THE SEVEN STRANDS WHICH BIND THE ELECT TO GOD

Posted by Dan C. on

May be an image of jewelry and text

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand. My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand.” – (John 10:27-29)

“No stronger passage in all the Word of God can be found guaranteeing the absolute security of every child of God. Note the SEVEN STRANDS in the rope which binds them to God.

FIRST, they are Christ’s sheep, and it is the duty of the shepherd to care for each of his flock! To suggest that any of Christ’s sheep may be lost is to blaspheme the Shepherd Himself.

SECOND, it is said “They follow” Christ, and no exceptions are made; the Lord does not say they ought to, but declares they do. If then the sheep “follow” Christ they must reach Heaven, for that is where the Shepherd is gone!

THIRD, to the sheep is imparted “eternal life”: to speak of eternal life ending is a contradiction in terms.

FOURTH, this eternal life is “given” to them: they did nothing to merit it, consequently they can do nothing to demerit it.

FIFTH, the Lord Himself declares that His sheep “shall never perish,” consequently the man who declares that it is possible for a child of God to go to Hell makes God a liar.

SIXTH, from the SHEPHERD’S “hand” none is able to pluck them, hence the Devil is unable to encompass the destruction of a single one of them.

SEVENTH, above them is the FATHER’S “hand,” hence it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to jump out of the hand of Christ even if they tried to. It has been well said that if one soul who trusted in Christ should be missing in Heaven, there would be one vacant seat there, one crown unused, one harp unstrung; and this would grieve all Heaven and proclaim a disappointed God.

But such a thing is utterly impossible!”

~ Arthur Pink, “Exposition of the Gospel of John”

Why visit contentious “Christian” social media sites?

Posted by Dan C. on

image

We’ve all seen them – social media sites (especially on Facebook) that are about specific teachings and doctrines, with members intent on ‘proving’ the absolute correctness of those teachings and doctrines.

The site represented by the above graphic is one such site. Here is the stated purpose of the FB Group:

“King James Bible – Rightly Divided is a group that is solely about Rightly Dividing the Word of God from a King James Bible. This Groups is to be a help. We are to edify one another, not to destroy one another! This Group is for the purpose of learning through the scriptures, and that Rightly Divided in a King James Bible.”

That purpose seems innocent enough, and it would be, if there was a genuine ‘learning’ rather than ‘proving’ environment. Sadly, the latter seems to be the case. Rather than intelligent discussion and polite discourse about the KJV being the best Bible to use, the meaning of “rightly dividing” the Word of truth (in context), and a certain form of Dispensationalism, there seem to be a lot of digital food fights, with opposite sides both saying they are speaking God’s truth because they are ‘obviously’ reading Scripture and the other guys ‘obviously’ aren’t!

It can get really nasty at times, complete with plenty of insults, ad hominem attacks and outright name-calling. Attempts to simply, politely, and objectively discuss the issues seem to fail on a regular basis. When plain text of scripture that refutes the site’s position is calmly and objectively presented you are met with resounding silence.

As one visitor to a site like the one above expressed it:

“I have no problem debating theology. The problem is when a person like (insert name) tries to make a point and I show the error in his belief he doesn’t respond to the correction he just rephrases his previous statement. What’s the point of people sharing their beliefs if they can’t have a civil conversation and respond accordingly.”

What’s the point? Well, I can tell you what I think might be reasons for visiting such sites.

First of all, it’s NOT to win an argument or a debate about the issues at stake. It’s not to convince those who seem to use passages from the Bible, taken out of context, for their own agendas or to ‘prove’ their interpretations are correct ones. What visiting ‘contentious’ sites can do however is:

1. Encourage you to study the issues at stake.

–  Is the teaching or doctrine being promoted Biblically sound?

– Where did the teaching or doctrine come from if it’s not taught in scripture?

– If it was developed over time,  when and where did that happen, and by whom was it developed?

2. Record and file (digitally or otherwise) the results of your research in order to:

–  Have an initial body of information you can add to later on.

– Have a carefully prepared answer you can use for honest and fair doctrinal discussion(s).

