Grace Abundant

Thoughts for Christmas

2011-12-24T01:19:00.000-08:00

I love some Christmas carols, and I really don't like others. Here is a selection of various verses I really like, making me thing about some wonderful truths to ponder. Let us praise the God of all creation, Jesus Christ our Lord.

He came down to earth from heaven,
Who is God and Lord of all,
And His shelter was a stable,
And His cradle was a stall:
With the poor, and mean, and lowly,
Lived on earth our Saviour holy.

No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:13-16).

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."(Micah 5:2)

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (John 1:4,9)

For Christ is born of Mary
And gathered all above
While mortals sleep, the angels keep
Their watch of wondering love
O morning stars together
Proclaim the holy birth
And praises sing to God the King
And Peace to men on earth

Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!" (Luke 2:8-14)

While shepherds watched
Their flocks by night
All seated on the ground
The angel of the Lord came down
And glory shone around
And glory shone around

"Fear not," he said,
For mighty dread
Had seized their troubled minds
"Glad tidings of great joy I bring
To you and all mankind,
To you and all mankind."

"To you in David's
Town this day
Is born of David's line
The Savior who is Christ the Lord
And this shall be the sign
And this shall be the sign."

"The heavenly Babe
You there shall find
To human view displayed
And meanly wrapped
In swathing bands
And in a manger laid
And in a manger laid."

Thus spake the seraph,
And forthwith
Appeared a shining throng
Of angels praising God, who thus
Addressed their joyful song
Addressed their joyful song

"All glory be to
God on high
And to the earth be peace;
Goodwill henceforth
From heaven to men
Begin and never cease
Begin and never cease!"

The Real Face of Jesus Christ

2011-12-11T02:23:00.001-08:00

What didThe Lord Jesus Christ look like? The Bible does not actually tell usthat much in way of physical description, but we can have some ideafrom his ethnicity. Jesus is Jewish. Most people know that, exceptsome Christians. Does it really matter? Yes it does. Jesus ishuman, and therefore has an ethnic and racial identity like everyoneelse. Let's look at some of the false views of Jesus and then lookat the true one:

Jesusis Not Aryan.

In 1939when German Christians came together to form something called for TheStudy and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life. That name needs no explanation. In this view, Jesus came tofight against Judaism and his death was his defeat. This is not theJesus of the Bible but a Jesus of their own making. Christianity wascomplicit in The Holocaust, not only in the twentieth but longbefore. The Reformer Martin Luther, 400 years before Hitler,advocated burning down synagogues and ejecting them from the country. Germany was also the home of the Higher Criticism movement in theeighteenth century, which attacked the inspiration and authority ofthe Scriptures. Against this background, the authenticity of theBible was rejected and therefore Jesus could be reinvented and robbedof his Jewish heritage.

Jesusis Not a Palestinian

This isanother historical fabrication which is even promoted by sometextbooks and by many Christians. According to many, Jesus was notborn in Israel, he was born in Palestine, hence Jesus was aPalestinian. Like the Aryan Jesus, this reinvention is politicallymotivated. The Palestinian National Covenantdismisses any historical attachment that the Jewish peoplehave to the land of Israel. So how do they deal with the Bible andwith Jesus? The same way that the Nazi's did – they attack theauthenticity of the Scriptures and they reinvent Jesus as aPalestinian. When you see the Arab press, you will find this verypropaganda. Sadly there is now a movement of ChristianPalestinianism which regards Bible as Christian rather than Jewish,the land of the Bible is Palestine, not Israel, Jesus is aPalestinian and not Jewish, and the Palestinians are the rightfulowners of the land. So this movement has an agenda. It is headed upby organisations like Sabeel and Stephen Sizer.

Jesusis Jewish

This isthe Biblical Jesus. As we look through the New Testament, we willfind that the Jewishness of Jesus is in the very fabric of thegospels. Jesus born a Jew, he lived as a Jew, he died as a Jew androse from the dead as a Jew.

JesusWas Born a Jew

We seethe birth of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels of Matthew andLuke. For the purpose of this study, we will turn our attention toLuke's account in chapter 2:

1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out fromCaesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 Thiscensus first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So allwent to be registered, everyone to his own city. 4 Joseph also wentup from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the cityof David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house andlineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife,who was with child. 6 So it was, that while they were there, the dayswere completed for her to be delivered. 7 And she brought forth herfirstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in amanger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of theChild, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel beforeHe was conceived in the womb. 22 Now when the days of herpurification according to the law of Moses were completed, theybrought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it iswritten in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the wombshall be called holy to the Lord"), 24 and to offer a sacrificeaccording to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair ofturtledoves or two young pigeons."

Theparents of Jesus lived as Jews and were Torah-observant. We see thisas we go through the gospel records – God did not just pick Maryand Joseph at random but chose those who loved him and were faithfulto Torah. This ceremony of the first-born Son was to remind theJewish people of their redemption from Egyptian slavery.

25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon,and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation ofIsrael

Notice that Simeon was not waiting for the Consolation of Palestine. The name of the land is Israel, and that is where Jesus was born. The name Palestine was not used until it was invented by the Romansafter the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke's account continues:

and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to himby the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen theLord's Christ. 27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And whenthe parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according tothe custom of the law, 28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed Godand said: 29 "Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart inpeace, According to Your word; 30 For my eyes have seen Yoursalvation 31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Yourpeople Israel."

Jesus and salvation are the same Hebrew word. Salvation is offeredand intended to all nations. God sent a Jewish saviour into theworld, not just that Israel may be saved but that the whole world maybe saved. It does not matter what nationality you are – God sentJesus into the world for you personally. If Jesus is not Jewish,then he is not the promised Messiah, and therefore he is not theSaviour of the world that Christians believe in. Jesus was born aJew.

JesusLived as a Jew

Wecontinue in Luke chapter 2 in a view of his childhood:

40 And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled withwisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. 41 His parents went toJerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when He wastwelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the customof the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned,the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His motherdid not know it; 44 but supposing Him to have been in the company,they went a day's journey, and sought Him among their relatives andacquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned toJerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days theyfound Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, bothlistening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Himwere astonished at His understanding and answers.

Jesus wasin the Temple when his parents found him. Obviously, The Temple wasthe centre of religious life within Israel and demonstrates thatJesus was completely Jewish in his lifestyle. Jesus also attendedthe local synagogue in his adult life and when he began his publicministry. Turn to Luke chapter 4:

14 Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, andnews of Him went out through all the surrounding region. 15 And Hetaught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. 16 So He came toNazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, Hewent into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He hadopened the book, He found the place where it was written:

Churchhistory has overlooked the Jewishness of Jesus. John Chrysostom, oneof the early Church Fathers in the fourth century, must haveforgotten that Jesus attended the synagogues when he said:

The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrelsand the repair of wild beasts…It is a criminal assembly of Jews…As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the samereason.

How verystrange that this man professed belief in a Jewish Saviour and yetcalled Jesus a “scoundrel” and a “wild beast”. Another earlyChurch Father, Justin Martyr, was just as anti-semitic:

We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbathdays, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of thereason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sinsand the hardness of heart. The purpose of this was that you and onlyyou might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours.

TheChristian Council of Nicea, which was composed entirely of Gentilebelievers also banned Christians from observing the Jewish Sabbathand the Jewish feasts. I wonder if Justin Martyr and JohnChrysostom were aware that Jesus kept the Jewish festivals. In Johnchapter 2 after the wedding in Cana we find him going to Jerusalem tocelebrate Passover. He also celebrated this before his crucifixion.

JesusDied as a Jew

The deathof Jesus the Messiah is central to his person and work and is foundin all four gospels. Let us look briefly at an account in the Gospelof John chapter 18:

33 Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and saidto Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" 34 Jesus answeredhim, "Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did otherstell you this concerning Me?" 35 Pilate answered, "Am I aJew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me.What have You done?"

PontiusPilate, this wicked and contemptible ruler, knew more about Jesusthe Messiah than some of the Church Fathers. He recognised thatJesus was Jewish! Pilate, of course, was no friend to the Jewishpeople and wanted to really stick the knife in when he “crowned”Jesus.

19 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writingwas: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 Then many of theJews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified wasnear the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. 21Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do notwrite, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'He said, "I am the King ofthe Jews." ' " 22 Pilate answered, "What I havewritten, I have written." (John 18:19-22)

Pilatewas gloating that he had put the Jewish king to death, not knowing ofcourse that God was over this act, accomplishing his purposes for thesalvation of the world.

Jesuswas raised as a Jew

50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, andHe lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 Now it came to pass,while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried upinto heaven. 52 And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalemwith great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising andblessing God. Amen.

Theblessing given here is the Aaronic blessing, which is given insynagogues today. It is also given at the end of Anglican services. We see the disciples returned unto Jerusalem and the Temple. Thefact that Jesus continued identifying himself with the Jewish peopleafter his resurrection is important. The Apostle Paul confirms theJewishness of Jesus in Romans 9 as integral to his humanity:

1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience alsobearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow andcontinual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself wereaccursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to theflesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory,the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and thepromises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according tothe flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessedGod.

If Jesusis Jewish, there is no place for anti-semitism in Christianity. Racism of any kind of unacceptable and offensive to God, who madeeach man. Racism against Jewish people is particularly offensive asthey are brothers of Jesus. Christians should be at the forefront ofsupporting and caring for Jewish people and supporting the right ofJewish people to live in peace rather than promoting anti-Zionist andanti-Israel campaigns. If Jewish people trust in Jesus, they havenot ceased to be Jewish, despite being told that by some Christians. They remain Jewish, just as the Saviour and Messiah did.

Did Jesus Have "The Gift of Singleness"?

2011-11-29T11:54:00.001-08:00

Insome earlier posts the traditional Christian view of “the gift ofsingleness”, that is, the belief in a supernatural empowerment tolive a celibate life free from temptation, was debunked as a myth.The Biblical view of singleness is that it is the grace that Godgiven to some people, and marriage is the grace that God has given toothers. In other words, I believe that the gift of of singleness isthe state of being single regardless of whether you like it or not.

Inthis post I want to examine the traditional view against the exampleof Christ. The the vast majority, if not all, Christians agree thatthe Lord Jesus Christ never married. This being the case, did Jesushave the supernatural empowerment to stay single and not be tempted?

Ifthe answer is yes, then the humanity of Jesus Christ has beenunderestimated. If Jesus did not suffer sexual temptation in thisway, and he had no desire for companionship, then how can hesympathise with our weaknesses (Hebrews 4)?

Ifthe answer is no, and I believe that this is the correct answer, thenhow can we expect to have such a gift? Single and married peoplewill suffer temptation and trials in this life. Jesus, being human,most likely desired companionship and whilst he was pure, I dare saythat he struggled with various temptations that we have never andwill ever know. As his followers, whether single or married, heexpects us to suffer with him. He can support single people in theirstruggles (Hebrews 4) and expects married men to love their own wivesin the same self-sacrificial way in which he loves the Church(Ephesians 4) . So in answer to the question as to whether Jesus had the gift of singleness, the answer depends upon how you define the gift.

Foreknowledge and Predestination

2011-11-28T11:24:00.001-08:00

Foreknowledgeand Predestination appear in the Bible in several places. The word“foreknowledge” is taken from the Greek word “proginōskō ”,which appears in several places in the New Testament:

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approvedof God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did byhim in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, beingdelivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, yehave taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom Godhath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was notpossible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:22-23)

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: I thinkmyself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself thisday before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of theJews: Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs andquestions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hearme patiently. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the firstamong mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew mefrom the beginning, if they would testify, that after the moststraitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. (Acts 26:1-5)

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, bewarelest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall fromyour own stedfastness. (2 Peter 3:17)

There areother instances of this word “foreknowledge” and it simply means“to know in advance”2. Objects of foreknowledge can be events orpeople as in the above instances. Some Calvinists affirm though thatforeknowledge means foreordination. This is not the case – theterms are totally distinct. Certainly in the last passage cited aboveit cannot mean “seeing that you ordain these things before”. Inthe English foreknowledge is composed of the two words fore andknowledge. The same is true in relation to the Greek words pro andginōskō . The latter word, meaning knowledge, is used in the NewTestament to mean simply that. It is used for example, in 1Corinthians where is says that “knowledge puffs up but loveedifies”. It cannot mean “ordination puffs up but love edifies”.

In Acts 2the foreknowledge of God is linked to his ““determinate counsel”.This is further proof that they are not the same thing, as if thatwere the case the adjoining of the terms would be completelyunnecessary. The link between Gods foreknowledge and hisfore-ordination means that with his foreknowledge he arrangeseverything to fit into his overall plan and purpose.

Chosen To Salvation? (2 Thess 2:13)

2011-11-28T11:19:00.001-08:00

Thesecond letter to the Thessalonians is used to support the Calvinisticunderstanding of election: Butwe are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved ofthe Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvationthrough sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2Thessalonians 2:13). Themeaning of the Greek phrase “from the beginning” is in disputewith some Greek scholars. Jamieson,Fausset and Brown statethat:

Someof the oldest manuscripts read as English Version, but other oldestmanuscripts and Vulgate read, "as first-fruits." TheThessalonians were among the first converts in Europe (compare Romans16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:15). (Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible).

If it were granted that thephrase “from the beginning” was the correct understanding, itdeserves consideration. It cannot mean initial salvation uponbelieving, for then it would say that “God from the beginning choseyou to belief of the truth through sanctification and belief of thetruth”. Thiswould not make sense. Theirbelief is the meansby whichthey are saved. In verses 10-12 Paul says that God appoints a strongdelusion upon those who reject the truth, and in parallel he appointssalvation to those who accept the truth. What is the salvation to inthis passage? Verse 14 provides the answer: tothe obtaining of the glory of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.That is, final salvation, orglorification is in view. Paul was reminding the Thessalonianbelievers about the future they have to look forward to becauseoftheir faith.

Why Did God Hate Esau?

2011-11-26T14:42:00.001-08:00

1 An oracle: The wordof the LORD to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I have loved you,"says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Wasnot Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have lovedJacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains intoa wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." 4Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild theruins." But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They maybuild, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, apeople always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it withyour own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD--even beyond the borders ofIsrael!' (Malachi 1:1-5)

God's love of Jacob andhis hatred of Esau causes difficulties for many believers, and Ipersonally struggled with this for a long time. The difficulty comesin reconciling this statement to what the Bible teaches about God'scharacter and his love for the lost world. Can a God of love reallyhate someone he has created?

In Malachi 1 it isclear that this hatred that God feels towards Esau is a positivehatred, as indicated by the fact that he desolates and crushes Edom. For this reason, those commentataries which promote the view that theword “hate” simply means to “love less” is not convincingfrom the context. There are other instances in the Psalms where itsays that God hates the workers of iniquity, and that God's wrathabides on the one who does not trust in his Son (John 3:36). So Godcan and really does hate some people.

Further, it is clearthat God loved Jacob. There are certain people in the Bible that Godespecially loved. Noah found grace of eyes of The Lord, Daniel theProphet was highly esteemed. Mary the Mother of Jesus was highlyfavoured and greatly blessed by the Almighty. Does this mean thatGod loves some people more than other people?

To resolve thistension, it is important to distinguish between different types oflove and feeling that God has to his creation. God's love for a lostworld is a benevolent love which flows from God's heart due to hisnature (John 3:16, 1 John 4:7). This love of God is universal andunconditional. It is not object orientated and reaches out to thevilest offender. I believe The Lord Jesus died for the most sinfuland wicked men, including Esau.

But God also, due tohis holiness and purity, has feelings towards people that areobject orientated. There are people like Noah, Daniel and Mary thatlove him and serve him. God delights in such people. In contrast,there are people on this earth, like Esau, who were despicable,sensual and carnal and God cannot help but feel disgust and intensedispleasure at such people. Esau was one such man who disgusted God. He was a sensual man, with no respect for his family traditions orfor obedience to God. In Hebrews 12 he is called profane when hedespised his birthright. God hated Esau because of Esau's character,and yet at the same time loved him in a benevolent sense because Godis love.

As human beings, we mayhave people in our lives that we strongly dislike due to theircharacter, but the mercy and compassion within us will not desirethem harm and certainly not eternal destruction. Whilst God hatesthe wicked, it is also clear that he has no pleasure in their deathand would rather see him turn from his wickedness and live (Ezekiel18). God's hatred is not malicious or vindictive but simply an expression of his holiness.

Singleness in Christian History and Tradition

2011-11-19T07:33:00.001-08:00

Here are some statements from the early Church Fathers on Singleness. Whilst I do not agree with their belief that it is superior to marriage, their positive views about singleness should be noted. Jeromestated:

I do not detract from wedlock when I set virginity before it. No onecompares a bad thing with a good. Wedded women may congratulatethemselves that they come next to virgins. “Be fruitful,” Godsays, “and multiply, and replenish the earth.” (Gen. i. 28). Hewho desires to replenish the earth may increase and multiply if hewill...Some people may be eunuchs from necessity; I am one of freewill.¹

St. Ambrose (340-397), Bishop of Milan, reminded us of the virtues ofpurity in singleness:

And what is virginal chastity but purity free from stain? And whomcan we judge to be its author but the immaculate Son of God, Whoseflesh saw no corruption, Whose Godhead experienced no infection?Consider, then, how great are the merits of virginity.

