

Meekness According to Christ – Part I

Posted by Dan C. on

This is the first of three posts concerning, you guess it, the topic of “meekness”. I have the author’s permission (Dr. Paul Brownback) to quote material from his Evangelical Reformation site. I will post his articles in their entirety. They address a serious issue ‘floating’ around evangelical circles these (pun intended). Having said that, here is installment one:

A Better Understanding of Meekness

Dr. Paul Brownback

It is important to understand the meaning of meekness. It is a major concept in the New Testament. Jesus promised that the meek would be blessed—inherit the earth. Meekness is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit.

But what is it? A correct understanding will guide us toward the blessings Scripture promises. A wrong definition will lead to confusion and failure to realize those blessings, even when our intentions are sincere.

Common definitions of meekness include mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit.

The contemporary person who seems to flesh out these qualities most vividly is Mr. Rogers. He would seem to be the very embodiment of meekness.

The problem with this definition is that Jesus was no Mr. Rogers. Or at least the Jesus of the Bible was not. Contemporary evangelicals tend to frame Him as such, but this is a Jesus of our own making; not the one found in Scripture.

I am not suggesting that most of the time the Jesus of the Bible was mild of disposition and gentle of spirit, but on rare occasions he departed from that orientation, such as when he cleansed the Temple. The reality is that for most of his ministry, Jesus was just the opposite of this Mr. Rogers caricature. In fact, moments of mildness represent the exception—not the rule.

Read the Gospels again, and see for yourself. Note how Jesus was frequently in the face of the Pharisees. But beyond that, He often dealt with his disciples with an attitude that bordered on harshness.

Notice Jesus’ teaching style in Mark 8:17-18 when his disciples failed to grasp a lesson. “Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: ‘Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18  Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?’” This conjures up the picture of the old schoolmaster wielding a cane, warning his students that they better pay attention.

And when Jesus, coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration,  encountered a demon possessed boy that His disciples were unable to help, He chided, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?.” (Mt 17:17 NAS95). Imagine Mr. Rogers saying that!

Or think of Jesus’ Easter greeting to his fellow travelers on the road to Emmaus. “He said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!’” (Lu 24:25 NIVUS). In the selection of Easter texts, this has been the road less traveled.

His Easter greeting to the eleven disciples conveyed the same gentleness and mildness. “Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen” (Mark 16:14 NIVUS).

It is little wonder that when the disciples did not understand Jesus’ comments about His coming crucifixion, that “they were afraid to ask Him about this saying” (Luke 9:45). Imagine, even the closest followers of this gentle and mild teacher were so intimidated by him that they feared to ask a question. This is a Jesus that makes few appearances on contemporary evangelical radio and television programs.

This list of instances displaying a Jesus that contrasts sharply from Mr. Rogers is far from comprehensive. If meekness really means gentleness and mildness, Jesus wasn’t meek.

However, Jesus made the claim that He was meek in Matthew 11:29: “For I am meek and lowly in heart.” Therefore, meekness must not mean gentleness and mildness. It must not be a Mr. Rogers-like quality.

What then? Next post.

____________________

I encourage you to visit Dr. Brownback’s site. You will find a variety of relevant articles, secular as well as for spiritual growth, written from a biblically evangelical perspective. – Dan

The Sufficiency of Scripture

Posted by Dan C. on

John Piper, in a short article here, while discussing doctrinal disputes of the 4th century church, had this to say about the sufficiency of scripture:

“That doctrine (the sufficiency of scripture) is based mainly on 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Jude 1:3.

The sacred writings . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. . . . Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”).”

The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is not a discussion of those things for which scripture is profitable, however we do need to take a hard look at the statement:

“We have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.”

None of us Bible believing, small group (real or virtual) attending, evangelical Christians would dare disagree with the thought that scripture is the perfect standard for judging other knowledge. However, I think we have a problem with ALL other knowledge. My observation over recent years has been that while we will quickly quote some scripture or another as the authority for some point we make during our kitchen table/living room “what this verse means to ME Bible studies”, we have a serious issue with applying that principle to ourselves!

In some cases, we’ve been ‘raised’ with the aforementioned method of studying the bible, having been taught by our pastors, teachers, and leaders that this is the way we are supposed to approach scripture. On the other hand, some of us know better, having been taught at some point the great orthodox doctrines of our faith (that would be me). I am still prone to apply a verse or passage where, if taken in context, or interpreted rightly, might not really apply to the matter at hand.

Another way we violate the principle of judging what we ‘think’ we know by the standard of scripture, is accepting every thought that arrives between our ears, or every warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts as having come from God! We are really good at having ‘personal insights’ that are not necessarily found in the scripture we are studying, and even heading to other places in scripture, pulling other passages out of their context, in order to ‘prove’ our special ‘insight’! Then when share our special insights, we pat ourselves on the back and affirm each others imaginations!