3. Help you develop a more Christlike and Godly character when your “flesh” is triggered. You know what I mean.

4. Help you become a more effective mentor in discipling other believers.

Those are probably just of a few positive results of visiting “contentious” (I didn’t have a better word) “Christian” social media sites. And looking at those reasons again, I guess you can call them “personal “training aids”. At least for this old soldier they certainly can be. The moment they are no longer profitable for your own spiritual growth, just do a little “dust shaking” and move on down the road.

image

Be Blessed!

Was the 1611 KJV Divinely Inspired?

Posted by Dan C. on

At the Hampton Court Conference, convened by King James I in 1603, John Reynolds, the head of the Puritan Church in England, proposed a new English translation of the Scriptures that would unite the churches and the people of England. Reynold’s goal was one universal authority or standard for all English-speaking Christians.[i]

I recently watched an excellent presentation addressing that question, by Dr. Gary Mann. I was pointed to it while listening to a KJV only  presentation that, while teaching that the KJV is the Bible we should be using, it’s translators were NOT divinely inspired, as some KJV Only proponents claim. Near the end of his presentation Dr. Mann asked four penetrating questions:

1. If the men of Hampton Court were inspired, why did it take them 7 years (1604-1611) to complete the translation?

2. If the men of Hampton Court were inspired, why the 6 different companies to translate and compare their work among themselves?

3. If the men of Hampton Court were inspired, why compare their work with earlier translations?

4. If the men of Hampton court were inspired, why did they consult with other people outside of their Companies?

Those questions capped an excellent presentation that made it’s case based on the very definition of “divine inspiration”.

Here is a link to the entire presentation:

Dr Gary Mann The Reasons Translations Are Not Inspired (youtube.com)

[i] The Translators of the King James Bible (biblebc.com)

The ‘Different’ Gospels of Paul and Peter?

Posted by Dan C. on

Once again, the claim that Paul taught a different gospel than Peter and other 11 apostles. It’s true. I saw a mem in a Facebook group that not only made the announcement, it provided a long list of passages from the Bible! Here’s the meme:

image

DID Paul preach a “different” gospel than Peter and the other 11 apostles? No fewer than twelve passages of scripture are offered to ‘prove’ that he did. In order to find out if any of those passages actually ‘prove’ the different gospel claim, I copy/pasted all of them into a new document in order to try and find out why they were given as proof texts. Here are the results of my labor:

1. Paul used the term “my gospel” in Rom 2:16 and Rom 16:25-26. Paul was in no way claiming that he ‘owned’ or had a special, unique, or different gospel, but was simply referring to the gospel that he was commissioned to preach.

2. Paul connected himself to the gospel by using terms like “the gospel you heard/received (from me); “the gospel we preached” (Paul and his ministry team); “I (Paul) was made a minister of the gospel. There is no mention whatsoever of the gospel Paul preached being different than the gospel preached by Peter and the 11.

3. Paul mentioned “Gentiles” four times in the ‘proof’ texts. He called Gentiles “fellowheirs” (with Israel) in Eph 3:6 and stated that he was given the primary mission of ministering the gospel to the gentiles three times in the ‘proof’ texts; Eph 3:1 and 3:8, and in Gal 2:8:

Eph 3:6  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Eph 3:1  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

Eph 3:8  Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ

Gal 2:8  (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:

In that entire list of ‘proof’ texts, there is only one passage that talks about the gospel taught by Paul (and his team), as well as the gospel taught by Peter and the 11:

Gal 2:7-10 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”

Not only is there no explicit indication that there were two separate and different gospels (for the circumcised and the uncircumcised), the opposite is true. That’s not just my personal opinion. I consulted no less than seven notable commentaries and all of them agree that while Peter and the 11 were to teach the gospel primarily to a Jewish audience, Paul’s mission was to teach the same gospel primarily to Gentiles (non-Jews). Here are two examples:

“The elder Apostles recognised St. Paul because they saw that his teaching was fundamentally the same as their own. At the same time, the success of St. Paul among the Gentiles proved that his mission to them had the divine sanction, just as the success of St. Peter among the Jews specially marked him out as the “Apostle of the circumcision.” – Ellicott

“The gospel of the uncircumcision – The duty of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised part of the world; that is, to the Gentiles Paul had received this as his unique office when he was converted and called to the ministry (see Acts 9:15; Acts 22:21); and they now perceived that he had been specially intrusted with this office, from the remarkable success which had attended his labors. It is evidently not meant here that Paul was to preach only to the Gentiles and Peter only to the Jews, for Paul often preached in the synagogues of the Jews, and Peter was the first who preached to a Gentile Acts 10; but it is meant that it was the main business of Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or that this was especially entrusted to him.