I am not indeed discouraging marriage, but am enlarging upon thebenefits of virginity. "He who is weak," says the Apostle,"eats herbs." Romans 14:2 I consider one thing necessary, Iadmire another. "Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed.Are you free from a wife? Seek not a wife." 1 Corinthians 7:27This is the command to those who are. But what does he say concerningvirgins? "He who gives his virgin in marriage does well, and hewho gives her not does better." 1 Corinthians 7:38 The one sinsnot if she marries, the other, if she marries not, it is foreternity. In the former is the remedy for weakness, in the latter theglory of chastity. The former is not reproved, the latter is praised.²

St. Augustine also esteemed celibacy:

We lately put forth a book “of the Good of Marriage,” in whichalso we admonished and admonish the virgins of Christ, not, onaccount of that greater gift which they have received, to despise, incomparison of themselves, the fathers and mothers of the People ofGod; and not to think those men, (whom the Apostle sets forth as theolive, that the engrafted wild olive be not proud,) who did serviceto Christ about to come hereafter, even by the begetting of sons, onthis account of less desert, because by divine right continence ispreferred to wedded life, and pious virginity to marriage.³

GregoryNazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople in the fourth century,venerated celibacy:

A great thing is virginity, and celibacy, and being ranked with theangels, and with the single nature; for I shrink from calling itChrist’s, Who, though He willed to be born for our sakes who areborn, by being born of a Virgin, enacted. Enacted by hisreligious rule, or as some say by a treatise on Virginity. the law ofvirginity, to lead us away from this life, and cut short the power ofthe world, or rather, to transmit one world to another, the presentto the future. Who then paid more honour to virginity, or had morecontrol of the flesh, not only by his personal example, but in thoseunder his care? Whose are the convents, and the written regulations,by which he subdued every sense, and regulated every member, and wonto the real practice of virginity, turning inward the view of beauty,from the visible to the invisible; and by wasting away the external,and withdrawing fuel from the flame, and revealing the secrets of theheart to God, Who is the only bridegroom of pure souls, and takes inwith himself the watchful souls, if they go to meet him with lampsburning and a plentiful supply of oil? Moreover he reconciled mostexcellently and united the solitary and the community life.⁴

John Wesley wasone who took a plain interpretation of 1st Corinthians 7 and commended thesingle status:

It is good for a man - Who is master of himself. Not to touch a women- That is, not to marry. So great and many are the advantages of asingle life. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:1)

Wesleywas no stranger to the single life. He married at 48 and themarriage lasted 15 years, and no children came from the marriage. John Nelson Darby, one of the early Plymouth Brethren, also remainedsingle his entire life and wrote volumes of Bible expositions whichhave benefited believers born in later generations. In more recenthistory, C.S. Lewis married very late in life and only for a briefperiod due to tragedy. John Stott, a prominent Bible teacher in thelate twentieth and early twenty first century, remained single allhis life and travelled and ministered to many, which he would nothave been able to do with the duties involved in a marriage. Singleness, whilst not normative in Church and society, is still a valid Christian lifestyle.

1Letter XXII. To Eustochium., http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XXII.html

2Concerning Virginity, Book 1. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vii.ii.v.html

3St. Augustine, Of Holy Virginity. Taken from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.v.iii.ii.html

4Oration XLIII, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxvi.html

Marriage: Mandatory or Normative?

2011-11-19T07:08:00.001-08:00

SomeChristians teach, either explicitly or by implication, that marriageis mandatory for everybody. Debbie Maken, one of the loudestproponents of this position, stated that past generations ofChristians view “the marriage mandate” as “universal in itsapplication” and that “today's singleness is either a lifestyleoption or purely circumstantial; therefore, it is largelyunbiblical”.¹ She counsels that women “will have no relief from the presentholding cell of unwanted singleness until we recapture a world lifeview that exalts marriage as both a blessing and anobligation”. So single people, according to proponents of thisview, are living sinful and disobedient lives. A fellow advocate ofMaken's position, Candice Watters, condemned Christian singles in herrecommendation of Maken's book:

Why is this book necessary? Because a generation of singles are atrisk of believing they've all been given the "gift ofsingleness" quite apart from the biblical conditions forcelibacy; because a generation of singles are stuffing theirdiscontent and starting to believe that it's their discontent, andnot their protracted singleness, that is their sin; because ageneration of Christian singles are at risk of never marrying andhaving children, thwarting God's desire for a godly seed (Malachi2:15).²

Again, wesee the shocking statement that singleness is a sin. Watters, inthis positive review, acknowledges that it her book is an assault onsingle men in the Church:

I'm not sure her frontal assault on unmotivated men will do much tospark their change of course, but she does, by the end of the book,moderate her approach a bit. "God made men to be leaders,"she writes, "to pursue marriage and seek a wife.³

Later inher review, Watters shows some concern some negative aspects ofMaken's book:

In an error of judgment, she twice quotes Sex in the City asnaturally as any regular viewer and delivers the lines as if herreaders are fans of the show, too. For anyone trying to remain pure,this seems an unwise source of cultural commentary andentertainment.⁴

Sadly,Maken's book Getting Serious About Getting Married has beenpublished by an otherwise good Christian publishing company. AlbertMohler of the Southern Baptist Seminary, who gave a glowing review ofMaken's book, also teaches that marriage is an obligation (implyingthat singleness is a sin):

The Bible is clear in presenting a picture of marriage that is rootedin the glory of God made evident in creation itself. The man and thewoman are made for each other and the institution of marriage isgiven to humanity as both opportunity and obligation.

Singleness is not a sin, but deliberate singleness on the part ofthose who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, atbest, a neglect of a Christian responsibility. The problem may besimple sloth, personal immaturity, a fear of commitment, or anunbalanced priority given to work and profession. On the part of men,it may also take the shape of a refusal to grow up and take the leadin courtship. There are countless Christian women who are prayerfullywaiting for Christian men to grow up and take the lead. What arethese guys waiting for? ⁵

We needto examine the arguments and rectify the position. After readingMaken's article “Rethinking The Gift of Singleness” I had no timeor inclination to read the full book. The article was vicious andarrogant in tone. That speaks for itself, but the arguments raisedby Maken and Mohler need to be examined by looking at some facts.

It iscorrect to say that the normative pattern for God's creationis marriage (one man, one woman) but this is not saying that it ismandatory for all without exception. The “marriage mandate”was given before the Fall and when creation was perfect and unspoiledby sin. We do not live in Eden today and as a result, the image ofGod in man has been marred although not destroyed. After the fall,marriage remained as the normative plan for God's creation. Withoutit, the human race would have died out. Marriage is designed by Godto provide a stable backbone in society and to provide for theemotional needs of his creatures. It is a good thing and a gift thatGod wants his creatures to enjoy. But since the fall and the curseupon creation, many people in the world are not suited to marriageand therefore singleness is a better option. Some of these peoplemay have physical disabilities, some may be physically deformed, somemay have experienced sexual abuse as children, some lackself-confidence, some may have mental health issues and some may havesame-sex tendencies. Marriage in these situations could end up inruined lives and tragedy. Then there are couples who arebiologically incapable of having children, and to suggest that theyare rebelling against God's command to “be fruitful and multiply”is cruel and insensitive.

In theOld Testament, marriage was considered normative and there was noword for, or concept of, a bachelor but there were examples of singlepeople. Elijah and Elisha were single and very much acquainted withsolitude and greatly used by God. Jeremiah was specificallycommanded not to marry due to the destruction that God was going tosend upon Israel and Judah. Daniel The Prophet is never identifiedwith a family but only with his three friends, and it is very likelythat they were all made eunuchs in Babylon. In the New Testament,the most obvious example of singleness is the Lord Jesus Christ,followed by the Apostle Paul who was likely a widower when he beganhis ministry (it is argued that he would not have got into theSanhedrin if he never married, but it is also clear that he wassingle when he wrote 1 Corinthians). Anna The Prophetess, who losther husband very early in her adult life and remained single forseveral decades afterwards and faithfully served God in the Templeday and night. Despite their service for God and God's care andprovision for them, they did not enjoy the affirmation of theirsociety. Today single people are in the same position. The Churchvenerates marriage and family as if that is the only way to live. The world mocks virginity and celibacy and Hollywood film titles like“The 40 Year Old Virgin” show how shocked they are at such athing. Living singly in a family-centred Church and a sex-obsessedworld can be very lonely and alienating. But it is clear from Scripture that singleness, although not the norm, is acceptable before God and there is nothing wrong with it.

1Rethinking the Gift of Singleness http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001199.cfm

2Getting To Marriage, What You Can Do. http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001254.cfm

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

5Reflecting on the Mystery of Marriage, http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001244.cfm.

Is 1 Corinthians 7 Relevant Today?

2011-11-19T06:57:00.001-08:00

1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good fora man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexualimmorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman haveher own husband.

7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has hisown gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. 8 But Isay to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if theyremain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, letthem marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which hewas called. 25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from theLord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has madetrustworthy. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of thepresent distress--that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosedfrom a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, youhave not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spareyou. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from nowon even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice asthough they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did notpossess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing it. For theform of this world is passing away. 32 But I want you to be withoutcare. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord--how hemay please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the thingsof the world--how he may please his wife. 34 There is a differencebetween a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about thethings of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.But she who is married cares about the things of the world--how shemay please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, notthat I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that youmay serve the Lord without distraction.

Somemandatory marriage advocates also dismiss 1 Corinthians 7 as specificto the time it was written and irrelevant today. Debbie Maken states:

Past Christians also read I Corinthians 7, and they understood thatPaul was writing at a time of "great distress," referringto the famine in the Greek countryside and the percolatingpersecutions taking place at the time. Because of these threateningcircumstances, Paul advised that marriage could temporarily be placedon the back-burner. They understood that letter to convey expediency,nothing more.¹

This is acommon argument and, quite frankly, a cop out. It is alsodisregarding and disrespecting Scripture according to personalpreferences. If this is correct, it still speaks today as theChurch is under persecution in many parts of the world (unless onewants to foolishly argue that persecution was unique to the time ofthe Corinthians). Another possible interpretation could be that itis referring to the distress and sufferings that are part of theChristian life in the current age, therefore making it very relevanttoday. John Calvin appeared to take this view:

The meaning is this: “I think it expedient on account of thenecessity, with which the saints are always harassed in this life,that all should enjoy the liberty and advantage of celibacy, as thiswould be of advantage to them.” There are some, however, that viewthe term necessity as referring to the age of the Apostle, which was,undoubtedly, full of trouble to the pious: but he appears to me tohave had it rather in view to express the disquietude with which thesaints are incessantly harassed in the present life. I view it,therefore, as extending to all ages, and I understand it in this way,that the saints are often, in this world, driven hither and thither,and are exposed to many and various tempests” so that theircondition appears to be unsuitable for marriage. The phrase so to be,signifies to remain unmarried, or to abstain from marriage.²

I agree with this view because in verse 28, Paul refers to “troublein the flesh” and in verse 31 there is a reminder that the “worldis passing away” in connection with the “present distress”. Ifthis was referring to a particular time of persecution one wouldexpect more than a passing reference to it, although I do not dismissthis interpretation. The Puritan commentator Matthew Henry believedthat 1 Corinthians 7, whilst directly relating to it's time,nevertheless speaks today:

“The apostle tells the Corinthians that it was good, in thatjuncture of time, for Christians to keep themselves single. Yet hesays that marriage, and the comforts of that state, are settled byDivine wisdom. Though none may break the law of God, yet that perfectrule leaves men at liberty to serve him in the way most suited totheir powers and circumstances, of which others often are very unfitjudges. All must determine for themselves, seeking counsel fromGod how they ought to act”.

In other words, we must not legislate marriage or singleness forother believers but leave them according to their own consciencebefore God, and each person is to exercise wisdom suited to theirsituation. Whether the “present distress” Paul refers to in thischapter is a particular time for the Corinthians or general to theChristian life, it speaks to us today.

1 Rethinking The Gift of Singleness, http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001199.cfm

2Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:25

Does Paul Advise Against Singleness? No! (1 Cor 7v2)?

2011-11-19T06:49:00.001-08:00

“1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is goodfor a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexualimmorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman haveher own husband”. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2.

After saying that it isgood for a man to abstain from sexual relations in verse 1, he thenadvises “each man to have his own wife” which appears tocontradict what he has just said. Is he saying that single peopleshould all go out and get married? I do not believe that this is themeaning of Paul's words, after all, he said that he wishes that allcould be like himself (abstinent) and commended the unmarried statuslater in the chapter.

Allow me to layemphasis on the key to understanding this: “Because of sexualimmorality, let each man HAVE his own wife, and let each woman HAVEher own husband”. The word have sometimes has sexualconnotations in Scripture and goes beyond mere passive possession. For example, 1 Corinthians 5:1 it says that a man has hisfathers wife, and in Mark 6:18, it says that Herod has hisbrothers wife. This is clearly wrongful possession but the ideadoes not need further comment. The command for each man having hisown wife and each women her husband, is a command to meet your partners sexual needs in an exclusive,monogamous marriage. He is addressing this to those who are married,and he addresses the unmarried in verse 8. To these he says it isgood for them to stay abstinent as he was, although he advises themthat they have not sinned if they decide to marry.

Book Review: Al Hsu: The Single Issue

2011-11-12T13:41:00.001-08:00

Most evangelicalchurches today emphasise and exalt marriage and family in a way thatalienates singles and leaves them feeling that they have failed inlife. This excellent books seeks to rectify this and provide apositive view about singleness and also present the benefits andchallenges it brings. This is very relevant today when a largepercentage of the population are single.

Rather than presentingsingleness as a problem, it presents singleness as having problems. This is an important distinction. Marriage, in the same way, is nota problem but does have problems not faced by singles. This is thekey to laying a foundation for a positive view on singleness.

Hsu also challenges thetraditional view of singleness as a spiritual gift or special callingand takes a consistent look at 1 Corinthians 7. In this chapter, itsays that every person has a gift, the single state or the marriedstate. Most studies that teach the traditional view are veryinconsisent and do not treat marriage as a gift, they view it asnormative. He also surveys the history of singleness and theapproaches towards it, from Old Testament Judaism, the New Testament,the Church Fathers, the Reformers and Christians today. He alsodistinguishes loneliness from solitude, the former clearly not beinggood whilst the latter can be beneficial. The Lord Jesus Christoften withdrew from the crowds and spent all night in prayer to hisheavenly Father. As he is just as human as us, this is a lesson anda model. Elijah was another man who was used to solitude and Godsustained and provided for him until he took him.

Hsu also explores thefreedom and opportunities that being single can bring, an argumentoften put forward in favour of being single. You don't have toconsider a wife or family before making decisions and can be moreuseful to serve in certain areas. On the other hand, whilst this canbe beneficial, it does not usually take away the struggle withloneliness. Being presumed upon to do an unpleasant or mundane taskwhilst the married people have romantic meals is not an appealingoption.

The chapter “rethinkingromance” explores the erroneous thinking that our partners are our“soul-mate” and how this developed from Greek philosophy. Italso gives examples of cases where couples have married as acts ofdiscipleship and argues in favour of something between an Easternmarriage and a Western one. Eastern marriages would not work inWestern culture but they are less prone to divorce. Personally, I dobelieve feelings are an essential element in a relationship and thereis no point marrying if you do not have a deep attraction to yourpartner. I also believe that going on feelings alone is dangerousalso, hence there are both objective and subjective factors toconsider in entering into marriage.

A highly recommendedresource.

Book Review: Jerry Bridges, Respectable Sins

2011-10-30T14:12:00.001-07:00

This book ischallenging and convicting and a great aid to growth in the grace andknowledge of Jesus the Messiah. Aptly subtitled “Confronting thesins we tolerate”, it does just that. Bridges has concise,informative and readable chapters on anger, irritability, impatience,slander, gossip, frustration, ungodliness, selfishness,unthankfulness and worldliness. I have been guilty of many of thesesins and I could safely guess the same is true of most believers. Thinking through what Bridges tells us is like shining a light intothe dark, ugly corners of our hearts.

Bridges allows forrighteous anger, although it is outside the scope of the volume. Righteous anger is when God's honour is violated or someone else isharmed, as opposed to our normal anger which is naturally very selfcentred. Anxiety is also sometimes a natural response to a stressfulsituation but it can also reveal a lack of trust in God. It isparticularly relevant in these dark days of financial difficulty. Admittedly it is much easier to worry than to pray, and much easierto imagine the worst than to trust in God to provide.

Bridges definesungodliness as a failure to put God first in everything we do, andeven says that most believers are to some degree ungodly. I wouldagree with him. Making short and long term plans withoutacknowledging God's governance and providence is sinful. Notthanking God for everything he has given us – including the veryair that we breathe – is both ungodly and unthankful.

Sadly, some of the sinslisted in this book – such as arrogance, dishonesty and slander –are not only tolerated in the evangelical world but activelypromoted. Slander is converted to libel in some Christian media. Asan example, I remember reading an article by a Christian periodicalsome months ago where the author was puffed up with pride about hisCalvinism and knocked down several straw men to make Arminians lookstupid. I wrote the the publisher and the author, challenging themto substantiate their accusations and present some evidence, andrebuked them for misrepresenting their brothers in Christ and for thearrogance which oozed through the article. I got an acknowledgmentbut they were too busy with an international ministry to rectify thissin. Had the author been guilty of adultery rather than slander,pride and dishonesty, the evangelical community would have been swiftto hold him to account.

Admittedly some sinsare more socially destructive than others. Sexual sin, murder andviolence ruin many lives and cause a great deal of distress. ButGod's view is different from ours and we find many “sociallyacceptable” sins rubbing shoulders with those we are quick tooppose. Slandering, covetousness and greed are listed alongsidedrunkenness and sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6 and pride anddeception are listed as “abominations” in Proverbs. Whilst theevangelical community organises it's crusades against abortion,homosexuality and prostitution, it would do well to look inside andpurge these respectable sins first.

This book is highlyrecommended.

Stuart Olyott: Pure Preaching or Racist Rant?

2011-10-29T07:17:00.001-07:00

I was horrified to hear a sermon preached by Stuart Olyott against the Jewish people whilst in the pulpit of his church at Belvidere Road in Liverpool, where he used to be the pastor. Stuart Olyott is a lecturer at the Evangelical College of Wales and author of a number of Christian books. Given his position and popularity in the Christian community, one would expect to sense the love and grace of Jesus Christ radiated from such a man. You would also expect a good, sound knowledge of the Bible. Sadly, I got the opposite. It was cold, uninspiring, dull and emotionless. The content was filled with misused Bible passages and hateful statements. At the very worst this was a racist and arrogant rant. On hearing it, I immediately started thinking of 1930s Nazi broadcasts as there was a chilling similarity in tone and temperature.