Woe to the person who attempts to inject into our self-affirming love fests the possibility that we might be even a bit ‘off base’, or who asks the question “But is that what the scripture is really saying?” Critical thinking is not allowed! And don’t ever suggest that we might be completely wrong about our errant musings! Any input that is not intentionally affirming, uplifting, or encouraging is ‘bad, bad, fruit’ and the one who would dare bring it to the table is mean spirited, divisive, intolerant, judgmental, and since ‘bad trees’ bear ‘bad fruit’, such a one is at least a false prophet, and might not even saved!

My brothers and sisters, we have a serious decision to make. We need to return to the authority and sufficiency of scripture, interpret it rightly instead of out of our own hearts and imaginations, lest we become false prophets unto ourselves, if we aren’t already.

Has the Holy Spirit Left the Building?

Posted by Dan C. on

You probably think that’s a silly question. I mean it in all seriousness, so I guess I need to explain why I ask it. We need only look to a short passage in the Gospel of John for a clue to the answer.

“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. – John 16:7-11 (ESV)

The context of this passage is the conversation Jesus had with His disciples after they had supped for the last time and before His betrayal and arrest that were soon to follow. Jesus is preparing the disciples for His departure and comforting them with the promise of the Helper to come, the Holy Spirit. For some, the Holy Spirit would be ‘another comforter’ in Jesus absence (John, Ch 14). For others, the Holy Spirit would be the One who would ‘convict’ of sin, righteousness, and judgment. It is to the matter of the conviction concerning sin, that we now turn.

First, who is it that would be convicted? The passage tells us ‘the world’, the kosmos, and that paints a broad picture. We can say with certainty that ‘the world’ must include those in it that have an issue with sin. We can further propose that the sin of which Jesus speaks is the sin of ‘unbelief’ that He spoke of repeatedly in John’s Gospel; that He was indeed the One sent by God to ‘save His people from their sins’. The ‘world’ refers at least to all those remain in unbelief and stand condemned from birth (John 3:18).

What about our question, then? To what does it refer?  Allow me to explain in terms of ‘modern’ evangelistic practices. To a great extent, “today’s church believes it must win the lost to Christ by winning their favor, it no longer teaches the biblical doctrines of sin, hell, repentance, or the cross because those would offend the lost or make them feel uncomfortable,” (John MacArthur). The gospel according to the ‘Beatles’ has replaced the Gospel according to inspired Scripture. “Love, love, love” is the drawing card, instead of confronting sinners with their perilous condition of being DEAD in sin (Eph 2), and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict of sin ‘draw’ sinners to the Cross.

Are people saved if a sinless gospel is preached? I would say yes, but IN SPITE OF a powerless message, NOT because of it!

So, since people ARE saved when a sinless gospel is preached, HAS the Holy Spirit left the building?  “Technically’, NO. Without the presence of the Holy Spirit regenerating and drawing lost souls to Christ, no person would EVER be saved.

I propose that there is something far more serious taking place wherever and whenever a ‘sinless’ gospel is preached,  You see, it takes intentionality to preach the gospel without mentioning sin, the need for repentance, and judgment, unless the preacher/messenger is so ignorant that he/she doesn’t know that SIN is in fact the central issue. There was a time when I would never have dreamed such ignorance exists, but I fear that in today’s evangelical climate, that which was once unimaginable is now common place.

Well, if the Holy Spirit has not left the building (technically), what’s the issue? The issue is simply this:

Although the Holy Spirit is still in the building, regenerating and drawing to the Cross those whom God has mercifully elected for salvation, the Holy Spirit has actually been asked to leave!  Hear me out. Any church, or any person, who would dare claim to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ without addressing the very issues the Holy Spirit came to address – sin, righteousness, and judgment – has in effect pointed to the ‘front door’ and said “Leave the building, we don’t need you!”

What we are left with, no matter how many or how few people attend a particular church, are pews and/or stadium seats filled with a lot of ‘tares’ with a few stalks of ‘wheat’ scattered here and there, hungry for doctrine and ‘hard’ truth they may never be served.

Think about it. . .

________________

Relevant and scripturally supported comments are encouraged, whether you agree or disagree.

Rightly Interpreting Scripture

Posted by Dan C. on

Is there a right way and a wrong way to interpret Scripture? You bet there is! The following was adapted from a larger article here. I’ve included material from the referenced article that addresses interpretive principles most needed in a ‘Christian’ culture that focuses on ‘What this verse means to ME”, more than simply “What does it MEAN”, or “What is God saying?” I hope it is helpful.