As the gospel of the circumcision – As the office of preaching the gospel to the Jews.

Was unto Peter – Peter was to preach principally to the circumcised Jews. It is evident that until this time Peter had been principally employed in preaching to the Jews. Paul selects Peter here particularly, doubtless because he was the oldest of the apostles, and in order to show that he was himself regarded as on a level in regard to the apostleship with the most aged and venerable of those who had been called to the apostolic office by the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus.” Barnes

Conclusion? There has always been and will always be ONE gospel. Peter and the 11 had as their primary audience Jews while Paul had as his primary audience non-Jews (Gentiles). Period.

For an old guy like me, that conclusion should be clear to a the average High School English student, assuming they still teach reading comprehension in HS. So why the constant false claim in some circles of professing Christianity?

The answer to that question, in mu my mind anyway, is that we believe what we want to believe. You see, the ‘different’ gospel claim was the product of a form of  Dispensationalism developed in the 19th century that took the took the separation of Israel and the New Testament church taught by some Dispensationalists to illogical extremes. But that’s another story.

How can we respond to the above erroneous claims? Well, like i did for this one, we can examine ‘proof’ texts to see if they actually contain the advertised ‘proof’. We don’t do so with an eye to ‘attack’ the offered proof, but only to examine and perhaps explain the results of our labors, as I have done with this blog. I also offered the results of published here in the FB post containing the meme shown above. Perhaps it will be profitable for readers, but perhaps not.

While I realize that sometimes we need to just walk away from some posts on social media, there are times when someone just might pay attention and grow in their faith walk. All of that’s a personal decision.

BE BLESSED!

Welcome to Babylon!

Posted by Dan C. on

image

Perhaps one of the most important questions for believers today is this:

“How should Christians relate to this new world where they have lost a home-field advantage and are increasingly marginalized in popular culture?”[i]

This article’s title, Welcome to Babylon! Is also the title of Chapter 1 in Erwin Lutzer’s 2018 book The Church in Babylon. Dr. Lutzer’s chief concern in writing the book was what he termed the death of Christian America:

“What concerns me is the death of Christian America. Many of the biblical values upon which America was founded are no longer being allowed to shape our laws or our lives. In some lesser ways, Christians can identify with the Jews in Babylon. Our culture is instead being shaped by religious fragmentation, widespread disaffection with the church, changing sexual attitudes, and moral and spiritual relativism. Add to that “political correctness” and the “religion” of our political parties run amok, and it’s no wonder America—in the eyes of Christians—looks different each day.”[ii]

What was true in 2018 is perhaps even truer today, in 2024. What Dr. Lutzer described in general terms has various acronyms that have become institutionalized as almost ‘sacred’ in today’s society and culture, and at the same time violates clear Biblical teaching concerning how we as Christians ought to live as salt and light in a dark world. So without getting into the shameful details of we see all around us every day, what can we, as Christians do? How are we to respond to today’s world? Dr. Lutzer suggests that there are at least three ways we could respond, one of which is our only choice:

(1) assimilate the secular culture,

(2) isolate from the secular culture, or

(3) engage the secular culture.

In light of the gospel, the only choice for the Christ follower is to engage.”[iii]

Cultural assimilation would mean the church adopting cultural norms from the world in order to appeal to the world we want to reach. To isolate from the culture in which we live would require separating completely from the world we are trying to reach with the light of the gospel of Christ. The remaining option is to engage the culture, leaving us with the question; “What does it mean to engage the culture?”