Olyott starts his message by asking readers if they are ready to die and face their maker, reminding his listeners of judgement to come, with no hint of joy or sadness in his voice. Well, his sermon may well have pushed even the happiest person over the edge. His sermon is titled “What About Israel” and is attempting to answer the question “What is a Jew” and how to we, as Christians, view the State of Israel and the Jewish people in light of the coming of Jesus Christ.

It is important to state that this is not just a theological question. It is a matter of great importance, not only for understanding God's purposes for the world but it also affects many lives and the issue of Jewish self-identity and culture is also at stake. I remember at college many years ago my tutor corrected my ethnic identity on a form from “English” to “British” and I wondered if I had put “Scottish” or “Welsh”, would she have done the same thing. This is still a sore point, as people from Scotland and Wales are allowed to have a unique identity (and rightly so) but in many places, being “English” is considered racist and wrong. I have friends from Iraq, Albania, India, China and many other countries and I respect their right to preserve their culture and unique identity that makes them what they are. Jewish people have this same right to their own culture and identity and Christian theology has historically deprived them of this, causing centuries of hurt and pain which Olyott is perpetuating.

So who are the Jews, according to Olyott? Apparently “individual Jews, in Gods eyes, are individual believers - Jew or Gentile” and he spells it very concisely and clearly when he says “The only true Jews are Christians”. He creates confusion by saying to his audience “This congregation tonight is divided into two: it is divided into Jews and Gentiles, but not physical Jews and physical Gentiles. God sees some who worship him in their hearts. Those are the only Jews [God recognises] in this world. Everybody else is a Gentile to God”.

So you have people who are Jewish by birth becoming Gentiles, and Gentiles becoming Jewish by faith. This confusion deprives the Bible of meaning, and also contradicts some of the later statements in his own sermon. He says towards the end that we “need to keep witnessing to Jews” and “thank God some of our closest Christian friends are Jews”. But surely, according to his view, all Christians are Jews and why should we witness to Jews if the all the Jews are Christians? Why does the Apostle Paul say that the gospel is to the “Jew first, and also to the Gentile” in Romans 1:16? How are we to interpret Romans 15:28:

They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings (NIV)

Let's try to apply Olyott's view to this passage:

Attempt 1: If the non-Christians have shared in the Christians spiritual blessings, the non-Christians owe it to the Christians to share their material blessings.

Attempt 2: If the Gentiles in the flesh have shared in the spiritual blessings of those who are Jews in the flesh, they owe it to the Jews in the flesh to share their material blessings.

The first statement is simply absurd. The second statement is too involved and complex and the very fact that the author simply uses “Jew” and “Gentile” according to it's natural and physical use demonstrates that it has a literal, physical meaning.

What about Romans 2:28, which Olyott has quoted to support his position that all believers are Jews:

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

The wider context indicates that Paul is talking to those are Jewish in the flesh. In verse 17 he says “Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God” and that “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (the word “you” as distinct to Gentiles is very clear). What Paul means in verses 28 and 29 is that a true meaning of Jewishness is having the faith of Abraham in addition to being physically descended from him. In other words, the “true, spiritual Israel” exists within the physical, national Israel.

Gentiles who trust in Jesus Christ, remain Gentiles even though they enjoy spiritual blessings from the Jewish people. The very fact that Paul continues to address them as Gentiles in his letters confirms this:

For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry (Romans 11:13)

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles...

Olyott may be trying to veil his hostility to Jewish people, but it clearly comes out in this statement:

Let me tell you some frank things about the earthly nation of the Jews...the wrath of God has come upon them to the uttermost. The vineyard has been taken from you and given to the Gentiles

The first allusion here is to 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16:

For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men. Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (KJV)

This tragic translation in the King James Version, and perpetuated by the NIV, is inaccurate. The New King James Version is more accurate here:

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men.

The NKJV is correct to substitute the word “Judean” where it's predecessor used “Jew”. The Greek word often translated "Jew" ("Judaioi") is also the same word for Judeans. These were Jews living in Judea. In some instances, the word "Judaioi" is used to refer to "Jews" as opposed to Gentiles. In other instances, it is used to refer to Judeans within the land of Israel. The context can be used to decide which group the writer has in mind. For example, in John 7:1 it states that Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews [Judeans] sought to kill Him. If the writer intended to mean all Jews everywhere sought to kill him, he would not have walked in Galilee either. Later on in John 7:1, it refers to a group where "no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews [or Judeans]. The "no man" that would speak openly were also Jews and therefore it makes more sense to translate this as "Judeans". It was this group that persecuted Yeshua, not the Jewish people as a whole. 1 Thessalonians 2 is referring to a localised group composed of some Judean Jews and not to all Jewish people in all times and places, contrary to what Olyott wants it to say.

The second allusion Olyott makes is to Matthew 21:43 where the Lord says that “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it”. The “you” that the Lord Jesus addresses in that verse are not the Jewish people as a whole but the specific leaders he was talking to. This is confirmed only 2 verses later:

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet

Christians who interpret the “nation” to whom the kingdom is given as the church, or the Gentiles in Olyotts view. The “nation” is not clearly identified by the Lord in that passage so Olyott is just reading his own presupposition into the text by jumping to the conclusion that the “nation” is “Gentiles”. There is also no basis, either in Scripture or common sense, for calling the Gentiles a “nation” and Gentiles certainly do not bear the fruit worthy of the Kingdom of God. The “nation” most likely refers to the Jewish nation as opposed to these leaders.

In discussing Romans 11, Olyott states that the remnant of Jews who believe now are “life from the dead” for believing Gentiles, and for the first time shows a slight hint of passion and raises his voice, as if to awaken his audience. Perhaps he has realised how dull his delivery is but unfortunately he quickly reverts back to his drone monotone. He keeps referring to the minority of Jews who believe and seems to be content to imply that they will always be a minority. This demonstrates that he does not want the entire nation to be saved. He certainly believes in no future physical restoration for them, and implicitly disagrees with those Christians who believe in a future spiritual restoration of them. He could not make his views any more clear when he said that “God had rejected the nation of the Jews. God had finished with the Jews as a nation”. To entertain the idea that “all Israel will be saved” implies that the Jewish race still exist and that God has not finished with them, which contradicts his precious theology. To suggest that God has finished with Israel an insult to God's faithfulness and integrity. If God can break his promises to Israel, he can break his promises to any of us as he cannot be trusted. We can rejoice that Olyott is wrong and that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

Aware that there are many promises of Israel's physical and spiritual restoration in the Bible, Olyott asks and answers:

What are we to make of [restoration prophecies]. Most of them were fulfilled when the Jews came back from Babylon. Some of the promises were conditional which became invalid. The Apostles did not interpret the Old Testament as do some modern scholars, but they did not understand those things. The prophets were using the language of their day to write about things that they did not understand. The Apostles interpreted them like this: Whatever the old prophets wrote about the Jew, the apostles, knowing that the true Jews are Christian believers, the apostle interpreted that of the Christian church. Whatever looked like literal languages was spiritual.

So those prophecies that have already been fulfilled when the Jews came back from Babylon were fulfilled literally but those remaining cannot be fulfilled literally? Why the inconsistency and the sudden change in the rules of interpretation? The only real basis I can see is to suit Olyott's own theological suppositions.

Olyott abuses Acts 2 and Acts 15 in an attempt to justify “spiritual interpretation” and shows his ignorance of the background of the New Testament. The New Testament was written entirely by Jewish authors and in the context of first century Judaism. The Rabbis had a system of interpretation known as midrash, which used typology to illustrate doctrine but did not build doctrine on typology. There was a literal meaning to a passage which could be used to illustrate a deeper spiritual truth but it never denied the literal, historical meaning. Examples of this can be found in Galatians 4, where the Apostle Paul uses the historical characters of Hagar as an illustration of bondage and says that “Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia”. Paul is not denying that Hagar was a historical character but simply using her as an illustration. The same principle of interpretation is true of Matthew 2:15, where the author uses Israel's exodus from Egypt as an illustration of Jesus's exit from Egypt. In Acts 2, Peter is citing Joel 2 to illustrate that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days was consistent with Old Testament prophecy. It was not the fulfilment as Joel did not even mention tongues, and Acts reported no prophecy. In saying this is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel, he was saying that it was like that. The same is true in Acts 15, where James refers to the prophecy of Amos which promised the rebuilding of God's tabernacle and Gentile worship in that tabernacle. James was not saying that this was the fulfilment of the prophecy, but simply using the prophecy to illustrate that Gentiles coming to faith in the God of Israel was clearly taught in the Jewish Scriptures, which was the point of his discussion with the the leaders. So Olyott says that the Apostles interpreted the restoration prophecies spiritually and then said that “we should do the same”. In saying that, it almost sounded like he said that “we should do the shame” which would be closer to the truth for him. Olyott states that “When we come to prophecies about the Jews which were not fulfilled we should apply them to the Christian church”. But if the principle of interpretation is spiritual, by what standard is the Christian church the recipient of the promises? By abandoning the literal meaning, you have created a free-for-all interpretation where your own imagination can make it whatever you want!

In Acts 1, the disciples asked Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time which indicates that they understood the Old Testament restoration prophecies literally. In his response, Jesus does not correct them but dignifies their question by implying that it will be done in God's time. Olyott does not mention, let alone comment on, this passage in this sermon.

Olyott also says that we need to keep witnessing to Jews, “despite what David Pawson says”. To my knowledge, David Pawson would be one of the first people to say that we need to witness to Jewish people. I don't know what he is referring to here, perhaps somebody could enlighten me as to whether David Pawson has changed his view. If he has got him mixed up with someone else, that is not only bad scholarship but inexcusably slanderous. Olyott makes more slurs against the Israeli state:

We should not take any special interest in the State of Israel. In the Middle East lives are being lost, homes are being stolen. We dare not say that God is on the side of the state of Israel and not on the side of the Arabs. How then can you go to the Arab with the gospel? He is immediately prejudiced because he somehow thinks that Christians are on the side of the regime under which he has to live...we should not identify the gospel with any political system.

This itself is a politically loaded statement which is impossible to unpack completely in this space. Lives are being lost and homes are being stolen and he says that this is the fault of the Israeli government and nation. His reference to Israel as “the regime under which he [the Arab] has to live” is loaded with animosity and assumptions which need to be challenged. Israel in fact operates like America or European countries, trying to defend and provide for it's citizens and defend itself against aggressors. The government has the same level of human corruption as the UK or America – no less but certainly no more. Let us criticise and oppose any atrocity and abuse to the Arabs where it does exist as indeed they also have a right – as individuals – to live their lives peacefully. I've been to Israel where Arabs and Jews have the same freedoms, the same citizenship rights and even operate in the government. Not everything the Israeli government does is right and they are rightly subject to the same criticisms that other nations are subject to. Lives are being lost on both sides because of terrorist aggressors determined on their destruction. Why does Olyott say nothing against the Charter of Hamas, which calls for death for the sake of Allah and the Palestinian National Covenant which incites violence as the only way to make the entire middle East an Arab state? Because he is one-sided and cares only for the Arabs. It is good to see how he can show care and concern and love for the Arabs, but chilling when you compare that with the animosity he tries to conceal – unsuccessfully - to the Jewish people.

There is also some misunderstanding shown about Christian support for the Jewish state. It is not wrong for Christians to support the right of Jewish people to have self-identity and self-determination in their own land. How would Olyott feel if England and Scotland declared war on Wales just to wipe out the Welsh, and Christians across Europe said “we should not concern ourselves with the plight of the Welsh or our Christian brothers in Wales, just concentrate on the Gospel”?

Towards the end, Olyott says “This pulpit has been graced by Ernest Lloyd and men like him, who are Hebrews after the flesh but exemplary Christians”. Yes, Mr. Olyott, Ernest Lloyd did grace that pulpit but you have DISgraced it. He ends it by saying that Christians should not devote their energy to getting excited about the state of Israel but should be devoting it to “the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ, The Christ” which he repeats in a very stern and scary way.

Olyott tells his listeners that “every blessing, every covenant, every promise ever given to the people of Israel is yours tonight”. Wow...wait a minute, does this include the promised curses also or should we just take the blessings like many Christians have done down the centuries? This sounds more like spiritual identity theft, where you take the bank account and credit cards of somebody else and become rich with it. So, moving from fraudulent use of the Bible to justify animosity and then stealing the victims identity, this sermon is truly criminal!

Book Review: David Pawson, Once Saved, Always Saved (Short Version)

2011-02-06T01:02:00.001-08:00

Book Review: David Pawson, Once Saved, Always Saved?

This is one of the most depressing books I have ever read. This volume can be summed in Pawson's own words:

“It seems so easy to lose our inheritance and so hard to keep it. That, I believe, is the truth of it and we all need to realise it...Yes, this chapter, and indeed, this whole book could easily lead to despair.

So what we have in this book is a hopeless gospel.

Exegetical problems

Pawson's exegesis is deficient. Pawson suggests that John's gospel is written to believers and should not be used as an evangelistic tract. My belief, on reading John's gospel and the accompanying commentaries, is that it was written for a universal audience – both believers and unbelievers and not for believers only, contrary to Pawson's belief.

The passage 2 John 8-9, used to refute OSAS, is clearly referring to rewards and not salvation when one simply reads the words. The verse “he puts his hand to the plough and looks back is not fit for service in the kingdom of God” is not about being eternally saved but about being useful to serve. Pawson uses Judas Iscariot as an example of a believer who lost his salvation and uses John 17:12 to demonstrate that Christ had failed in preserving him and yet it clear that Judas was an unbeliever (John 6:64). There are many other passages used by Pawson which I have examined on my blog.

Historical and theological considerations

Whilst Pawson does demonstrate some understanding of the fifth point of Calvinism, Perseverance of the Saints, he does not demonstrate a proper understanding of the more basic OSAS position. In this view, salvation is through accepting God's mercy through the Lord Jesus Christ, the lamb of God who takes away our sin. Holiness and purity is a response to this grace and mercy. Pawson never discusses this issue of God's fatherly discipline of believers and presents OSAS as a cheap gospel whereby believers can sin and get away with it. This is a caricature and a gross misrepresentation.

Pawson has come very close to Open Theism in questioning God's foreknowledge. He favourably cites Pinnock's volume The Openness of God which as caused no small furore in evangelicalism by denying God's foreknowledge of the future.

Pawson's criticism of the doctrine of divine impassibility is commendable and I share his rejection of it. He correctly points out that God is very much emotionally involved in human history. He was deeply grieved at the wickedness of the human prior to sending flood and in many other instances in Scripture. However we cannot equally deny his omniscience and immutability. God has perfect emotions and also has perfect knowledge of past, present and future. Reconciling this is indeed beyond human comprehension but I am content to be comforted by it. Pawson wants this to be simplified and thus reduce God into something he can understand.

A more complete review can be found on the previous post here.

Book Review: David Pawson, Once Saved, Always Saved

2011-02-06T00:48:00.000-08:00

This is one of the most depressing books I have ever read. I have to commend David Pawson for making this book accessible and readable, he does not overwhelm readers with theological terminology but speaks simply but still argues his case. The motive for his book is to challenge Christians to holy living. He is concerned with carnality in the Christian church. This volume can be summed in Pawson's own words:

So what we have in this book is a hopeless gospel. The good news, at best, is that a few people may be saved if they hold on tight, and even they may not make it.

Exegetical problems

Pawson's exegesis is deficient. Pawson suggests that John's gospel is written to believers and should not be used as an evangelistic tract. The fact is that the John's prologue, whilst not necessarily clear to a Gentile audience, would be accessible to many Jewish people who know the Tanakh. On this basis, Pawson also denies that John 3:16 is the gospel. My belief, on reading John's gospel and the accompanying commentaries, is that it was written for a universal audience – both believers and unbelievers and not for believers only, contrary to Pawson's belief. Whilst context should never be disregarded, we cannot use it as an excuse to deny the plain meaning of what it says. The message of John 3:16 is very clear that a child can understand it:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved . 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Surely this announcement is so important it should never be hidden from “unbelievers” just because of a pre-supposition that it was not written directly to them. Pawson uses the “continuous argument” on John 3:16 which I have refuted in another article.

One of the texts Pawson discusses is Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. He argues that because this passage is written to believers, it is a warning to continue in the faith. However I see this as a gracious appeal and a reminder of what we have been saved from. The context of this verse reads:

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed ? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In contrast to what we deserved before our salvation, God's gift is a cause for rejoicing and praising God, not morbid worry that we may lose it. Pawson undermines the whole force of Romans 8:39, the famous verse that nothing can separate us from the love of God, by saying that “we ourselves” are omitted from that list. However this is covered by the phrase “nor any other creature” (after a large list of things that cannot do this). The passage 2 John 8-9, used to refute OSAS, is clearly referring to rewards and not salvation when one simply reads the words. The verse “he puts his hand to the plough and looks back is not fit for service in the kingdom of God” is not about being eternally saved but about being useful to serve. He fails to make the distinction between service, rewards and salvation and assumes they are synonymous. I was confused by his discussion on the verse “a woman shall be saved in child-bearing”. He seems to indicate that it means eternal, spiritual salvation and admits that this would mean “salvation by works with a vengeance”, yet he did not explain the actual meaning of this verse or resolve it with his profession that salvation is not by works. He seemed to just throw that in for the very purpose of causing confusion.

His chapter "those tantilising texts" attempts to deal with some texts that affirm eternal security, yet it is only three pages and only a very few considered. He says that 1 Peter has nothing to say on the matter when in fact it clearly says that "we are guarded by the power of God through faith". He uses Judas Iscariot as an example of a believer who lost his salvation and uses John 17:12 to demonstrate that Christ had failed in preserving him:

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept , and none of them is lost , but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled .

In contrast to Pawson, A.W. Pink explains this passage properly and demonstrates that Christ did not fail:

Note carefully, He did not say, "except the son of perdition," rather, "but the son of perdition." He belonged not to "them," that is, to those who had been given Him by the Father. The disjunctive participle is used here, as frequently in Scripture, to contrast those belonging to two different classes. Compare Matthew 12:4; Acts 27:22; Revelation 21:27. Not one of them given to Christ can or will be lost. "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am."