Methodology

The word “method” comes from the Greek word methodos, which literally means “a way or path of transit.” Methodology in Bible study is therefore concerned with “the proper path to be taken in order to arrive at Scriptural truth.” This clearly implies that improper paths can be taken.

Improper methodology in interpreting Scripture is nothing new. Even in New Testament times, the apostle Peter warned that there are teachings in the inspired writings of Paul “which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16, insert added).

A Foundational Truth: God Created Language for a Purpose

God sovereignly chose to use human language as a medium of revelational communication. If the primary purpose of God’s originating of language was to make it possible for Him to communicate with human beings, as well as to enable human beings to communicate with each another, then it must follow that He would generally use language and expect man to use it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. This view of language is a prerequisite to understanding not only God’s spoken word but His written Word (Scripture) as well.

Seeking the Author’s Intended Meaning

Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author’s intended meaning (the only true meaning).

  • One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers.
  • Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers.

Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).

Only by objective methodology can we bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the biblical writers.
Indeed, our method of interpreting Scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning a statement had for the author and the first hearers or readers.

The Importance of Context

Seeking the biblical author’s intended meaning necessitates interpreting Bible verses in context.

  • Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.
  • No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel’s “Messiah” by listening to a few short notes.
  • The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.

In interpreting Scripture, there is both an immediate context and a broader context.

  • The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.
  • The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
    • The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.
    • We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.
    • Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.
    • The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture

Let Scripture Explain Scripture

Interpret the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament. God gave revelation to humankind progressively throughout Old and New Testament times. In view of this, a key interpretive principle is that one should always interpret the Old Testament in view of the greater light of the New Testament.

Where a passage is unclear, find other scripture with the same topic and use what is clear to interpret what is unclear. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Dependence on the Holy Spirit

Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit’s illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11).

  • It is the Holy Spirit’s work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it.
  • The Holy Spirit, as the “Spirit of truth” (John 16:13), guides us so that “we may understand what God has freely given us” (1 Corinthians 2:12).
  • This aspect of the Holy Spirit’s ministry operates within the sphere of man’s rational capacity, which God Himself gave man (cf. Genesis 2-3). Illumination comes to the ‘minds’ of God’s people – not to some nonrational faculty like our ’emotions’ or our ‘feelings’ [like a ‘burning in the bosom’].

The ministry of the Holy Spirit in interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth. In other words, “the Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency.”

It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself.The Holy Spirit makes men “wise up to what is written, not beyond it.” Indeed, “the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture.”

Choose this day whom you will serve. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

“If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” – Joshua 24:15 (NASB)

Joshua spoke those words to the Hebrew children. If He were here today he might tell those who profess Christ –

“…choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: the God of Scripture or the god of your vain imagination…”

The God of Scripture tells us that apart from His Son, we are DEAD in sin and the objects of His wrath.

The god of your imagination tells you that are basically OK, but are inclined to commit a sin now and then – after all, you are only human.

 

The God of Scripture tells us that He must pour out His holy wrath against all ALL sin because He is just and the wages of sin is death, by His own decree. We are all born on Death Row.

The god of your imagination says that God is not angry; He mostly sits around in Heaven all day dreaming up new ways to attract you to Jesus because He can’t imagine His Heaven without you in it.

 

The God of Scripture sent His own Son die in YOUR PLACE, to pour out His wrath against YOUR SIN upon HIS OWN SON, and it pleased Him to do so.

The God of your imagination tells you that Jesus died to bridge an impersonal gap called sin so you could be happy in Heaven with Him forever.

 

The God of Scripture tells us that everything in this world exists to bring Him glory and honor – EVERYTHING.

The god of your imagination tells you that God does everything He does with YOUR happiness in mind.

 

The God of Scripture tells us that He saves those that He does save as a precious love gift to His Son.

The god of your imagination tells you that God saved you because He wanted someone to love.

 

The God of Scripture tells us that He sent His son to seek and save the lost, and that he will seek, save, and keep them.

The god of your imagination tells you that Jesus is waiting longingly outside a door with no doorknob waiting for YOU to decide you want Him to come in.

 

The God of Scripture tells us that the reason he leaves us on earth after He saves us is to proclaim His Gospel to everyone around us.

The god of your imagination tells you He left you here to have your best life now.

 

The God of Scripture tells us the Gospel we are to share, and that is powerful to save a soul is that Christ died for our sins and was raised up again; according to Scripture.

The god of your imagination tells you that folks will get saved if you just love them. When they realize you love them they will just naturally love you and of course love Jesus when you tell them He loves them too.

 

The God of Scripture tells us His Son sits at His right in glory waiting for the command to return as the Righteous Judge.

The god of your imagination tells you that if you are lonely or depressed just imagine Jesus as your lover and dance partner; never mind that He sent His Holy Spirit specifically for that purpose.