To answer that question, we need only examine the instructions God gave, through His prophet Jeremiah, to the Israelites living in Babylonian captivity:

“These are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the surviving elders of the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. 2 This was after King Jeconiah and the queen mother, the eunuchs, the officials of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen, and the metal workers had departed from Jerusalem. 3 The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. It said: 4 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, 9 for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 29:1-9, ESV)

After those instructions, is the promise with we are very familiar, and we often claim as our own:

10 “For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (vv. 10-11)

Do the instructions given to the Israelite captives in Babylon pertain to Christians today? What is God telling Christians who are living as strangers in a strange land today? (1 Peter 2:11-12)

Once again Dr. Lutzer offers us a suggestion:

Let us read every word of this challenge from George MacLeod, a twentieth-century Scottish clergyman, who reminds us where the cross of Christ should be planted. We can’t change the world from a distance: “I simply argue that the Cross be raised again at the centre of the market-place as well as on the steeple of the church. I am recovering the claim that Jesus was not crucified in a cathedral between two candles, but on a cross between two thieves; on the town garbage-heap; at a crossroad so cosmopolitan that they had to write his title in Hebrew and in Latin and in Greek … at the kind of place where cynics talk smut, and thieves curse, and soldiers gamble. Because that is where churchmen should be and what churchmanship should be about.”[iv]

As Christians, we are called to be lights in the darkness:

“Though outnumbered and experiencing the humiliation of being marginalized in our culture, the church is still sent into the world to represent Christ. We are still the best witnesses of hope this hapless planet has! We, as the church, will never be effective unless we see ourselves as sent by Christ into the world. He prayed, “As you [the Father] sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17: 18). We are pilgrims, out of step with the ever-changing culture—yet we are sent by Christ, the Head of the church. The church is the last barrier between the present moral breakdown and total chaos.”[v]

A final question. If the church is the last barrier between the present moral breakdown and total chaos, how do we shine as lights in the darkness and make a difference for the Kingdom of light? Two ways come immediately to mind as starting points.

First, just at the Israelites were commanded to do in 6th century Babylon, we are to live normal lives in today’s Babylon, but not in service to the gods of this world. We are to seek to glorify God in all that we do. (Matthew 5:16)

Secondly, we must be prepared to share with others the hope that we have in Jesus Christ:

“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:15-16, ESV).

[i] The Church in Babylon: Heeding the Call to Be a Light in the Darkness by Erwin W. Lutzer. p 11.

[ii] Ibid, p 52

[iii] Ibid, p 12

[iv] Ibid, p 73-74

[v] Ibid, p 58

__________________________

Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer (born October 3, 1941) is an evangelical Christian speaker, radio broadcaster, and author. He is the pastor emeritus of The Moody Church in Chicago, Illinois. His book The Church in Babylon: Heeding the Call to Be a Light in the Darkness can be obtained from Amazon.com , as well as from other Christian book outlets.

Glimpsing the Gospel in Every Book of the Bible

Posted by Dan C. on

image

Biblical literacy is ever important for Christians as we seek to understand how the Scriptures come together to tell the story of the gospel.

This is the one of a series of short summaries of books of the Bible (Genesis and Exodus to) to help place their content into the larger story of the Bible as a whole.

Genesis

Many readers miss the forest of God’s larger purposes when immersed in the trees of each individual story. In creation, God creates humanity in his own image as his representatives to fill and rule the earth on his behalf (Gen. 1:26–28). Even after Adam and Eve sin and are punished, the promise is given that the offspring of the woman will defeat the serpent and restore the earth (Gen. 3:15). This promise is traced throughout the book in its genealogies,3 which provide the backbone of the entire book. Key divisions are traced by “These are the generations of,” tracing out the stories of key figures, starting with “the heavens and the earth” (2:4–4:26), and going on to Adam (5:1–6:8), Noah (6:9–9:29), the sons of Noah (10:1–11:19), Shem (11:10–26), Terah (11:27–25:11), Ishmael (25:12–18), Isaac (25:19–35:29), Esau (36:1–37:1), and Jacob (37:2–50:26). The line of God’s blessing is emphasized (e.g., Adam, Noah, Terah, Isaac, Jacob), while the stories of other lines receive less attention (e.g., Ishmael, Esau). The individual stories of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph are illustrations of how the promise of Genesis 3:15 begins to be fulfilled.

God desires to bless the nations through a future king. Adam is portrayed in the image of God, a phrase probably signifying a royal representative of God. Abraham would become a “great nation” (Gen. 12:2), and “kings shall come from you” (Gen. 17:6). God’s original command to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28) is fulfilled in microcosm4 as “Israel settled in the land of Egypt . . . and were fruitful and multiplied greatly” (Gen. 47:27; cf. 1:28).

Israel fails, however, in its calling to be a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6). This priesthood is ultimately fulfilled through the church in Jesus Christ as a “royal priesthood” of all nations (1 Pet. 2:9). Through this priesthood, God’s purposes for creation as detailed in Genesis 1–2 are finally accomplished, as is seen in Revelation 21–22.