(Exposition on the Gospel of John, http://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/John/john_58.htm).

Sir Robert Anderson came to same conclusion:

This clearly implies that one of Christ’s God-given ones may be finally lost. But the words the Lord actually used admit of a wholly different meaning. According to Bloomfield - and upon a question of Greek there is no higher authority - "ei me is for alla when a negative sentence has preceded." And when words admit of different meanings, one of which is in accordance with, and the other in opposition to, other Scriptures, we must always accept the former. We cannot doubt, therefore, that in this passage the Lord used ei me in the same sense as in Luke iv. 25 - 27.

In the famine of Elijah’s day there were many widows in Israel, but to none of them was the prophet sent ; but (ci me) he was sent to a woman of’ Sidon. There were many lepers in Israel in Elisha’s day, but no one of them was cured ; but (ci me) Naaman the Syrian was cured. In these passages the ei me does not introduce an exceptional case within the specified category, but a case belonging to a wholly different category. As Dean Plumptre puts it tersely, it is not an exception but a contrast (Ellicott’s N.T. Commentary). To quote yet another instance, we read in Revelation xxi. 27, that there shall in no wise enter into the holy Jerusalem anything unclean. or he that maketh an abomination or a lie. But (ei me - in marked contrast) they who are written in the Lamb’s book of life shall enter there.

Now, let us read our present verse in this way, ignoring a punctuation which is arbitrary "Those that Thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost ; but (ei me) the son of perdition is lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." And when thus read, the Lord’s words, instead of casting a doubt upon the truth that all His God-given ones are safe, becomes a signal confirmation of that truth. (Misunderstood Texts of The New Testament ,Chapter Four).

The word “but” in the passage under discussion signifies something belonging to a different category rather than an exception within the same category. Judas Iscariot never truly came to trust in Christ to begin with and even John makes it clear that Judas was an unbeliever (John 6:64). Pawson is in error to use Judas Iscariot as an example to argue his case.

Pawson states that anti-charismatics who say that “speaking in tongues is of the devil” are close to commiting the “unforgivable sin” of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”. Whilst I disagree with the anti-charismatics, I do not think that this comes anywhere near it. It was a sin committed by the Pharisees who had rejected the Lord's ministry and rejected the evidence of the Holy Spirit to rationalise their rejection. As the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts and bears witness of Christ Jesus, blasphemy on the grounds of demon-possession consigns the unbeliever to no alternative but divine judgment. There are many other passages used by Pawson which I have examined on my blog.

Historical and theological considerations

The historical and theological discussions in this book are also faulty. Pawson at one point equates OSAS believers with covenant/replacement theologians. This is not accurate as the Brethren and most dispensationalists believe in OSAS. Pawson states that his book presents the “Arminan view” on OSAS but can he claim that all Arminians will agree with him? The OSAS question has been a major debating point between Arminians and it is is fair to say that the majority of Arminians reject OSAS but not all. Pawson himself rightly states that Arminius would not commit himself to either position. Conversely, Pawson associates OSAS with Calvinism but ignores the fact that many OSAS advocates are not Calvinists (C Gordon Olson and Dave Hunt are two examples).

Whilst Pawson does demonstrate some understanding of the fifth point of Calvinism, Perseverance of the Saints, he does not demonstrate a proper understanding of the more basic OSAS position held by others like D.L. Moody, Billy Graham H.A. Ironside, Roger Price, Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Charles Ryrie. In this view, salvation is through accepting God's mercy through the Lord Jesus Christ, the lamb of God who takes away our sin. Holiness and purity is a response to this grace and mercy. Pawson never discusses this issue of God's fatherly discipline of believers and presents OSAS as a cheap gospel whereby believers can sin and get away with it. This is a caricature and a gross misrepresentation. In the OSAS position, no true believer is free to sin without consequence. Consider King David, who kept silent about his sin of adultery and murder for some time, under God's heavy hand to drive him to repentance (cf. Psalm 32). If persisted, disobedience can lead to illness and even untimely death (1 Corinthians 11:30). If Pawson is concerned about any lack of holy living amongst believers, he needs to stop blaming the OSAS doctrine. In fact, I think his view is far more detrimental to holiness as it leads to introspection and, in his own admission, potentially to despair.

Pawson has come very close to Open Theism in questioning God's foreknowledge. Whilst he accepts God's omniscience of past and present, he asks whether God knows every detail about the future. He favourably cites Pinnock's volume The Openness of God which as caused no small furore in evangelicalism by denying God's foreknowledge of the future. This theology, whilst accepted by Pawson, has been soundly refuted by traditional Arminians. I believe that Pawson's heterodoxy on this view is the foundation of his rejection of OSAS.

There are many reasons to reject Open Theism. Fulfilled prophecy is one example. Consider also Christ's relationship with Peter. The Lord knew in advance that Peter was going to deny him three times before the crowing of the cockeral and yet he loved him and prayed for his faith not to fail and thus preserved him. Jude states that the Lord is able to keep us from falling but Pawson believes that Christ lacks both the power and knowledge to do so.

I also share Pawson's rejection of the Calvinistic understanding of predestination, especially the double-decree version and the problem of reconciling that to verses which teach that God loves the whole world (eg. John 3:16). He also rightly says that treats us as human beings and not puppets, a charge which can be levelled at hyper-Calvinists. He also rightly teaches that the old nature is still very much alive in the believer and needs to be battled with. I also say amen to his rejection of “irresistable grace” and his assertion that God's grace can be resisted by both believers and unbelievers. I disagree with him on the consequences of believers resisting God's grace but not the possibility of it's occurrence.

Having listened to many of David Pawson's tapes in the past, he demonstrates a morbid tendency to seize any verse he can find to undermine God's grace and scare people into thinking they can lose their salvation and shoehorns this into most of his books and sermons regardless of the topic. Overall, not a book I would recommend.

Romans 8v29: The Foreknowledge of God

2010-12-04T14:23:00.001-08:00

The link between Gods foreknowledge and his fore-ordination means that with his foreknowledge he arranges everything to fit into his overall plan and purpose. This truth is made clear in Romans 8:29-30.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Some see a predestination to salvation here but again it is based upon foreknowledge. In this passage also, it is linked but separate from predestination. If, as some Calvinists argue, they are the same thing why are both terms used? This would make the verse say “whom he predestined he also predestined”? Foreknow, in this context, is personal and means that he has a deep knowledge about the subject of foreknowledge. Who are those whom God foreknew? Simply those whom God knew in advance would love him – believers (v28). God assured Jeremiah of this:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations (Jeremiah 1:5)

Based upon Gods foreknowledge of those that love him, he worked out everything in their lives in advance and predetermined their destiny to be conformed to the image of his Son, that is, sanctification. Planning the end from the beginning, he also determined the means by which they would get saved and then glorified. Whilst to us glorification is a future act, they are seen by God as having already been completed. M.R. Vincents commentary on Romans 8:29 is excellent:

Did foreknow (proegnw). Five times in the New Testament. In all cases it means foreknow. Acts. xxvi. 5; 1 Pet. i. 20; 2 Pet. iii. 17; Romans xi. 2. It does not mean foreordain. It signifies prescience, not preelection. "It is God's being aware in His plan, by means of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to salvation, He knows whom He has to destine thereto" (Meyer). It is to be remarked:

1. That proegnw foreknew is used by the apostle as distinct and different from predestinated (prowrisen).

2. That, strictly speaking, it is coordinate with foreordained. "In God is no before." All the past, present, and future are simultaneously present to Him. In presenting the two phases, the operation of God's knowledge and of His decretory will, the succession of time is introduced, not as metaphysically true, but in concession to human limitations of thought. Hence the coordinating force of kai also.

3. That a predetermination of God is clearly stated as accompanying or (humanly speaking) succeeding, and grounded upon the foreknowledge.

4. That this predetermination is to the end of conformity to the image of the Son of God, and that this is the vital point of the passage.

5. That, therefore, the relation between foreknowledge and predestination is incidental, and is not contemplated as a special point of discussion. God's foreknowledge and His decree are alike aimed at holy character and final salvation.

This is a great truth for us who are believers. Knowing that a loving and just God is in complete control of our futures should be of great comfort and encouragement. Nothing will surprise God. Remember that when Peter denied Christ and let him down badly, Christ already knew. In the same way we may let God down very badly in our lives and yet none of it will come as a surprise to him. Before he saved us he knew how bad we were. This should cause us to take comfort.

Appointed to Eternal Life - By Whom?

2010-12-04T14:10:00.000-08:00

Acts 13:48 is a verse used to promote election to salvation:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Here it seems to say that only those believed had been ordained. What does the word ordained mean in this verse? It is the same word tasso which is used in 1 Corinthians 16:15 in relation to those who devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints. A.T. Robertson commented here that they “appointed themselves to be ministers to the saints that needed it”. Other alternate meanings of appointed include arranged, set, disposed, ordered or placed. Acts 13:48 does not actually state that they were appointed by God to eternal life, but that they were appointed to eternal life. The agent is not mentioned in the text. It stands in contrast to the local group of Jews who had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (v46). The local Gentiles had set themselves to eternal life by hearing the word of the Lord and believed.

Is Continuing Faith necessary for salvation?

2010-11-10T13:47:00.000-08:00

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up : 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved . 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:14-18, KJV)

These great words of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are the best known in all Scripture. It assures us that all that is required for eternal salvation from sin and for eternal life is to believe, or trust, in Jesus Christ. This wonderful gospel has been undermined by many Christians who teach that we must continue trusting in Christ all our lives in order to remain eternally saved. To support this view, they emphasise the fact that the word “believe” is in the continuous tense. Most Calvinists, including John MacArthur, teach that all those who are true believers will persevere in the faith and if one defects, then it demonstrates that he never had true salvation to begin with. Most Arminians, including David Pawson and Robert Shank, teach that one can possess eternal life today and can lose it tomorrow if he stops believing. Either way, we have to wait until the end of our lives to know whether we will make it to heaven. What a hopeless gospel.

Before we look at this particular argument, let us consider other Biblical data. There are instances in Scripture where the past tense is used in relation to believing and salvation:

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved ; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed : in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues. (Mark 16:16, 17, NASB)

To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12)

Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name” (John 2:2)

The Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. (John 16:27)

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29) [Why does not the Lord say “blessed are those who have not seen and yet keep on believing?]

Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. (Acts 19:18)

Also consider the good news that the Apostle Paul gave to the Phillippian jailor:

And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open , he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled . 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying , Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in , and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said , Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? 31 And they said , Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved , and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

The command to believe here is not a command for constant repeated action. It is a command to perform one simple action (in Greek known as the aorist imperative). The same is true in our Lord's words to the crowd:

27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:27-29).

Again, the words “to believe in the one he has sent” is a once and for all action, not continuous. So what are we to make regarding the continuous tense in John 3:16 and similar passages? Does it mean that a simple, once and for all belief, is not enough to save us? Not at all. The Lord Jesus uses the example of the serpent in the wilderness as an illustration of God's permanent provision for sin, Jesus himself. This is from Numbers 21 in the Old Testament:

6 The LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died . 7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said , We have sinned , for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten , when he looketh upon it, shall live . 9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Simply to look at the serpent once provided the healing. Likewise, to come to Christ once – today – is the means of salvation from sin. In the New Testament, the continuous tense is also the present tense and is often used to illustrate the nature of the action and not necessarily the duration of it:

Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. (Matt 10:41, the verb “receive” is in continuous tense, but it clearly does not mean “keeps receiving”. It simply illustrates the fact of the reception.).

Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he [The Messiah]. (John 4:26, the word “speak” is in continuous tense, the conversation was current but did not last forever).

After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world (John 6:14, the words “to come into the world” is in continuous tense, but the incarnation is not a continuous event).

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:32-33, Jesus Christ does not continuously come down from heaven).

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (John 5:24. A natural reading of “hear” in this passage illustrates that it is present but not necessarily continuous. The fact that he has already passed into life demonstrates the once and for all nature of salvation. The verse does not read “he who keeps hearing my word and believing him who sent me will not be condemned but IS in the process of passing from death into life”).

So the present tense in John 3:16 does not mean that we have to keep believing in order to be saved, and it does not mean that we can cease believing, end up lost and then start believing and be saved all over again. If you believe on him now, you shall be saved. The present tense of the verb also shows that TODAY is the day of salvation, not tomorrow. TODAY if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart. In John 6, we see the airtight case for the believers security:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

If you believe on Christ today, or have already come to Jesus Christ in the past, then God the Father has given you to Christ for safekeeping and protection. It is his job, as a good shepherd, not to lose you. And God never fails. The vilest offender who truly believes, THAT MOMENT from Jesus a pardon receives. Not at the end of life when your performance and quality has been measured, but now.

Note: Scripture quotations here are from the NIV unless otherwise indicated.

Book Review: David Pawson, Defending Christian Zionism

2010-10-31T00:48:00.000-07:00

This volume attempts to meet a need in the Christian world at the moment - a reasoned response to Steven Sizers vicious anti-Israel polemics. Prior to writing this, Pawson had met with Sizer and did not resolve their differences. Pawson's title does what it says on the cover although it leaves several other issues to be addressed. It specifically focuses on Sizers attacks on Christian Zionism, whilst also referring to Colin Chapman and John Stott at relevant points. This article will first examine the positive aspects of Pawsons book and then some negative aspects.

As is usual with David Pawson, he writes for the layman and not for the academic. This means it can be read and understood by the average Christian and not just a theology student and this is commendable. His chapter "The Promised Land" specifically addresses the question regarding the apparent New Testament "silence" on the territorial restoration of Israel, an argument which Sizer is so fond of using. Pawson rightly argues that just because an Old Testament doctrine is not repeated in the New Testament is more likely due to a lack of need for non-repitition rather than positive cancellation. Indeed Sizers position that the Biblical teaching of the land is superceded by it's non repitition is actually an argument from silence. Pawson also demonstrates that the underlying assumption behind this "New Testament silence" objection is also a fallacy in his discussions on the gospels and Romans 9-11. Pawson also points out that the reason the Apostle Paul seldom mentions the subject in his epistles is because he is writing to a Gentile audience and as such is not personally relevant to them.

Pawson's treatment of the relationship between the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Messianic Covenants is also very good. Pawson, rightly in my view, argues that the Messianic Covenant has replaced the Mosaic but not the Abrahamic. This is important as this is where replacement theology often goes wrong. By this failure to distinguish the Abrahamic Covenant from the Mosaic, replacementists teach that both are no longer effective. Pawsons treatment of the history of modern Israel, from AD70 to the present day, and his perspective on the Arab-Israeli wars is accurate and readable for the novice. However, I can only confirm it's accuracy as I've read the works of historians such as Martin Gilbert and Efraim Karsh. Pawson does not footnote any sources and therefore any reader indoctrinated with media propoganda will immediately reject his views as erroneous.

In his chapter "The Second Coming" Pawson aligns himself to the classic premillennial position (a post-tribulational, premillennial return of Jesus Christ). He maintains that most Christian Zionists have a premillennial understanding of eschatology and that there is a clear connection between one's eschatology and attitudes to modern Israel and portrays amillennialism and postmillennialism in an anti-Israel light. He states regarding the former:

"The majority of evangelical Anglicans, for example, would probably call themselves 'a-millennial', after the major protestant reformers, Luther and Calvin, which could explain the widespread ignorance and indifference concerning Israel". (p145).

He describes the latter view, postmillennialism, in a similar light:

"The physical restoration of Israel, either people or place, has no part in the scheme of things, though some allow for a spiritual revival among the Jews, sweeping many into the church before the end (based on Romans 11:26). All postmillennials share the same negative attitudes towards the modern state of Israel" (p143).

Pawson is making a sweeping generalisation here and tars all proponents of these views with the same brush. It is true that many amillennialists and postmillennialists are anti-Israel or replacementists but this is not the case for all. Steve Schlissel, a Messianic Jew and Pastor of Messiah's Covenant Community Church in Brooklyn, New York is a pro-Israel postmillennialist. The same is true of Erroll Hulse, whose volume The Restoration of Israel is written from a pro-Israel and postmillennial perspective. Hulse lists many other Bible teachers, past and present, who share his views. Martyn Lloyd Jones is a classic example of a pro-Israel amillennialist. Although I hold to a dispensational viewpoint on eschatology, courtesy and brotherly kindness demands that believers in other camps are represented fairly and accurately.

This brings us to the next problem: Pawsons treatment of dispensationalism. Whilst his rejection of amillennialism and postmillennalism is dismissive, his treatment and rejection of dispensationalism is extensive. To his credit, he lists some of the positive things dispensationalism has brought into the wider church before expounding his criticisms. His commendations include the literal interpretion of Scripture, restoring the hope of Messiahs return and paying more attention to God's purposes for Israel. His criticisms are in many ways unfair and he affirms his agreement with much of Sizers criticisms of this viewpoint. Like Sizer, Pawson implies that Darby was influenced and by, and associated with, Catholic beliefs. Whilst Sizer cites spurious sources for this accusation, Pawson does not footnote his sources at all.

Pawson's objection that "not a single text says Jesus will return twice" (p29) can be answered by the fact that not a single text in the Tanakh says that Messiah will come twice even though he accepts this. The argument that "not a single text says that there are seven dispensations" can be answered by the fact that not a single text says that there are five covenants - something which he later teaches. In fact, not a single text states that Messiah will be a Nazarene, though Matthew 2:23 attributes this to the Tanakh. The rabbinic New Testament writers just read "between the lines" in the Scripture and I believe Darby did the same - whether his conclusion is right or wrong is another issue. This is why I hold to a dispensational view loosely and not dogmatically. Pawsons demand for proof-texting and his rejection of inference can be turned against his own views.