 

The God of Scripture tells us that of first importance to our spiritual growth is what He has revealed in His inspired, written word.

The god of your imagination tells you that what you ‘feel’ about what He says is more important that what He says.

 

I could go on and on contrasting the God of Scripture and the god of your imagination, but I will stop now. Be angry at me, hate me for having said what I said. Then search the scripture for everything God tells you about Himself and show me FROM the scripture you have actually read, where I am wrong, so that I might repent of being a liar.

THE LAMB WHO WAS SLAIN

Posted by Dan C. on

“He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” – Matthew 10:39

The text of that video is the summary of a sermon delivered by Paris Reidhead sometime in the mid-sixties. The full sermon, Ten Shekels and a Shirt, can be listened to, or downloaded from Sermon Index Net along with the transcript and a short article about it’s origin. It you canwatch the video or listen to the video and remain untouched by the Spirit of God, please check your pulse.

The Father’s Bargain

Posted by Dan C. on

An excerpt from the sermon The Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Redeemer, John Flavel ,1671

“How reasonable it is that believers should embrace the hardest terms of obedience unto Christ, who complied with such hard terms for their salvation: they were hard and difficult terms indeed, on which Christ received you from the Father’s hand: it was, as you have heard, to pour out his soul unto death, or not to enjoy a soul of you. Here you may suppose the Father to say, when driving his bargain with Christ for you:

Father: My son, here is a company of poor miserable souls, that have utterly undone themselves, and now lie open to my justice! Justice demands satisfaction for them, or will satisfy itself in the eternal ruin of them: What shall be done for these souls And thus Christ returns.

Son: O my Father, such is my love to, and pity for them, that rather than they shall perish eternally, I will be responsible for them as their Surety; bring in all your bills, that I may see what they owe you; Lord, bring them all in, that there may be no after-reckonings with them; at my hand shall you require it. I will rather choose to suffer your wrath than they should suffer it: upon me, my Father, upon me be all their debt.

Father: But, my Son, if you undertake for them, you must reckon to pay the last mite, expect no abatements; if I spare them, I will not spare you.

Son: Content, Father, let it be so; charge it all upon me, I am able to discharge it: and though it prove a kind of undoing to me, though it impoverish all my riches, empty all my treasures, (for so indeed it did, 2 Cor. 8:9. “Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor”) yet I am content to undertake it.

Blush, ungrateful believers, O let shame cover your faces; judge in yourselves now, has Christ deserved that you should stand with him for trifles, that you should shrink at a few petty difficulties, and complain, this is hard, and that is harsh? O if you knew the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in this his wonderful condescension for you, you could not do it.”

When did it change?

Posted by Dan C. on

When did the Gospel message change from telling others of the need to ‘personally’ recognize one’s sinful condition and believe in Christ as savior to telling them they need to ‘accept Him as their ‘personal’ Savior? One concept is founded in and specifically presented in scripture and the other is not. One focuses on God and what He has done to save sinners and the other on a person’s decision. One presents the sovereignty of God while the other makes the individual’s decision the final event in the chain of events leading to salvation, which would mean that God shares His sovereignty with man (even if it’s just a decision).

No scripture here yet, just the question “When did it change?”, followed by the next logical question “WHY did it change?”

"What Does This Verse Mean to Me?" Bible Study – What’s the Harm?

Posted by Dan C. on

This was originally published almost a month ago here and the only comment was a pingback from another post here that referenced it. I am pasting it to the front page because I think it a serious issue. Although Dt. MacArthur is speaking as a pastor to pastor’s, it applies to all of us who name the name of Christ, and especially to those of us who share our beliefs with the world via the Internet.

From this John MacArthur article:

“That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching.

The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”

The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word. We bury ourselves in passages that overtly relate to daily living, and ignore those that don’t.

Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.

Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.

There is no danger of irrelevant doctrine; the real threat is an undoctrinal attempt at relevance. Application not based on solid interpretation has led Christians into all kinds of confusion.

True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know.”

How well I remember this sort of Bible study! I have not always been as adamant about first finding out what scripture actually SAYS, and then applying it, as I am these days. Not only have I learned NOT to trust my feelings, I sincerely believe that there is more than enough to apply from what Scripture SAYS to keep me from trying to get something ‘special’ just for little old me. If there is something I need as a personal admonition, encouragement or application, I am confident I will receive a much clearer message studying what is plain from reading and inductive study than ‘comtemplating’ until I get some ‘deeper revelation’.

A”ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

It’s scripture that is breathed out by God, NOT my interpretation, my insight, or my feelings. I can trust the plain teaching of scripture 100% of the time and, unlike what’s in my head and in my heart, I don’t have to figure out who’s really ‘speaking’.