Exodus

Whereas Genesis records God’s promise that Abraham would become a great nation (Gen. 12:2), Exodus describes the fulfillment of that promise (Ex. 1:6– 7). Moreover, God’s covenant with the patriarchs,3 in which he promised to give their descendants the land of Canaan (Gen. 15:18; 26:3; 35:12), is the reason God delivers Israel from Egypt (Ex. 2:24).

Although God gives Israel the law and comes to dwell in their midst, ultimately Israel will not be faithful to their covenant with him. Only in Jesus do we find a faithful Israelite who keeps God’s law while simultaneously embodying God’s presence with his people (John 1:14).

_____________________________________

Taken from Glimpsing the Gospel in Every Book of the Bible by Crossway ©, October 19, 2018. Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

Here’s a link the the Crossway .org site that lets you browse through the same short summary for every book of the Bible: Glimpsing the Gospel in Every Book of the Bible | Crossway Articles

BE BLESSED!

Does God Hate Sinners?

Posted by Dan C. on

Does God hate sinners

That’s a meme I found in a Facebook Group recently that caused me to reconsider God’s love, as well as God’s hate. We love to dwell on God’s love, and rightly so! We don’t often dwell on what God hates. We are told to “Love the sinner but hate the sin.”, although it’s not actually a verse found in the Bible. I was curious about the comment, “Those who claim God hates sinners are denying Jesus and His sacrifice, and likely painting God in their own image and splattering their hate onto Him.” (Psychologists call that ‘projection’- the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object.)

So, wanting to find out more about what the author had in mind, I replied very simply, “Proverbs 6:16-19?”

Proverbs 6:16-19:

16These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look, A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

I received as a response: “Please also consider Luke 6:27-28. Would Jesus expect us to love our enemies, yet not love His own enemies, (e.g., sinners)?” That was an honest reply, although it didn’t address the Proverbs passage that indicates that God does in fact hate some people.

Luke 6:27-28

27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.

We are told that there are things that God hates in the Proverbs passage and how we are to treat our enemies in the Luke passage. These are different contexts.

“It might seem a contradiction that a God who is love can also hate. Yet that’s exactly what Bible says is true: God is love (1 John 4:8), and God hates (Hosea 9:15). God’s nature is love—He always does what is best for others—and He hates what is contrary to His nature—He hates what is contrary to love.”[i]

Psalm 5:4-6 tells us specifically that God hates wickedness and individuals:

4For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.
6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood;
The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

Is there some kind of contradiction there? No. Scripture never contradicts itself.

What should we do with all of this? Well, God is God and cannot do evil. If that’s true, God’s hatred for whatever or whomever He hates is pure and just at the same time.

In the Romans 5 passage, Paul is telling ‘believers’ in Rome that while “we” were yet sinners Christ died for us. What does that mean? We are all born in rebellion against and enemies of God (Rom 8:7-8) Does it point to what the Bible calls the “elect” of God? Those who were “ordained to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). Does God love His “elect” (chosen before the foundation of the world for salvation (Eph 1:4 & 2 Thess 2:13) with a special love that is different than His love for the rest of His creation?

These are just questions that I have wrestled with and am still working on. What do I KNOW? That I am not God. That I am to love my enemies for the sake of Christ, whose sole mission was to come to this earth to “save His people from their sins” (Matt 1:21).

I KNOW that in sharing the gospel with the world around me, I’m to be like the farmer who plants seed and then goes to bed, to rise again the next day and plant more seed, not knowing exactly how it grows (Mark 4:26-29. I am to share the gospel to God opened hearts (Acts 16) and trust Him to save those whose hearts he opened to ‘hear the gospel’. So I pray often for God to open hearts to ‘Hear’ the message and thank Him that I have the great privilege of sharing that message.

BE BLESSED!

[i] Does God hate? If God is love, how can He hate? | GotQuestions.org

It’s the Economy, Stupid!

Posted by Dan C. on

We’ve all heard that one so many times, it probably seems a bit trite. It’s a phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992, when he was a campaign strategist for Bill Clinton. His phrase was directed at the campaign’s workers and intended as one of three messages for them to focus on. Well, it seems like it’s a main theme for the ongoing campaign for the next U.S. President, and by both sides, at that! And after all, making a decent living and being able to afford some of life’s little extras while putting away something for the future is a huge concern for most, if not all Americans, especially for Ed and Norma Normally!