Pawson also lists several "temptations" that dispensationalists are apparently prone to. This includes a non-evangelisation policy of Christian organisations assisting the immigration of Jewish people to Israel, an uncritical acceptance of Israeli government policies, an aversion to polical or social action and ignoring the plight of Israeli and Arab believers. Why Pawson believes that dispensationalists are uniquely prone to this and why he believes that Christian Zionists of his own position are free from this tendency is a mystery. Again he is factually incorrect at best and slanderous at worst. Most Christian organsitions facilitating Jewish immigration to Israel are not dispensational in their views. The ICEJ and Bridges For Peace are two examples of Christian organisations assisting Jewish immigration to Israel and yet they have no doctrinal statement. In light of this, how can Pawson and Sizer deduce that they are "dispensational?". In private conversations with many associated with these organisations, I have heard many of them categorically reject dispensationalism in general and the pre-tribulational rapture in particular.

Furthermore, those "Christian Zionists" that are dispensational are very active in evangelism and social action - Ariel Ministries, Chosen People Ministries and the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry are classic examples of this. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, one of the leading Messianic and dispensational Bible teachers today, has criticised those organisations that have a non-missionising policy for that very reason. The dispensational Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry started in the 1940s by providing food and refuge for Jewish people attempting to escape the holocaust and are today very active in educating readers against Pro-Palestinian propaganda and fighting holocaust denial. Tony Pearce, who Pawson identifies as a dispensationalist, was the director of the UK based Messianic Testimony for many years which existed for the very purpose of bringing the gospel to Jewish people. In light of all this, how can Pawson maintain that dispensationalists have a tendency to withhold the gospel from the Jewish people?

No book by David Pawson would be complete without a potshot at the "Once Saved Always Saved" doctrine so he seizes his chance when discussing the Olive Tree in Romans 11. He says the threat that Gentiles can be "cut off" like Israel was is "death knell" to the doctrine of OSAS. Pawson fails to recognise that the warning is to Gentiles corporately and not to individuals. Considering it's irrelevance to Defending Christian Zionism, we can be thankful that this is the only time this topic comes up in the book.

Sadly Pawsons book will only appeal to classic premillennialists. Whilst the historical information relating to the political state of Israel is useful from a research perspective, his faulty theological discussions will only serve to anger postmillennialists, amillennialists and dispensationalists. In fact I would say that both Sizer and Pawson owe proponents of these views an apology for misrepresentation.

Book Review: R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved

2010-10-31T00:46:00.000-07:00

This is by far the best book I have read on the issue of Eternal Security. Although Kendall has in recent years gone off the rails in some areas (particularly his endorsement of Paul Cain), I still like some of his earlier writings (including this one). The fact that the title of the book does not contain a question mark at the end, unlike David Pawsons volume, demonstrates that he teaches in favour of eternal security. At the start he tells how the doctrine was alien to his own feelings and church background and is convinced of the truth of the doctrine by a study of the scriptures and by the Holy Spirit.

Kendall defines the doctrine of OSAS as stating that anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and truly accepts him as saviour from their sins will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack thereof) will accompany such faith. However he anticipates the objection that this doctrine may be abused and therefore deals with this objection very well. The fact that God chastises disobedient believers in this life and judges believers works in the future when we stand before him shows that our character and conduct here and now do have consequences. We are not free to sin and get away with it.

Kendal also expounds the value of this doctrine very well. It is the only basis for Christian assurance and godliness. Early in my Christian life I was taught that one could lose his salvation and it does not produce the intended result - it only cripples the believer with fear. Resting secure in God's security does not produce laxity but is the real motivation for service and sanctification due to the freedom it brings.

Kendal rightly distinguishes the doctrine of OSAS from the doctrine of The Perseverance of The Saints. The latter embraces the former but adds more to it - the belief that the saints persevere in godliness which assures them of eternal life. This demonstrates three basic positions on the issue of eternal security:

1. Loss of salvation - a backsliding believer will lose his salvation and will not enter heaven.
2. Perserverance of the Saints (strict Calvinism). A believer will not backslide and therefore will enter heaven.
3. OSAS - a believer can backslide and come under the discipline of God here and now, lose eternal reward and will remain eternally saved.

Kendalls position, and my position also, is the third. It is less complicated than the other two, forms a basis of assurance whilst at the same time not allowing laxity. This view is by no means unique to Kendall but is shared by many moderate Calvinists and many moderate Arminians. This view also comes under fierce criticism from advocates of the other two positions - David Pawson, a loss of salvation advocate, notes Kendall's volume and John MacArthur, a confused strict Calvinist, criticises Kendall for daring to "attack" the Westminster Confession of Faith by disagreeing with it. Both have either misunderstood or misrepresented the OSAS position.

Kendall does not systematically go through texts but exegetes various texts throughout his chapters covering various issues associated with it. This covers both the passages that support eternal security and the passages often used against it, both of which he exegetes very well.

Phillip Jensen: Preaching Calvinism or Slandering Arminians?

2010-10-30T02:27:00.000-07:00

Calvinist author Phillip Jensen wrote an article attacking Arminianism in an article published by St. Matthias Media. The article can be found on his website here. As someone who is closer to Arminianism than to Calvinism, I found his article inaccurate and slanderous. The following statements in particular are offensive:

"Arminianism always underestimates how sinful we are as well as overestimating the significance of our actions in reconciling us to God and God to us."

"[Arminian Sermons] tickle the ear in saying how good, wonderful, moral and spiritual we are while burdening us with legalistic rules and regulations"

I wonder if Jensen has ever heard an Arminian sermon. He fails to provide any examples to substantiate his accusations against his Arminian brothers in Christ and his tone smacks of arrogance and ignorance. Arminians, like Calvinists, have theological variations within their ranks and many of them are Evangelical. You can never accuse John Wesley, for example, of "tickling our ears" and telling people wonderful they are.

I have read many works by both Calvinist and Arminian authors, and have profited from reading both. I admire men of God in both camps and have seen their passionate defence of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, a God-centred emphasis in preaching and a passion for the lost. As brothers we need to treat each other with respect and this Jensen does not do. Jensen continues his rant against Arminians:

"In reality it fails to listen to God’s diagnosis of our problems and the remedy of His glorious plan of salvation. It turns the centre of our attention onto us instead of onto God and Christ Jesus"

That can easily be turned around. One Arminian view of election is that God elects us "in Christ" and not "to be in Christ", which means that it is Christ-centred. God has chosen Christ alone and he is the means of salvation and election. The Calvinist view, on the other hand, teaches that God elects people to believe in Christ. It is the latter view which is in fact less Christ-centred and more self-centred. The feeling that God has chosen me and not my neighbour presents a temptation towards personal pride.

Jensen is right in saying that "The “Calvinist on knees and Arminian in pulpit” view is an insult to both. say an Arminian becomes a Calvinist on his knees because he depends upon the sovereignty of God displays ignorance. Arminians do believe in the sovereignty of God, although we balance it with other Biblical truths (such as the love of God to a lost world, his faithfulness to his word). I do believe God's sovereignty only operates in harmony with his moral perfections (for example, our sovereign God cannot lie and he cannot just let us all into heaven without justice being done against sin).

Further, if a Calvinist is to be consistent in his prayer life, he should pray "Lord if you have elected my unbelieving friends to salvation please save them, if not be pleased not to save them". I don't know if any Calvinist does pray like that, but unless they do they have no right to mock Arminians for inconsistency.

In my discussions with Calvinists who slam Arminianism, I have yet to meet one who has ever read any Arminian material. All they know is that Arminius was a heretic because their favourite Calvinistic preacher says so, and that is hardly fair. Some months ago I wrote to St. Matthias Media who published this article and received only an acknowledgment from the publisher, but time has been given for a reply before posting this.

Revisiting Sodom

2010-10-29T15:55:00.000-07:00

Whilst travelling in the Israeli desert two years ago, my friends and I drove from the Dead Sea to Eilat and drove by the Salt Sea and a pillar called “Lot’s Wife”. It was an experience to see the remains of Sodom in the desert and walk through this place referred to in the Bible. I want to revisit the story of this ancient city in the Bible. Why was it destroyed with no remains except ashes? The traditional answer provided by Christians is because the men of Sodom were homosexuals and God destroyed them for that reason. This is not entirely accurate and we need to study the wider context.

The first mention of Sodom is in Genesis 13:13 where it succinctly says that “the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly”. How were these men exceedingly bad sinners? In Isaiah 1, God compares rebellious Israel’s behaviour to Sodom, listing many sins such as idolatry, forsaking God, failing to execute justice for the poor and offering meaningless sacrifices. In Jeremiah 23, we are told that Sodom was guilty of deception and adultery. In Ezekiel 16 the sins of pride, laziness and greed are added to this list. Homosexual activity is likely mentioned by Jude when he condemns the men of Sodom for “going after strange flesh”. This could be taken in a wider sense to mean all forms of fornication and adultery – a craving after flesh which is outside of God’s intended boundaries. So we see a wide range of sins committed by the men of Sodom.

God promised Abraham that he would not destroy the city if he could find ten righteous men. This is because God is merciful and does not take pleasure in judging people. He sent two angels to visit the city and sadly ten righteous men could not be found. In Genesis 19 we see the straw that breaks the camel’s back: attempted gang rape. God sends fire from heaven to destroy this city in his wrath. This is indeed a warning to the nations today, not just a warning for gays and lesbians but a warning for all people everywhere. It reminds that God judges all kinds of ungodly behaviour. I would dare to suggest that the other sins of Sodom - adultery, greed, laziness, deception and pride are more commonplace today than homosexuality and are just as likely to bring God’s judgment upon our nation. Incidentally, the sins of deception and pride are condemned in Proverbs 6 as “abominations” and it does say elsewhere in the Bible that God hates liars. I believe all human beings have, at some point in their life, told a lie and been guilty of pride in some degree, including myself. John Calvin states regarding the account of Sodom:

Here, in a single crime, Moses sets before our eyes a lively picture of Sodom. For it is hence obvious, how diabolical was their consent in all wickedness, since they all so readily conspired to perpetrate the most abominable crime. The greatness of their iniquity and wantonness, is apparent from the fact, that, in a collected troop, they approach, as enemies, to lay siege to the house of Lot. How blind and impetuous is their lust; since, without shame, they rush together like brute animals! how great their ferocity and cruelty; since they reproachfully threaten the holy man, and proceed to all extremities! Hence also we infer, that they were not contaminated with one vice only, but were given up to all audacity in crime, so that no sense of shame was left them. And Ezekiel (as we have above related) accurately describes from what beginnings of evil they had proceeded to this extreme turpitude, (Ezekiel 16:49) What Paul says, also refers to the same point: that God punished the impiety of men, when he cast them into such a state of blindness, that they gave themselves up to abominable lusts, and dishonored their own bodies. (Romans 1:18.) But when the sense of shame is overcome, and the reins are given to lust, a vile and outrageous barbarism necessarily succeeds, and many kinds of sin are blended together, so that a most confused chaos is the result. But if this severe vengeance of God so fell upon the men of Sodom, that they became blind with rage, and prostituted themselves to all kinds of crime, certainly we shall scarcely be more mildly treated, whose iniquity is the less excusable, because the truth of God has been more clearly revealed unto us. (emphasis added).

The purpose of this short study is place this Biblical account in context and to challenge Christians to remember that homosexuality is only one sin among many. In discussing the isssue, we should stick to the other Biblical texts (such as those in Romans 1 and Leviticus) Sadly, the gay community have been uniquely persecuted by Christians and blamed exclusively for the fall of Sodom. This is absolutely wrong. God’s wrath is upon ALL sinners (John 3:36) and he loved all sinners enough to send the his only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the sacrifice for all our sins.

Does God Have Emotions?

2010-10-18T09:06:00.001-07:00

In my discussions with some Reformed Christians and in reading their books, I keep coming up against a supposition that the Bible does not mean what it says. The belief that Israel means “the Church”, that the world of John 3 verse 16 means “the elect” and the rejection of premillennialism illustrate this supposition. Words must be redefined and passages explained away to fit into their Reformed theology. This is also true of the Reformed doctrine of “divine impassibility”. Consider the following passage and two popular Christian commentaries upon it:

5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (Genesis 6)

Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. (John Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis).

We submit that the words "It repented the Lord" is an accommodation to our finite intelligence (A.W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God).

I have never seen such a blatant mockery of Scripture. Calvin’s statement is not a commentary, it is a contradiction. The politicians in Westminster followed Calvin’s lead and stated in their confession that God has no passions. What a hopeless doctrine. It is no wonder that, according to Calvin and his followers, God can be unmoved and impassive by assigning a man to eternal destruction. If God no emotions, he does not care about the millions starving in Africa, he does not care about those who have perished in holocausts and massacres. He does not care about your suffering and pain and he does not delight in your joys.

Does the Bible mean what it says when he tells Israel that they are the apple of his eye? Is Paul just joking when he says “do not grieve the Holy Spirit?” Did God’s anger really burn against Moses in the burning bush? Did God really grieve that he made Saul king of Israel? Was Isaiah speaking the truth when he said that God was distressed with the Israelites in all their distress? I believe so, as the Bible means what it says.

Christians should discard the doctrine of divine impassibility and not drink from Calvin’s polluted well. Such terminology as “divine impassibility” is neither Biblical nor helpful. It deprives the Bible of meaning and it affects our view of God’s character, his relationship to us and the practical outworking of that in our lives. In rejecting it, we must also remember that God’s emotions are part of his perfect character and in perfect harmony with his omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. We experience emotions because we are made in God’s image but because we are sinners, our emotions can be sinful and misdirected. God’s emotions are an expression of his moral perfections. God’s compassion was aroused when he saw the sufferings of the Israelites under Pharaoh. God did not slay us in his anger and later regretted it because of his love for us. Neither did he feel sentimental and turn a blind eye to our sin. God sent his Son the Lord Jesus Christ into the world to satisfy his justice and to demonstrate his love for us. It was also an act of wisdom and God planned the crucifixion of Christ in his foreknowledge of human history. Let us praise and bless this wonderful, marvellous, incomprehensible and omnipotent God.

Is Christianity a Hate Religion?

2010-09-30T14:44:00.000-07:00

I am increasingly getting embarrassed to call myself a Christian. This is not due to being ashamed of Christ but being ashamed of many who bear the name Christian and what they do. Pastor Terry Jones has this month incurred international outrage for threatening to burn the Koran publicly to mark 9/11. Such a dangerous and provocative action just adds fuel to a raging fire. Whilst admittedly there are extremists elements within Islam, I wonder how many good, sincere, peaceful Muslims are alienated from the gospel with this sort of behaviour.

Many Christians are getting concerned with their faith become labelled as a “hate crime”. Before crying “persecution” we need to consider a few things. The gospel message is that the Lord Jesus Christ came down to seek and to save the lost, and that God loved the whole world that he gave his only Son, that all may believe and have eternal life rather than eternal death. The true message of the gospel is not one of hate, but one of love, grace and peace. This is not to say that hate is foreign to Christianity.

There is a righteous hate revealed in the Bible. Don Carson reminds us:

One evangelical cliché has it that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. There is a small element of truth in these words: God has nothing but hate for the sin, but it would be wrong to conclude that God has nothing but hate for the sinner. A difference must be maintained between God’s view of sin and his view of the sinner. Nevertheless the cliché (God hates the sin but loves the sinner) is false on the face of it and should be abandoned. Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone, we are told that God hates the sinner, his wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible, the wrath of God rests both on the sin (Rom. 1:18ff.) and on the sinner (John 3:36). (The Difficult Doctrine of The Love of God, p69, Crossway Books, 2000).

Whilst God hates sinners, he also loves them. His hate and wrath are object-orientated. He hates the sinner because of the sinfulness of the creature. God also loves the sinner because it is God’s nature to love. Love and hate are not mutually exclusive when understood this way. God both hates the sinner and loves him at the same time.

Sadly, the love and hate displayed by many professing Christians does not reflect this. Muslims are one victim of this, as Christians are scaremongering and making insensitive comments that only serve to provoke Muslims to annoyance. Sermons and books making reference to “the evil religion of Islam” is unwise and I wonder how we would feel if someone said those things about Christianity. Like many Christians, I am concerned about the growing power of Islamic opposition to our cultural freedoms. I once had the displeasure of working with a Muslim that lived in this country and he said he wanted to burn the English flag. But I have met far more Muslims who are peaceful people. Since 9/11, the West has turned against Muslims, breeding ignorance, prejudice, suspicion and fear and the Church has followed.

Jewish people have also suffered from Christian hate down the centuries. This is most ironic considering that Jesus Christ is Jewish. This hatred goes back centuries. John Chrysostom, the so-called “Golden-mouthed” made these shocking comments:

“The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason”.

St. Augustine made similar comments: “How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!”

One can find this hatred in the writings of the early church Fathers and of the Reformers (including Calvin and Luther). Far from provoking the Jewish people to jealousy (as is the mission of non-Jewish believers in Jesus), they have simply persecuted them. Whilst many Christians today support Israel, there is still a problem with anti-semitism in churches. This has been fuelled by anti-Zionist propaganda in recent times.

I do not know of any group that Christians have hated and persecuted more than the Jewish community. The gay community are probably the closest runners up and as a result many of them have also been alienated from the gospel . It is not hateful to affirm the Biblical and traditional position on homosexual practice any more than to affirm against any other sin (like theft, adultery or slander). The problem is not the Bible but Christian attitudes which go far beyond the Scriptural teaching and display outright hostility to those caught up in this lifestyle. The worst example of this I have seen is the “GodHatesFags” movement, part of Westborough Baptist Baptist Church in The United States. Thankfully, the Baptist Union in the UK supported the decision of the UK government to bar them from entering the country and they distanced themselves from this group and their message. However this was only a small portion of the Christian community, the rest made no comment on this group. Christian author Phillip Yancey tells how he watched a “gay march” for his friend Mel White and saw “Christian” protestors shouting inflammatory slogans. He also recounts how his friend’s parents were interviewed on a talk show and many Christians asked his parents “how do you feel to have an abomination for a Son? Thankfully he will get what he deserves, an eternity in hell.” Such a question from professing Christians is outright hateful, hypocritical, self-righteous and outrageous. They have quickly forgotten that they themselves are guilty, depraved and detestable in God’s sight, and that it is only by God’s grace and mercy that they have been saved from his wrath.