Before I get too far down this rabbit trail, let’s get to the point. How many of you ever been involved in a discussion about a passage of Scripture or particular topic in which your frustration level has risen to the point of wanting to scream “It’s in the text, stupid! I can’t lie. I have, and it’s not a demonstration of proper Christian behavior.

That brings me to the real topic of this article, the clarity of Scripture. There’s even a great theological term for it; “perspicuity”, meaning clarity or understandability. If we are talking about the text of Scripture we’re not just talking about a single passage or paragraph, but we are also talking about spiritual principles, and especially those that seem to say one thing in one place in the Bible, and something different in other places. Let’s get to it!

THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE

This principle tells us to let the Bible speak for itself. We should allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, since it is its own best interpreter and commentator. Move from the known to the unknown by interpreting unclear passages in the light of those which are clear. When wrestling with a difficult passage or seemingly contradictory passages consult other verses which deal with the same topic. Now that might seem simple in theory, but it’s always good to have some examples. We’ll look at just one example, having to do with a topic near and dear to our hearts, salvation.

1. Are we saved and justified by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Most, if not all of you are thinking “That’s easy, we are saved by faith!” You even have passages from the Bible already tucked away in your memory, waiting to be called upon at a moment’s notice. You’re standing at home plate, batting cleanup in the lineup, smiling at the opposing pitcher!

Then, either while reading your own Bible during your private time, or during a conversation with others, you come face to face with the following passages (NKJV):

“Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (Jas 2:17)

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (Jas 2:24)

“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (Jas 2:26)

What do you do? How do you respond to that curveball? First, stay calm, no matter how adamantly that guy in the Facebook group presses his point. Calm down and politely share the passages stored away for just such a moment, and others, if you have them:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)

“So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Act 16:31)

“Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:28)

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. (Joh 3:16)

Your conversation partner will either stubbornly stick by his guns and say to you, “You didn’t read James?. It’s right there in the text!” Or he might claim that some of the passages you shared don’t have the word “alone” and that Martin Luther added the word alone to Rom 3:28 and therefore works are required for salvation, or he might realize that both sets of passages MUST be true, since God wrote the book (the goal). The authors of those passages (James, Paul, and Luke) were divinely inspired to write what they wrote. It’s either that or somebody’s lying.

That still leaves one question that needs to be answered. What does ‘justification’ in James 2:24 mean? This is where the fun begins. Let’s examine the context of James, chapter 2, beginning with verse 14:

“ 18But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ And he was called the friend of God. 24You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

In that section of James, chapter 2 is there a connection between ‘faith’ and ‘works’? Is this a “DUH!!” moment, or what? Look again at verses 15-17 again: 

“15If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17Thus also, faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (emphasis mine)

James is most likely writing to predominately Jewish Christians in house churches outside of Palestine[i]. He is telling them that if there is someone in need among them and they just send them off with a blessing and don’t meet their need, their professed faith is dead, tot, Muerte!

Now back to verse 14:

“14What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”

What does this, along with the rest of this section of Scripture, tell us? Genuine, saving faith will always produce works. Conversely, ‘professed’ faith that doesn’t result in works was dead in the water to begin with. The justification spoken of in James, chapter 2 is justification before our fellow men.

I know that was a bit lengthy, but those two bits of Scripture, while presenting what looks like a clear contradiction is one of the best demonstrations of the letting Scripture interpret Scripture that I know of.

So what about those “James Carvill” moments? They are opportunities for stepping back, taking a deep breath, and becoming more Christlike in our communication skills!

image

BE BLESSED!

[i] Introduction to James (blueletterbible.org)

“Heaven will direct it.”

Posted by Dan C. on

Heaven will direct it

For those of you unfamiliar with Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the above title is actually a quotation in Act 1, Scene 4 that was spoken by the least recognized of the three characters in that Scene. The three characters are of course Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, his best friend Horatio, and a soldier named Marcellus, another of Hamlet’s friends.