Another example of this is Paul Shaw, a British Christian arrested and later released for distributing a leaftlet that promotes making homosexuality illegal. The leaflet stated that “homosexual and lesbian acts are immoral and that the law should reflect that; by making them unlawful as they once were; and so acting as a deterrent to such behaviour. The concept of homophobia is nonsense and a play on words; it is not and has never been a phobia! A phobia is an un-natural fear; whereas a rejection of perverse behaviour; is a righteous godly fear; that fears to do wrong because it knows that there are consequences and punishment otherwise! This is the most pronounced example of a nation that has lost its way.” (http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=1181)

Based on this statement, it would be interesting to know if Shaw’s leaflet targets heterosexual adulterers in the same way. In the Old Testament, they were both capital offences. If Shaw and others like him are not prepared to apply the Law of Moses consistently, then it demonstrates that they are uniquely targeting one group out of personal prejudice. Such a pretence of “godly fear” is, at best, homophobic and at worst, outright hypocrisy. I seriously doubt that any gay people will come to Jesus Christ through these campaigns. In fact, it will turn many of them away from hearing the gospel. I'm sure Mr. Shaw would not advocate physical violence against homosexuals by mobs, yet his reasoning seems to imply that this violence is righteous.

If you do not fall into those categories, you could fall into the next one: The unbeliever who spends his eternity in hell for God’s glory. I believe eternal punishment is a Biblical doctrine and I believe it because it is there. However I do not like to believe it and would gladly remove it from the Bible if I could. So would anyone with an ounce of compassion and humanity. I have met many Christians who just talk about people going to eternal punishment with no feeling, no sadness as it just rolls off the tongue. God does not delight in the death of the wicked and neither should we. In the gospels we see Jesus weeping with sorrow over the coming destruction of Jerusalem, how much more must he weep over those who go to eternal loss.

In some versions of Christianity, not only do unbelievers go to eternal loss, but they are predestined by God to go there. The Westminster Confession of Faith is very clear about this:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

Christian theologians John Calvin and Jacob Arminius both called this “a horrible affirmation” (although the former affirmed it). I agree absolutely. If God has fore-ordained the vast majority of the human race to eternal torment for his own pleasure, he is the most vindictive, monstrous and hateful being in the whole cosmos. A.W. Pink, in frightful book The Sovereignty of God, was very candid about this:

That God loves everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern belief. The writings of the church fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans will (we believe) be searched in vain for any such concept...

The fact is, the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.

Christianity, as an organised religion, has missed the fundamental message of the wonderful gospel. It would be sad and wrong to reject Jesus Christ because of what Christians have done in his name. He was gracious with all types of sinners. Even though they became aware of their sinfulness, they were attracted to his sacrificial and selfless love at the same time.

God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, that whosoever trusts in him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16, The Bible).

Book Review: The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God by D.A. Carson

2010-06-11T12:30:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed this deep, concise and well-written volume. Carson explores what the doctrine of the love of God really does mean, as opposed to what how it is often interpreted in Christian circles. Many believers never think of God’s love as a difficult doctrine as it is taken for granted, but it is actually difficult, both from Scripture and experience.

Carson briefly touches on the experiential problems relating to this doctrine. In my early Christian life, I heard many believers say “God loves you” without clarifying what this actually means. I was not alone in finding it hard to believe and understand God’s love. How do you tell someone in deep pain that God loves them? How does the love of God reconcile with the Armenian massacres, the Holocaust, the Crusades and many other tragedies in history? How do you tell these victims that God loves them? Carson states that the doctrine, in our day, has been sanitised and stripped of it’s meaning. What does it mean when God says “I love you”? Carson answers this question very well, emphasising that God loves because it is his nature to love, not because we have anything to commend ourselves to him. Unflattering and true as that is, it is far more wonderful than to think that anything within us caused God to love us. If there was nothing in us to cause God to love us, what could there be to stop him loving us? The fact that God’s love is rooted in himself and not in us means that it is steadfast and unchanging, unlike our fickle feelings.

The main concern of Carson’s book is the theological difficulties relating to it. His exploration of the Trinitarian nature of God’s love is very helpful in understanding his nature. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. The Holy Spirit seeks to exalt the Son and not himself. I have heard many Christians say “God is entirely self-interested” and “God is selfish, he does everything for his own glory, and he has a right to be selfish as he is God”. Whilst that is true, it goes against Scriptural teaching. God is love, and love is not self-seeking. If God is self-seeking, he is not loving. However, if the Father’s main interest is his Son, and vice versa, the self-sacrificing nature of God’s love is evident. Without the Triunity of God, we cannot have a God of love.

Carson also explores the relationship of God’s love to his sovereignty and to his wrath. In regards to the latter, he shows how God can love and hate sinners at the same time. The saying “love the sinner, hate the sin” is not Biblical. God hates sinners as well as the sin. This is Biblical, and it does not contradict the doctrine of God’s love. God hates the sinner for his wickedness, whilst at the same time he loves them enough to send his only Son to die for that sin. There is no contradiction here, just different aspects of his character. The wrath of God is object-orientated. The sinner has incurred God’s wrath by his character and actions. The love of God is not object-orientated. Nothing within us can cause God to love us. God loves because it is his nature to do so. The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is where God’s love and wrath meet.

The discussion between God’s sovereignty and God’s love, whilst in many respects useful, is coloured by the doctrine of Calvinism. Carson believes that there is a tension between God’s universal love to a lost world and his particular love to his elect. I suspect that this “difficulty” is actually caused by Carson’s own presuppositions and not by the Scriptures. As a non-Calvinist, I do not approach the Scriptures with the same presuppositions and therefore do not see this difficulty. I do believe that God has a general love to the lost world, and a distinct, particular love to his people (Israel and the Church) and see these as different, not contradictory.
I appreciate Carson’s defence of God’s universal love to a lost world, and how he rejects hyper-Calvinist attempts to explain away the plain meaning John 3:16 (ie. Those who teach that the world in John 3:16 is the elect). He also presents and understands the Arminian and four-point Calvinist position fairly and accurately. However he does insist that the Arminian view gives ground for boasting on the basis that they have chosen to accept the gift of salvation. This is simply nonsense.

Carson also says that it is right to tell unbelievers, in an evangelistic context, that God loves them. With this I would readily agree. However, his own views on election undermine this very belief. If one happens to be amongst the non-elect (by implication, one that God has not decreed to save), how can it be said that God loves them?

Carson exhorts and encourages the reader to experience God’s love and not just to know it theologically. This is very important and a very much needed reminder today.

The Need for Judgment after death

2010-06-04T13:45:00.000-07:00

Our country has been shaken in the last few days by this tragic, murderous shooting spree in Cumbria by Derrick Bird. After killing many innocent people at random, he killed himself. If there is no judgement and existence after death, this man got away with his wicked act. Our sense of justice cries out against this.

With all sympathy to the victims and their families, nothing happened to those people that ultimately was not going to happen to them one day. The Bible says that it is appointed to man once to die, and after this comes the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). The God who gave the law and said “Thou shalt not murder” is the one who will judge. Derrick Bird had a shock coming to him after he killed himself – he had only made his situation worse and his choice of eternity without God was irreversible. The Lord Jesus Christ, who was punished for the sins of the whole human race, will be that judge. Only by trusting in the word of the Living God can we ever find true hope of justice and comfort in this terrible time.

Some Thoughts on Corporal Punishment

2010-05-15T23:34:00.001-07:00

The issue of anti-smacking legislation in the UK is a hot issue amongst Christians. Many Christians use this verse to support their view that they have a right to smack their children:

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die . (Proverbs 23:13).

It is clear from this verse that the rod is a tool of physical punishment and not just as a verbal setting of boundaries, as some maintain. However, does this mean that it is OK to smack children? The Christian Institute, for example, maintains that:

“Parents are expected to exercise loving discipline over their children. As part of this most parents use physical chastisement such as smacking. Discipline must not be harsh. Fathers are told to instruct children according to what is good and not to exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4). That discipline can be painful is clearly accepted in Scripture (e.g. Hebrews 12:7-11). However, attempts to make the administration of reasonable chastisement a criminal offence should be strongly resisted as should other moves which usurp the authority of parents.”
(http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/smacking.htm).

The problem with this view is that it fails to state what is “reasonable chastisement”. Some will argue that the parent are wise and loving enough to judge and administer “reasonable chastisement” and therefore this should not be a problem. Those Christians who use this argument overlook the fact that parents are sinners and not only make mistakes in judgment, but their motives are also wrong. As it states in Hebrews 12, many fathers discipline their children after own pleasure and not for the development of the child’s character. For example, a mum may want some rest whilst her small child wants to run around and play. In order to get what she wants (peace and quiet), she smacks the child. Spanking bare bottoms can lead to humiliation as well as physical pain (and does the Bible condone humiliating children?).

The Christian Institute further argue:

• Smacking is not child abuse. Most reasonable people see there is a world of difference between abuse and a loving smack.
• The public is overwhelmingly opposed to banning smacking. 88% of people in the UK say it is ‘sometimes necessary to smack a child’.

This begs more questions. What is a “loving smack”? Does a small child learn from a “loving smack” and does he feel loved and accepted by the parent after this spanking? Most small children, to whom this is given, are too young to understand right from wrong and when they are older they will not remember what the punishment was for (I speak from experience of this).

As the Christian Institute is an organisation that professes to base it’s beliefs upon the Bible, it is ridiculous that they use public opinion as a basis for moral truth. 88% of people in the UK say it is sometimes necessary to smack a child – so what??? This does not make it right! It is bad enough that this organisation defends Christians who confront gays ungraciously, now they have sunk even lower in defending child-smackers! All in the name of "rights" and "spreading Christian influence in society".

Let us examine the “Biblical Support” for the pro-smacking view. In the above verse, the word for “child” is the Hebrew word na’ar. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines provides these definitions:

babe, boy, child, damsel, lad, servant, young man

From na'ar; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. Of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age) -- babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).

So a “child”, in Scripture, can mean anything from an infant to a young man. The word translated “child” in this verse is also used to refer to young men in the account of Sodom :

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter (Genesis 19:4).

The same word is used in relation to the spies that conquered Jericho:

And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel. (Joshua 6:23).

Clearly these men were not small children. There are cases in Scripture where the word “na’ar” is used to refer to an infant. How is the word used in the verses which command physical punishment? From the overall teaching of Scripture, I believe that is referring to young men and not to small children. Young’s Literal Translation supports this:

“Withhold not from a youth chastisement, When thou smitest him with a rod he dieth not.”

The writer of Proverbs further uses the word na’ar to refer to youths in 7:7:

And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding.

The same writer advocates a rod for the back of fools:

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. (Proverbs 26:3).

Clearly a fool in this instance is a responsible adult. In Israel, there was a further and final resort if the youth refused to receive correction:

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious , he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton , and a drunkard . 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die : so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Deut 21:18-21).

This step from corporal punishment to capital punishment was part of a process of preserving law and order in the Jewish community in those days. It was a process that was not for small children for responsible adults. There are several cases in Scripture where criminals were physically punished, yet there is not one example of an infant being beaten with a stick. Today, very few parents use a rod. I challenge any pro-smacking Christian to show me a verse in the Bible that says it is OK to hit anybody with a slipper or a paddle.

In British Society, it is illegal to hit an adult but "necessary" to hit a child. How backward is that? Criminals get away with their activities as they have “rights” and they know it. I remember a case in 1994 where a man in Singapore was whipped for maliciously scratching a car. Whilst such a punishment was harsh and perhaps excessive, I had little sympathy as it would teach him never to commit criminal damage again and he was old enough to be responsible for his own actions. In the UK, it would be considered wrong and a breach of his “rights”. What about the rights of the most helpless and vulnerable members of our society – children?

Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

2010-05-06T14:13:00.001-07:00

The late Richard Fuller of Baltimore gave this very useful illustration to demonstrate how the twin truths of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom are compatible and not contradictory:

"There were once three brethren who all died at the same time. The two first were men; the eldest having always lived in a habit of obedience to God; the second, on the contrary, in a course of disobedience and sin. The third was an infant, incapable of distinguishing good from evil. These three brothers appeared before the tribunal of God; the first was received into Paradise, the second was condemned to hell, the third was sent to a middle place where there was neither pleasure nor pain, because he had not done either good or evil. When the youngest heard his sentence, and the reasons on which the supreme Judge grounded it, grieved to be excluded from Paradise, he exclaimed, Ah, Lord, hadst thou preserved my life as thou didst that of my good brother, how much better would it have been for me. I should have lived as he lived, and then I should have enjoyed as he does the happiness of eternal glory. My child, replied God to him, I knew thee, and I knew, that hadst thou lived longer, thou wouldst have lived like thy wicked brother, and like him wouldst have rendered thyself deserving of the punishment of hell. The condemned brother, hearing this discourse of God, exclaimed, Ah, Lord, why didst thou not confer the same favor upon me as upon my younger brother, by depriving me of a life which I have so wickedly misspent as to bring myself under a sentence of condemnation? I preserved thy life, said God, to give thee an opportunity of saving thyself. The younger brother, hearing this reply, exclaimed again, Ah, why then, by God, didst thou not preserve my life also, that I might have had an opportunity of saving myself? God, to put an end to complaining and disputing, replied, Because my decree had determined otherwise."

God, who foreknows how each person will react, sets the limits and boundaries and humans are responsible for making their decisions. In this illustration, the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man are manifestated. God's love is demonstrated in reaching out to save all parties. God's justice is vindicated in rewarding and punishing all parties . Fuller continues:

Indeed, it is manifest that every call, every threat, every expostulation, every exhortation in the Bible supposes that man is a free agent. If he be not free, if he be the passive victim of inexorable, irresistible destiny, the Sacred Volume is a compilation of glaring inconsistencies--or sheer, downright falsehood and mockery. If a fixed fate has fore-doomed men as mere machines, how can God utter those tender complaints of their conduct with which the Scriptures abound? If his decrees compel men, how can he so earnestly admonish and beseech them to repent and turn from their evil ways? If men are forced by God's pre-ordination, how can he utter that assurance, "As I live, I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he turn and live?"

(Source: http://www.founders.org/library/sermons/fuller.html)

Article Review: Will Varner's Do We Need Messianic Synagogues?

2010-04-16T01:40:00.001-07:00

his essay from Will Varner is available in a "Counterpoints" book and an expanded version here: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj14c.pdf

Will Varner is Professor of Bible and Directory of the Israel Bible Extension program at The Master's College, California. His purpose in this essay is to express theological and pragmatic concerns relating to Messianic Judaism. Unlike Dave Hunt, Varner writes from a compassionate, sympathetic and educated perspective on the issue. He has had several years as a pastor and been deeply involved with Jewish evangelism, as well as educating Gentile Christians about the Jewish roots of their faith. He is a staff member of the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, an organisation dedicated to fighting anti-semitism, holocaust education and fighting pro-Palestinian propaganda.

Will Varner's short answer to the question of whether Messianic Synagogues are necessary is negative. His alternative position is that "Hebrew Christian Fellowships" should exist within the wider church and function to meet the particular needs of Jewish believers in Yeshua. The function would be similar to a men's breakfast, a youth club or a womens Bible study. He expresses many valid concerns relating to the Messianic Synagogue movement in America. These concerns include the possibility of local churches becoming "Gentilised" by the absence of Jewish members, denying Jewish-Gentile unity in Messiah and the local church failing to fulfil it's obligation of proclaiming the Gospel of Messiah to Jewish people first.

Varner rightly argues that Jewish people do not lose their identity in Messiah, but rightly argues this is secondary to their position as a "new creation in Messiah". This is true for all Gentile believers also - Arab Christians, Chinese Christians and Indian Christians are not ethnically cleansed, yet the differences fail to matter as their unity in Messiah trascends those barriers.

Varner also criticises certain Messianic leaders for teaching compulsory Torah observance, another valid criticism in my opinion. In referring to David Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary, he laments that:

"A prominent Messianic Jewish commentary on the NT spends pages trying to explain these verses [Ephesians 2:14-16] as having no reference to the Mosaic laws. The commentary states that the "ordinances" referred to in Eph 2:15 are not the laws of Exodus but are the "takkanot," i.e., Rabbinic ordinances added to the Torah, such as the "soreg" or dividing wall. This bifurcation of "commandments" and "ordinances" with the idea that the Messiah abolished the latter and not the former is unsupportable by any fair reading of the text. Is a preconceived position forcing this commentator to avoid the plain reading of the text? Scholarly commentaries on Ephesians do not support his imagined distinction between divine and human commands in the passage".

Varner does not discuss in detail the issue of optional observance, except to say that it is proper to use "the shadows of things to come" as teaching tools. Being free from keeping the Law of Moses or cultural tradition does not mean being forbidden to keep it. The Law of Moses has a lot to teach both Jewish and Gentile believers about a joyful way of life. Whilst we are free from the laws of Shabbat and Kashrut, I believe that there is a great health benefit to keeping them. Any believer, Jewish or Gentile, has a right to observe cultural practices provided that they do not conflict with Scriptural revelation.

In an ideal world, Varner's suggestion of a Messianic Fellowship in the context of a local church is a good and right model. It meets the specific needs of one group whilst maintaining the unity in Messiah. The problem is that we are not in an ideal world. In the UK, replacement theology and anti-semitism are commonplace in churches and it would be impossible to implement this model. Whilst Gentile believers continue to alienate Jewish people, the wall of partition will be continue to be rebuilt. In America, Evangelicals are more likely to be friendly towards Israel than in this country, making it easier to maintain the Unity of the Spirit between Jew and Gentile.

Book Review: Jewish New Testament (and Commentary)

2010-04-16T01:37:00.000-07:00

The Jewish New Testament (JNT) and it's companion volume The Jewish New Testament Commentary (JNTC) by David H. Stern is a very valuable work in Messianic circles today. The authors intention is to restore the Jewishness of the New Testament and he has supplied a work which is very much needed. This short review is going to review both positive and critical aspects to this volume.

As an observation, The JNT is not a strictly literal translation and there is nothing wrong with that. Stern informs us that his approach to translation was that of dynamic equivalence. This approach aims to translate the thoughts of the writer rather than a word by word translation. Dynamic equivalence is also used by the NIV, The Message and The Life Application Bible. Those desiring a more literal-grammatical Messianic translation should check out the Hebrew Names Version (HNV) which is authored by a completely different party. The JNT and JNTC assumes knowledge of the Hebrew words and phrases such as Tanakh, Ruach HaKodesh etc which will make it more difficult for some readers, although it is worth doing some homework and receiving the blessing from reading it.

A strength of the JNT and JNTC is it's explanation and specific translation of the words usually translated "Jew" and "Jews". Various passages in standard translations of Johns gospel been used to justify anti-Jewish feeling in religious people. This has given ammunition to critics who charge the New Testament writers with anti-Semitism. In John 5:19, The JNT makes it clear that it is the Judean Jews (and not the Jews as a whole) which harassed Yeshua. The same is the case in his comments on 1 Thessalonians (where it is often dreadfully mistranslated "The Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"). Sterns discussion of the famous words of the mob "His blood be upon us and upon our children" and Yeshuas prayer "Father forgive them" is both reasonable and sensible. Any believer who wants to stem the tide of theological antisemitism will find these volumes very helpful.

Another good feature of the JNT is the exposition of Pardes, the Rabbinic method of expounding the Tanakh as employed by the New Testament writers. Many standard evangelical commentaries are at a loss to explain apparent misquotes from the Old Testament (such as Matthew 2:15 "out of Egypt I called my Son"). Sterns understanding of first century Jewish interpretation is very helpful to the student of Scripture here. The Jewish context and background of the New Testament is brought out in many ways.

On the critical side, Stern allows his own theological bias to influence the resultant translation and this is evident in some places. This is most evident in his discussions of Torah observance and it's place today. His comments have very practical implications, especially in the areas of observing Intermarriage, Shabbat and Kashrut. Stern believes that the Law of Moses is still effective and attempts to deal with his "problem passages" but, in my opinion, unconvincingly. My views on the law of Moses concur with that of The Association of Messianic Congregations which states that "The Law of Moses as a rule of life has been fulfilled in the Messiah and therefore believers are no longer under its' obligation or condemnation. While the Law of Moses is no longer obligatory for believers, the Law has much to teach us regarding a joyfully Jewish way of life. Both Jewish and non-Jewish believers have the freedom in Messiah to maintain any aspects of the Law of Moses which do not violate the entirety of the rest of scripture" 1. This clearly shows two different views amongst Messianic believers.

Sterns translation of Romans 10 verse 4 reads that "the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah". This brings out a meaning to the passage that fits very well into the wider context of Romans 10, and about the purpose of the Law. The standard versions (eg. NIV, KJV etc) read that "Christ is the END of the Law". Stern states that his translation is a correction of the mainstream versions here. In fairness, I believe both renderings of this verse are correct. The Greek word for "end" is "telos" and it can have both meanings - "goal" and "end". Vines Expository Dictionary and Vincents New Testament Word Studies give both meanings equal weight, whilst Thayers Greek-English Lexicon gives the primary meaning as "end". Even if the primary meaning was "goal", as Stern believes in relation to this verse, an "end" is implicit as you don't carry on with something once the "goal" has been reached. Stern usually translates "telos" as "end" in numerous places (including Matthew 10:22, John 13:1 and 1 Cor 1:8) but insists that it exclusively means "goal" in Romans 10v4. This translation is favoured in order to preserve the doctrine of Torah observance. There is no reason for making Romans 10:4 an exception to the usual rule, nor is there any reason to restrict the term "telos" exclusively to "goal" in one verse. Stern states that the standard Christian theology based on this verse is anti-semitic but this accusation is extreme and unnecessary. Whilst Stern does a good job in fighting real antisemitism, he occasionally throws the accusation too easily and unfairly.

Overall, the JNT and the JNTC does a good job in achieving it's central aim - restoring the Jewishness of the New Testament. On peripheral matters he expounds the various different points of view before giving his own (and he does so in a way that is humble and not offensive to others who disagree). Such issues as this include the debates over spiritual gifts, eschatology, women in leadership, eternal security and the Calvinist-Arminian controversy. Most readers will probably disagree with some of his views on peripheral matters. The accommodation of different views adds value to a work of this nature as it serves to unite Jewish believers rather than divide. I hope the JNT and JNTC will have wide appeal.

Book Review: Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur

2010-04-09T05:24:00.000-07:00

MacArthur is a man who seems to love the heat by writing controversial books. This is no exception. He has written a passionate and well motivated response to many extreme errors in the Charismatic movement and is worth reading by concerned readers. I originally read it many years ago when leaving a charismatic church due to totalitarian leadership and unbiblical manifestations.

MacArthur gives a good overview of how to interpret Scripture, mainly derived from Reformed theology. The principles are literal, grammatical, context and Scripture interprets Scripture and demonstrates how some charismatics have misused certain Scriptures to support their views. In particular he provides good insight into the passages warning about "blaspheming the Holy Spirit", which some have abused to silence any criticism or questioning of their beliefs. He has also dealt extensively with Joel chapter 2, the promise of the Spirit in the last days. He also rejects the "Latter Rain" doctrine and states that this is nothing to do with the church, but will be literally fulfilled as it applies to Israel at a future time (and it applies to their seasons and literal rainfall).

The last chapter, "Does God Promise Health and Wealth", is a well-needed critique of the Word Faith movement, led by Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland. This movement is also known as "Name It and Claim It" or, even worse, "Blabbit and Grabbit". He reveals that whilst Copeland, Hagin and their followers (eg. Benny Hinn), appear to be orthodox, some of their teachings are heterodox and completely unbiblical.

The weakness, in my opinion, is MacArthurs cessationism (belief that certain spiritual gifts ceased with the apostles). This belief comes out in a few chapters, and most notably in his discussions on tongues and healing. Cessationism has been a majority view in church history and has been adopted by many reformed theologians and most dispensationalists. Whilst in eschatology I align myself to the latter group, I disagree with them on this doctrine. It is a doctrine that I find hard to defend from the Bible. I would argue that an evangelical "literal" or "face value" interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 becomes an argument in favour of the continuation of the gifts and not the cessation of them. MacArthur argues that the gifts of healings, miracles and tongues have ceased permanantly in fulfilment of 1 Corinthians 13:8, but contradicts himself when he mentions a future age of miracles in the tribulation and millennial age (the two witnesses and the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy).

The history given of the "charismatic gifts" provided by MacArthur also appears to be selective. He paints a picture of tongues, healings and miracles ceasing with the apostles and only ever re-appearing later on in connection with heretical or extreme groups (eg. the Montanists). He fails to mention Wesley, who believed and practiced those gifts.

The tone of the book is faultless. He is not intending to attack or mock but to respond. He also makes a plea against the opposite extreme of cold, dry formalism that is found in many churches today. If one bears in mind the heavy theological bias, one can enjoy this book.

Book Review: So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie

2010-04-09T05:19:00.000-07:00

This is one of the most readable and refreshing books I have read. Subtitled “What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ”, it explains exactly that. Salvation is one of the most important themes in all of the Bible – in fact without it nothing else would really matter. In this volume, Ryrie exalts God’s grace – something which we have difficulty comprehending due to our own self-righteousness and pride. He knocks down the idea that we can ever contribute or earn our salvation. He also clarifies the gospel message – the message being that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead and that through Christ Jesus, by faith we can receive the forgiveness of sins and have eternal life.

This book has been written in the background of the “Lordship controversy”, which teaches “Lordship salvation”. This has been brought to a head in recent years by his critic and friend John MacArthur, who has sown confusion over the gospel message and over sanctification. MacArthur respresents Ryrie’s teaching as offering “cheap grace” and an “easy believism” that ignores holy living. In my view, this is a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation from someone who does not comprehend grace.

Against these criticisms, Ryrie defends the view that salvation is by grace alone and that issues of carnality, spirituality, fruitbearing and backsliding are issues relating to the Christian life and not to the gospel. In other words, they are issues settled once we have trusted in Jesus Christ and not issues we settle at the point of salvation.

Ryrie teaches that all Christians will be fruitful to some (and varying) degrees and shows the different ways we bear fruit for the Lord in our lives. He also discusses the issue of carnality amongst believers. This is perhaps the most controversial as many believers, particularly many of a reformed persuasion, reject the belief that a believer can be carnal and walk in the flesh. Paul called the Corinthians carnal (1 Corinthians 3) because of the worldiness and sin amongst them in various forms. Ryrie uses “righteous Lot” as another example of a “carnal believer” who had little to show for his faith and yet was genuinely saved. Lot’s compromise with sin was very sad and should not typify believers at all, and Ryrie affirms that we will slip up and fall down and exhorts us to holiness. This is encouraging as I am aware of my own sinfulness and if any part of my salvation depended upon me, then I am doomed. However it is thanks to God’s wonderful grace that I am saved.

Ryrie defines repentance unto salvation as one of changing one’s mind about Jesus Christ, recognising that he is God and the promised Messiah who died for your sins. Individual believers and congregations need to be repenting on an ongoing basis over specific sins. These two are carefully distinguished, as God is very gracious and does not demand that we promise to give up specific sins in order to be saved. This is not to say that sin does not matter, as once we have been saved God will deal with us and the sin in our lives if we will not deal with it ourselves.
Ryrie defines and defends the doctrine of eternal security and distinguishes it from the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The latter implies the former, but places the emphasis upon the believer and his efforts rather than the preservation and security of God, the intercession of Christ and the sealing of the Spirit. The last chapter, Bringing Many Sons To Glory, explores the process of sanctification and divine discipline in our lives as believers. This is very important, as holiness is essential and God will produce that in us one way or another.
So Great Salvation is written in a gracious and humble spirit and seeks to encourage believers towards holiness and at the same time comfort them in their struggles. In my view, it exalts grace and is the most pastorally wise position. It is because I am saved that I want to live a holy life, not in order to prove that I am saved by my perseverance and not certainly not in order to maintain my salvation. Salvation is by receiving God’s grace alone.

Book Review: Basic Theology by Charles C. Ryrie

2010-04-09T03:58:00.000-07:00

In response to a request from one valued friend, I would like to list a few books that have influenced me and the thoughts I express in this blog.

The first book is Basic Theology by Charles C. Ryrie. This volume covers the entire range of topics in the Bible, starting with authority and the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. It also covers the names, attributes and perfections of God (his sovereignty, love, grace etc). Another section covers Christology – the pre-incarnate Christ, the incarnation, the character and sinless perfection of Christ, the cross and resurrection. Salvation is covered in some depth and the results of the death of Christ. Ryrie gives his view about the place of the law today, something which I largely agree with although the limitations of the book did not permit an expansion which would have been good. Ryrie teaches, rightly in my view, that the Mosaic Law was one indivisible unit and points out the the Jewish people always understood it that way. He rejects the divisions of civil, ceremonial and moral laws accepted in popular Christian theology.

The section on The Doctrine of The Holy Spirit covers the different ministries of the Spirit in the Old Testament and New Testament times, and in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. As with most Evangelicals, he distinguishes the filling of the Spirit from the baptism of the Spirit. The former should be continuous and ongoing in the life of the believer whilst the latter is a once and for all event at the point of salvation.

Ryrie is a dispensationalist like myself and I love his section on the end times, particularly his defence of the pre-tribulational rapture. Ryrie is also a four point Calvinist and his defence of unlimited atonement is excellent, although I disagreed with his views that election is personal (I believe in corporate election). His defence of “eternal security” and his criticism of Lordship salvation were both very good. I also commend Ryrie for his section titled “The Triunity of God”. He does not use the more popular word “trinity”. The former term is, in my opinion, closer to the teaching of Scripture and less prone to misunderstanding.

Ryrie is readable and good for the layman as he explains technical terms very well and does not overwhelm the reader. He surveys the different views on church history before giving his own views, including Barthianism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism and Pentecostalism. All of the sections are good for basic reading on theology all around, although I would recommend other books for more specialist readings on particular topics.

Romans 10:4: Christ The Goal and End

2010-04-09T03:19:00.000-07:00

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4).

Romans 10:4 teaches that the Mosaic Law was rendered inoperative at at Messiahs death. Messiah brought the Law to an end and it no longer has any binding upon the believer today. This means that the commandments directly binding upon us are in the Law of Christ and the Law of The Spirit, as laid out in the New Testament. Of course, the Old Testament is there for our instruction but the law of Moses is now part of an obsolete covenant.

Some Bible teachers will object that this is not the correct interpretation of this verse. Their argument is that the Greek word translated “end” (telos) actually means “goal” and therefore the dispensation of Law has not ended. This is why many believers insist that observing the Sabbath and the Kosher food laws are still mandatory requirements. I believe there is a flaw in this argument.

Both interpretations of “telos” are correct: Messiah is the goal and the end of the law. In Romans 1-9 Paul has been dealing with the proper and improper use of the Law so to bring out the meaning that “Messiah is the goal of the law” fits well into the context. Once you have reached the goal to which you are aiming you have reached the termination point. You do not carry on moving towards a goal once you have reached it. The definitions for the Greek word telos here are:

From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose).1

Signifies (a) "the limit," either at which a person or thing ceases to be what he or it was up to that point, or at which previous activities were ceased, 2Co. 3:13; 1Pe. 4:7; (b) "the final issue or result" of a state or process, e.g., Lu. 1:33; in Ro. 10:4, Christ is described as "the end of the Law unto righteousness to everyone that believeth;" 2

Expositors differ as to the sense. 1. The aim. Either that the intent of the law was to make men righteous, which was accomplished in Christ, or that the law led to Him as a pedagogue (Gal_3:24). 2. The fulfillment, as Mat_5:17. 3. The termination. To believers in Christ the law has no longer legislative authority to say, “Do this and live; do this or die” (Morison). The last is preferable. Paul is discussing two materially exclusive systems, the one based on doing, the other on believing. The system of faith, represented by Christ, brings to an end and excludes the system of law; and the Jews, in holding by the system of law, fail of the righteousness which is by faith.3

Both statements are true: Messiah is both the goal and the termination point of the Law of Moses.

1 Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary, James Strong, Public Domain
2 W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p198
3 M.R. Vincent, New Testament Word Studies, Romans 10:4. Provided by E-Source.

Cut Off?

2010-01-11T14:16:00.000-08:00

Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Romans 11:22)

This passage is often used to teach that a believer can lose his salvation. A closer look at the context of this verse is in order to demonstrate that this is a misunderstanding. First, it promises that someone will be "cut off". Cut off from what? Reading this verse on it's own, it is assumed that it means to be cut off from salvation. Is this correct? Verse 17 provides the answer:

If some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.

The olive tree in this verse is the place of blessing that properly belongs to Israel. The root is the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3). Collectively, the Jewish nation historically occupied the place of blessing.Who are the branches that were broken off? The branches represent Israel as a nation:

I say then, Have they [Israel] stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy (verse 11).

Furthermore, these branches are going to be grafted in again: And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again (verse 23).

If these branches represent individual believers who lost their salvation, then this verse would mean that they will regain it. Many Arminians would not agree that saIvation can be regained once lost so this problematic for their view.

If these branches represent Israel as a nation, then the branches were broken off in the first century and will be regrafted in at the end times, over 2000 years later. The latter makes much more sense of the passage.

Who are the branches that are grafted in? Gentiles, to whom the gospel has come as a result of Israel's temporary and partial rejection:

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (verse 11).

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Verse 25).

In this chapter The Apostle Paul is speaking about Jews and Gentiles in corporate, not individual, terms. Verse 22 is saying "Just as Israel fell from the place of God's blessing, the same thing could happen to you Gentiles". In fact, this is promised in verse 25 - that the doors of salvation will again turn from the Gentiles to the Jewish people. The Jewish people will be grafted back in and the Gentiles will be "cut off". This is starting to happen in these days, when more Jewish people are coming to faith in Jesus The Messiah and the door of grace is closing in many Gentile nations as more and more are closed to missionaries. Later on in this chapter, Paul reminds us that God's gifts and calling cannot be recalled (v29), an indication of security.

The Hope of The Beleiver

2010-01-03T03:15:00.001-08:00

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (For we walk by faith, not by sight:). We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. (Phillippians 1:21-23, New King James Version)

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. (Phillippians 3:20-21, New King James Version)

Critics of the pretribulationalists (I am a pretribulationist - ie. believing in a rapture before the tribulation) of desiring to escape this world and running away from tribulation. This is just born out of ignorance and is not a fair or true accusation at all. The Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that in this world we will have tribulation, even before the rapture - whenever that may be. However the real motive for wanting to leave this earth - whether by death or by rapture - is "to be present with the Lord". To be taken into the presence of Christ - whether by rapture or by death before the rapture - is joy and hope of the believer. He needs never to fear death and he looks forward, not to longer years on this earth but to be in the Lord's presence. Paul said it was far better to be with Christ than to be on this earth.

Paul said that we belong to heaven, not to this earth. This earth is not our home. We not waiting for AntiChrist and the tribulation, we are awaiting our Saviour from heaven. The rapture is our transport or translation from one location to another. It is also our transformation from one state to another. It is transformation from these earthly bodies into our glorified, heavenly bodies.

I've met Christians who oppose the pretribulational rapture view because they want to remain on earth and live longer. This is not a bad thing - some want more time for fruitful labour in the Lord. Yet Paul said it is far better to be with Christ. No reader of the New Testament can fail to appreciate it's focus upon Heaven and the hope of the Church. The Old Testament has no such focus as the hope of Israel is restoration to her land and a spiritual restoration to God and to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Israel has an earthly hope, the Church has a heavenly hope. If you are a beleiver today, your hope is to be with Christ in Heaven when he comes. Whether we are alive or dead when he comes, we shall live with him.