In the scene, Hamlet, Horatio, and Marcellus are standing on the ramparts of Elsinore in the bitter cold, waiting for the ghost of Hamlet’s father to appear. Sounds of Hamlet’s Uncle Claudius and his courtiers feasting and drinking merrily echo from inside the castle, and Hamlet tells his friends that Claudius’s constant revelry is soiling Denmark’s reputation, blotting out all that is good in the country.[i]

The ghost of Hamlet’s father appears and beckons Hamlet to speak with him about exacting revenge for Hamlet’s Claudius having murdered him (Hamlet’s father).

An interesting conversation ensues between the three friends concerning whether or not Hamlet should follow and speak with the ghost. Hamlet is determined to follow and bids Horatio and Marcellus not try and stop him.

It was also during that conversation that Marcellus utters the famous line:

“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark,” to which Horatio responds with a far less famous line:

“Heaven will direct it.”[ii]

As one summary tells us, concerning the situation in Denmark,

Something is rotten because ghosts don’t just tend to appear in normal times when everything is spiritually well with the kingdom.

But more than that: for the ghost (or supposed ghost) of the late king to appear: something’s not right, and Marcellus, as a soldier and a sentinel keeping watch on the castle battlements, is trained and primed to know when something’s wrong.[iii]

It was Horatio’s “Heaven will direct it.” forthright conclusion concerning the ongoing State of Denmark that caught my attention when I only recently read it!

Perhaps Horatio’s response grabbed my attention because I’ve thought many times in recent days and months that “Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark.” perfectly describes what we see all around us in our own nation and indeed in our fallen world. Between natural disasters, wars and rumors of wars, and the rampant lies from the halls of political power is it any wonder that some of us might question if our nation will even survive and return to a time of national stability and prosperity?

I have to also admit that Horatio stating matter-of-factly that “Heaven will DIRECT it.” sort of jumped off of the page and hit me between the eyes. One library of notable quotations remarked that Horatio was expressing his Christian faith.[iv] It’s well known that Shakespeare’s England was a primarily a Protestant Christian nation. The words “Heaven will direct it.”, while acknowledging God’s providence and sovereignty over the affairs of men, seem, in this old soldier’s small brain, to carry a weightier meaning than just saying something like “God will sort it all out in the end.”

By saying “Heaven will direct it,” we are wading into connected streams, the sovereignty of God and God’s providence. John Piper provides helpful and easily digestible definitions for both:

“God’s sovereignty is his right and power to do all that he decides to do.”[v]

God rules over and owns everything in His entire creation, precisely because He made everything. What God decides to do can be called His sovereign purposes. God’s providence can then be defined as the ‘how’ of what God decides to do; how He carries out His divine purposes:

“Absolutely everything that needs to be done to bring about his purposes, God sees to it that it happens.”[vi]

Perhaps one of the clearest illustrations of both the sovereignty of God and His divine providence is found in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost:

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” (ESV)

We know that God, our sovereign creator, after Adam and Eve rebelled in the Garden of Eden, determined to save His people from their sins and restore His perfect creation after the rebellion and sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Peter, speaking to the assembled crowd, tells his Jewish audience that Jesus was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God (providence), then was crucified by the hands of lawless men (providence), but then was raised up by God (sovereignty & providence).

Back to Shakespeare, Hamlet and his companions. Something certainly was rotten in the state of Denmark, just as something is rotten in our world and in our beloved nation. Will the nation survive? Will there be an end times great revival, or is a once great country under God’s judgment? A sovereign God can decide to save the world, ‘resurrect’ a nation lost in sin, or He can decide to consign it to the dust bin of history, just as He did with the Roman Empire.

Theologians, speculators, and prognosticators abound. We, as Christians and believers in the resurrected Savior know what we would like to see in our future, but none of us can be certain, even from scripture, what lies ahead.

What we do know at least two things.

Firstly, we can agree with Horatio’s response to Marcellus’ “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. God is sovereign over all the affairs of men, “Heaven will direct it.” Might that mean that God might be bringing judgment upon a nation when things get “rotten”? I’ll let you answer that ne for yourselves.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, our commission from God and our mission as believers, to preach the gospel to a lost world, and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19-20), is still our business until He comes (Luke 19:13). As we have said many times through the years, “The main thing is still the MAIN THING!!!

[i] Hamlet Act 1, Scene 4 Summary & Analysis | LitCharts &

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Heaven will direct it. – William Shakespeare, Horatio in Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4 (allgreatquotes.com)

[v] Are God’s Providence and God’s Sovereignty the Same? | Desiring God

[vi] Ibid.

The Reality of the Christian’s Warfare–J.C. Ryle

Posted by Dan C. on

image

Whether we are Churchmen or not, one thing is certain,—this Christian warfare is a great reality, and a subject of vast importance. It is not a matter like Church government and ceremonial, about which men may differ, and yet reach heaven at last. Necessity is laid upon us. We must fight. There are no promises in the Lord Jesus Christ’s Epistles to the Seven Churches, except to those who “overcome.” Where there is grace there will be conflict. The believer is a soldier. There is no holiness without a warfare. Saved souls will always be found to have fought a fight.

It is a fight of absolute necessity. Let us not think that in this war we can remain neutral and sit still. Such a line of action may be possible in the strife of nations, but it is utterly impossible in that conflict which concerns the soul. The boasted policy of non-interference,—the “masterly inactivity” which pleases so many statesmen,—the plan of keeping quiet and letting things alone,—all this will never do in the Christian warfare. Here at any rate no one can escape serving under the plea that he is “a man of peace.” To be at peace with the world, the flesh and the devil, is to be at enmity with God, and in the broad way that leadeth to destruction. We have no choice or option. We must either fight or be lost.

It is a fight of universal necessity. No rank, or class, or age, can plead exemption, or escape the battle. Ministers and people, preachers and hearers, old and young, high and low, rich and poor, gentle and simple, kings and subjects, landlords and tenants, learned and unlearned,—all alike must carry arms and go to war. All have by nature a heart full of pride, unbelief, sloth, worldliness, and sin. All are living in a world beset with snares, traps, and pitfalls for the soul. All have near them a busy, restless, malicious devil. All, from the Queen in her palace down to the pauper in the workhouse, all must fight, if they would be saved.

It is a fight of perpetual necessity. It admits of no breathing time, no armistice, no truce. On week-days as well as on Sundays,—in private as well as in public,—at home by the family fireside as well as abroad,—in little things like management of tongue and temper, as well as in great ones like the government of kingdoms,—the Christian’s warfare must unceasingly go on. The foe we have to do with keeps no holidays, never slumbers, and never sleeps. So long as we have breath in our bodies we must keep on our armour, and remember we are on an enemy’s ground. “Even on the brink of Jordan,” said a dying saint, “I find Satan nibbling at my heels.” We must fight till we die.

Let us consider well these propositions. Let us take care that our own personal religion is real, genuine, and true. The saddest symptom about many so-called Christians, is the utter absence of anything like conflict and fight in their Christianity. They eat, they drink, they dress, they work, they amuse themselves, they get money, they spend money, they go through a scanty round of formal religious services once or twice every week. But of the great spiritual warfare,—its watchings and strugglings, its agonies and anxieties, its battles and contests,—of all this they appear to know nothing at all. Let us take care that this case is not our own. The worst state of soul is “when the strong man armed keepeth the house, and his goods are at peace,”—when he leads men and women “captive at his will,” and they make no resistance. The worst chains are those which are neither felt nor seen by the prisoner. (Luke 11:21; 2 Tim. 2:26.)

We may take comfort about our souls if we know anything of an inward fight and conflict. It is the invariable companion of genuine Christian holiness. It is not everything, I am well aware, but it is something. Do we find in our heart of hearts a spiritual struggle? Do we feel anything of the flesh lusting against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things we would? (Gal. 5:17.) Are we conscious of two principles within us, contending for the mastery? Do we feel anything of war in our inward man? Well, let us thank God for it! It is a good sign. It is strongly probable evidence of the great work of sanctification. All true saints are soldiers. Anything is better than apathy, stagnation, deadness, and indifference. We are in a better state than many. The most part of so-called Christians have no feeling at all. We are evidently no friends of Satan. Like the kings of this world, he wars not against his own subjects. The very fact that he assaults us, should fill our minds with hope. I say again, let us take comfort The child of God has two great marks about him, and of these two we have one. HE MAY BE KNOWN BY HIS INWARD WARFARE, AS WELL AS BY HIS INWARD PEACE.

Ryle, J. C. (1889). Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (pp. 80–82). William Hunt and Company. (Public Domain)