God's Global Warming

2009-12-26T00:57:00.000-08:00

These days we are talking about the weather. Snow has severely disrupted the UK Christmas getaway and the mid-US has declared a state of national emergency on Christmas Day due to freezing temperatures, blizzards and storms. I sit here with a winter cold, with my Christmas plans spoiled and unable to spend time with my family and friends. We have the white Christmas we have dreamed of and it is certainly not a blessing.

Our beautiful Lake District, in November this year, was devastated by torrential flooding. This was even worse the flooding in Yorkshire and Gloucester in 2007. In the previous summer Europe basked in a heatwave where shoes and tyres were getting welded to the pavement even whilst moving. Then we have the twisters, the hurricanes, the earthquakes, the tsunamis and the wildfires across the world. Many people living in the East and South England will remember the great storm of 1987 where ferocious winds claimed many lives and caused billions of pounds worth of damage.

Just what is going on and is there any hope? Yes and No. I cannot promise that these weather disasters will stop. In fact, the book of Revelation promises that what we are experiencing now is nothing compared to what is to come when God judges the earth:

And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound . The first angel sounded , and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up , and all green grass was burnt up. (Revelation 8:6-7).

And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. (Revelation 16:8-9).

Things on this earth are going to get worse. God is judging the world because of it's wickedness and rebellion against him. I am not advocating jumping on the global warming bandwagon - there is very little we can do to prevent climate change. Romans 8:23 informs us that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" and the Lord Jesus warned us of “birth pains” preceding his return. This is our hope – the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to restore and rule his creation. God is shaking the world and shaking us out of our comfort zones and luxuries and desiring us to walk in a right relationship to him. He wants us to find eternal life in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and to escape the wrath to come. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only name by which we can be saved.

When a Child is Born

2009-12-20T01:14:00.000-08:00

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor , The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9)

These words are well known as they are often read at Christmas, predicting the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. What do the words actually mean? His birth means that the Lord is human. He came down to Earth from Heaven, who is Christ, Lord of all. The word "wonderful" in the original Hebrew means "divine" and is only used of God. This means that this child of Christmas is God himself. Jesus Christ is truly divine and human, in perfect harmony.

During his earthly lifetime, the government never rested upon his shoulder. Instead he was arrested by the authorities, crucified, buried and rose again. This was necessary as Christ had to die for the sins of the world, as also prophesied by Isaiah (chapters 49:6, 53:1-10). After rising again he ascended back to heaven. He never sat upon the throne of David - the throne of the King in ancient Israel in Jerusalem. These promises, primarly to the nation Israel and also extending to the whole world, will be fulfilled in the future. Christ Jesus is coming to earth to put an end to sin and wickedness, to sit on the re-established throne of David and rule the nations with justice and righteousness. What a wonderful time that will be. Israel will not be vexed by neighbours determined upon her destruction. Israel will be living in peace and not fighting for her existence. The world will know peace and justice, and there will be no corrupt dictatorships and no deceitful governments (like our current British government) in this golden age. The peace promised 2000 years at the birth of Messiah will finally arrive. Those who put their trust in Messiah can enjoy this peace now and forever. Those who reject or ignore this Saviour will not enjoy this but go to a lost eternity.

"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved . 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil". (John 3:16-18)

The Mystery of Iniquity (and The European Union)

2009-12-06T14:41:00.000-08:00

"For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work" (2 Thess 2:7, NIV).

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories but I do beleive that there is a flood of lawlessness directing events in today's world and preparing the way for the coming of the lawless one, the AntiChrist. The revived Roman empire, the European Union may be his kingdom or it may just be a fore-rerunner - time will tell. It is very sad that our unelected, contemptible Prime Minister Gordon Brown denied us the right of a referendum and just signed away British sovereignty in November. It is a reminder that the battle is spiritual and there are powers at work, controlled by the god of this age (Satan), who is trying to capture the souls of men and women.

The European Union is truly the work of Satan and human iniquity. The scattering and creation of nations is God's work, and constant attempts at world union is the work of man and goes back to The Tower of Babel (Babylon). Interestingly, in ancient Babylon there was an entrance gate covered with monsters and snake dragons, known as the Ishtar Gate. In 1913 the first pieces of this gate were brought to Berlin and by 1930 the entire gate was in that city. The wars that followed these events were not coincidences. Hitler wanted an economic and political union with all of Europe. Where Hitler failed, these unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have succeeded. The book of Revelation predicts a future downfall of Babylon. This may be the literal city of Babylon or a pseudonym. Either way, the Spirit of Babylon, the Mystery of Iniquity, is alive and well on planet earth today.

The NIV translates verse 7 as "the secret power of lawlessness". It is secret as most of the world are blissfully unaware of it. It is lawless because it operates by deception and wickedness.

We need, more than ever, to pray for our government and leaders. For those who are concerned with where world events are going, there is a way out and that is through trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Pre-Darby Rapture

2009-12-03T14:34:00.000-08:00

Many Christians reject the doctrine of "The Rapture" and beleive it to be the invention of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). Whilst he systematised the doctrine and propagated the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture, he did not invent the concept. I was delighted to find that "the rapture" was beleived by Puritan Matthew Henry and Reformed pastor John Gill in their commentaries on 1 Thessalonians 4. Whilst they were not pre-tribulationists, they used the very word as it was taken from the Greek text.

Those that shall be found alive will then be changed. They shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, 1Th_4:17. At, or immediately before, this rapture into the clouds, those who are alive will undergo a mighty change, which will be equivalent to dying. This change is so mysterious that we cannot comprehend it: we know little or nothing of it, 1Co_15:51. Only, in the general, this mortal must put on immortality, and these bodies will be made fit to inherit the kingdom of God, which flesh and blood in its present state are not capable of. This change will be in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1Co_15:52), in the very instant, or not long after the raising up of those that sleep in Jesus. (Matthew Henry)

suddenly, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and with force and power; by the power of Christ, and by the ministry and means of the holy angels; and to which rapture will contribute, the agility which the bodies both of the raised and changed saints will have: and this rapture of the living saints will be. (John Gill)

The godly man J.N. Darby took these seeds of thoughts before developing his dispensational system and recovering the "blessed hope" of the Church of Jesus The Messiah.

What is the Gift of Singleness?

2009-11-28T09:30:00.000-08:00

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (1 Cor 7:1)

It is good for a man - Who is master of himself. Not to touch a women - That is, not to marry. So great and many are the advantages of a single life. (John Wesley's Commentary).

I was very encouraged to read such a simple exposition on these words by Wesley after seeing it being ignored, dismissed or belittled by many Christians. In the first chapter of the Bible, we read that it is "not good that man should be alone" and God institutes marriage. We should never speak ill of marriage and the doctrine of celibacy, as expressed in some groups, is unbiblical. Marriage is God's general design for the human race. It is not without exception and it is not mandatory for every single individual. Our marital status has nothing to do with our eternal salvation and our standing before God.

Yet in reacting to the doctrine of celibacy, Protestant and Evangelicals have tended to downplay the role and place of singleness in the Christian community. Some find it easy to dismiss this chapter as specific to the Corithian time and not as normative and therefore has no relevance for Christians today. This dismissal not only robs us of a vital New Testament teaching but also demonstrates bad exegesis. It is argued by some Christians that Paul said this only because the Corinthians were undergoing some particular time of trouble. Verse 25 is often used to support this argument:

I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

There are various speculations as to what this "present distress" was. However I believe that Paul is referring to the trouble that is normative in the Christian experience this side of eternity. He is thinking of the same distress in Romans 8:18:

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Further, Paul says just a few verses later in 1 Corinthians 7 that those who marry will have "trouble in the flesh". (verse 28). To argue that this was particular to the Corinthians in their day and not relevant to us is absurd. At this side of eternity we will have struggles in the flesh (that is, the sinful nature). Singles and married couples will each have their share of difficulties in this life, and temptation is common to all of us. Paul was single at the time he wrote these words, most likely widowed or seperated.

I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (verse 7).

If, as some maintain, that singleness is a "supernatural gift", then it follows that marriage is also a "supernatural gift" as everyone has a gift according to one or the other. A gift simply means a spiritual endowment or bestowal. I have heard some refer to the "gift of singleness" as the ability to be single and be free of sexual temptation. Logically, it would follow that "the gift of marriage" would be to be married and free of temptation. What an unbiblical delusion! The fact is that many single Christians do fall into sexual impurity, and many married Christians fall into sexual infidelity. There is something wrong with the typical Christian interpretation of these verses. As stated earlier, temptation will plague us all in this life as the world, the flesh and the devil are alive and well and there is no respite from the battle. If you are married at the present time, you have the gift of marriage. If you are single at the present time, you have the gift of singleness. These gifts can be exchanged over time, as some single people get married and some married people become single again (either by divorce or bereavement). No state is superior and no state is subordinate, and each has it's own benefits and troubles.

Who are the 24 elders of Revelation?

2009-11-22T09:50:00.001-08:00

1 After this I looked , and, behold , a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said , Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter . 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold , a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. 4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting , clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. (Revelation 4)

Who are the 24 elders in this passage? Most commentators believe that these elders are angels but in the Bible angels are never called elders. Elders are human leaders, or representative of assemblies in the Old Testament (eg. Genesis 50:7, Exodus 4:29, Numbers 11:16). The elders here are most likely human beings representing an assembly of redeemed people. John Walvoord informs us:

The elders are described as being clothed in white raiment and having on their heads crowns of gold. There are two kinds of crowns in the book of Revelation, involving two different Greek words. One is the crown of a ruler or a sovereign (Gr., diadem), which is a crown of governmental authority. The other is the crown of a victor (Gr., Stephanos), such as was awarded in the Greek games when a person won a race or some contest. This crown was usually made of leaves.

The word here is the crown of a victor rather than that of a sovereign. It was made of gold, indicating that the elders had been rewarded for victory accomplished. It is significant that the passage states the twenty-four elders already have their crowns of gold as victors. If this passage is regarded as chronologically before the time of the tribulation which succeeding chapters unfold, it would seem to eliminate the angels, as at this point they have not been judged and rewarded since their judgment seems to come later. For the same reason the elders do not seem to be a proper representation of Israel, for Israel’s judgment also seems to come at the end of the tribulation, not before. Only the church which is raptured before chapter 4 is properly complete in heaven and eligible for reward at the judgment seat of Christ. In that case, the crowns of gold on the heads of the twenty-four elders would be fitting at this point and would seem to confirm the idea that these may be representative of the church in glory. (John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, online at http://www.walvoord.com/page.php?page_id=262

This is a picture of the rapture of the church. The judgments described in Revelation 6-19 is to be fulfilled in the future, with literal judgments similar to that described in Exodus. This will occur during the seventieth seven of Daniel (a period of 7 years). In Exodus these judgments were against Egypt. In Revelation these judgments are against the whole world which has rebelled against him. These elders re-appear again in chapter 5:

8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. 9 And they sung a new song, saying , Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain , and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

If the King James translation is correct in rendering the pronoun in the first person plural (“we”), it further demonstrates that these are redeemed men in glory. In chapters 2 and 3 we see various churches which represent seven different ages in church history. In chapter 4 we are let into heaven to see what must take place “after these things”. That is, after the church age has run it’s course. In chapters 6-19 see God’s wrath demonstrated against the entire world for rejecting his laws and his gospel. I agree with Walvoord that these men are saints, indicating that the rapture will occur straight after the church age and before the period of tribulation to come. As the Apostle Paul told us:

Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10)

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep , we should live together with him. (1 Thess 5:9-10)

Calvinism and The Double-Decree

2009-11-21T03:10:00.000-08:00

Many “softer” Calvinists recoil in horror at that the explicit teaching or implied views of the “double-predestination” teaching. An example of this can be found in the writings of modern Calvinist R.C. Sproul, who denies (in face of the evidence) that this part and parcel of Calvinistic teaching:

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers. (1 Double Predestination, hosted at www.ondoctrine.com)

Sproul's admission that this view clearly makes God the author of sin is noteworthy, and Arminians rightly agree with him. Sproul rightly says that “Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God” and Arminians would also agree with him on that. It is good that Sproul wants to distance himself from this view but it is dishonest to imply that non-Calvinists have simply “distorted” Reformed teaching. A.W. Pink, a “Reformed Thinker”, stated:

God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific purpose why He created this and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of His creatures, He purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. (The Sovereignty of God, Provided by Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics www.crta.org).

Pink got this from Calvin himself:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death

(Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21.)

The Westminster Confession is very explicit:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

( The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3: The Decree of God)

How clear and explicit is this and how can it be “distorted”? Is Sproul in denial or does he just have no knowledge of this? The only thing here that is "gross and inexcusible" is Sproul's scholarship. He needs to take his fellow Calvinists to task, not blame the non-Calvinists who are simply responding.

The Stranger Among You: Deut 28:43

2009-11-01T01:56:00.000-07:00

Deuteronomy 28: 43 The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. 44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

This was another judgment promised to Israel for it's disobedience and rebellion against God. My country (the UK) is facing this judgment at the moment. This week we have been vexed by both Islamic extremism on the one side and far-right extremism on the other - both of which were planning to March in our capital and also other cities such as Leeds this weekend. A certain Islamist organisation had planned to stage a march yesterday demanding the implementation of Islamic rule in Britain. Thankfully, this was cancelled due to security concerns. For the moment, this historic country with a rich Christian heritage has not been handed over.

The war is raging on as "Islam for UK" intend to keep fighting for this goal. I believe my nation deserves this, as we have received a lot of light and blessing from God and we have rebelled against his laws, not only condoning iniquity but parading it publicly (public funded gay rights marches funded by the tax-payer). This is whilst our Police have no time to catch burglars as they are too busy harrassing street evangelists. Our MPs are misusing our expenses on personal pleasures and our Prime Minister refuses to comment on the Lockerbie bomber release.

I could go on, but the UK is ripe for judgment and the Church needs to wake up. The whole nation needs to repent. We have borrowed from many foreign Islamic nations and our institutions are being bought by them. This will incur a big IOU and we are becoming their tail.

Many of us prayed against the demonstrations yesterday and God has graciously answered that prayer. Maybe it is not too late yet. God delivered Israel when the nation cried out to him, and God can deliver us.

2 Kings 20: Determinism or Answered Prayer?

2009-08-23T09:19:00.001-07:00

1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." 2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 "Remember, O Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the Lord came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the Lord. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.'"

This prayer of Hezekiah's illustrates the nature of prayer. It is a relationship between God and his creation. The sovereign, omniscient God who knows the end from the beginning hears the cry of a sinful creature and changes his course of action in response. This demonstrates that prayer has positive power to change things in world events and in our individual lives. This defeats deterministic and fatalistic thinking among many believers today. We should never be saying "this is prophesied so we cannot pray against it". How much should we praying for God to fulfil his purpose to Israel and the nations, and for God's will to be done through our national government. The UK government has brought shame upon our nation by failing to execute justice against the Lockerbie bomber and we have become an international laughing stock. We need change in this country and it starts with Christians. We need to pray that God will perhaps relent from sending judgment upon us and bring us under a righteous and just government. W e should never attribute everything that happens to divine decree but responsibly play our part and petition the living God who answers prayer. Maybe you are suffering illness, unemployment or some other crisis. God is personal and he heard the cries of Hezekiah, he heard the suffering of his people in Egypt and he hears us today when we pray to him and cry out to him.

Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom (Part 1)

2009-08-19T15:05:00.000-07:00

A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps. (Proverbs 16:9)

There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.(Proverbs 19:21)

These verses are one of many that teach us that the Biblical truths of divine sovereignty and human freedom are beyond our grasp. Although I consider myself a four-point Arminian, I do not believe that this system fully solves the tension. To me it is less problematic than Calvinism but neither system can ultimately do justice to God’s revelation.

The truth of God’s sovereign control over all events and human freedom are both taught in Scripture and by experience. Jonah was a man with his own desires and used his freedom to run away from God and attempted to thwart his purpose. Yet God overruled the situation and, against Jonah’s will, brought him to Ninevah to warn the people of the coming judgment. The desire of Jonah’s heart was the destruction of Ninevah and yet God’s purpose and desire was for them to be warned and repent. Jonah was not a puppet or a robot but a real person with a rebellious nature and a will of his own, yet Yahweh had his way and his purpose was fulfilled.

God’s sovereign will is not mysterious or capricious but consistent with his own character and holiness. He used the wicked actions of Joseph’s brothers to bring deliverance in a time of famine (Genesis 52:20). He used the wicked actions of sinful men to bring about the salvation of the world (Acts 2:23). He is able to use all things to work together for our good. Understanding our own responsibility and yet God’s sovereign control over these is an encouragement, challenge and comfort to the believer.

You may be desiring to serve God and please him, and he will direct your steps. You may be rebellious towards your creator and he still guides your steps for his ultimate end. You have the freedom to choose.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live (Deut 30:19)

Romans 8: No Condemnation

2009-08-16T12:56:00.001-07:00

There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)

Calvinist writer A.W. Pink summed up the meaning of Romans 8:1 in these excellent words:

To be in Christ Jesus is to be perfectly identified with Him in the judicial reckoning and dealings of God: and it is also to be one with Him as vitally united by faith. Immunity from condemnation does not depend in any-wise upon our "walk," but solely on our being "in Christ." "The believer is in Christ as Noah was enclosed within the ark, with the heavens darkening above him, and the waters heaving beneath him, yet not a drop of the flood penetrating his vessel, not a blast of the storm disturbing the serenity of his spirit. The believer is in Christ as Jacob was in the garment of the elder brother when Isaac kissed and blessed him. He is in Christ as the poor homicide was within the city of refuge when pursued by the avenger of blood, but who could not overtake and slay him" (Dr. Winslow, 1857). And because he is "in Christ" there is, therefore, no condemnation for him. Hallelujah! (Comfort For Christians, chapter 1).

Divine Sovereignty and Divine Love

2009-08-07T10:56:00.000-07:00

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. (Romans 10:1)

This deep desire of The Apostle Paul is the a reflection of God's deep desire. I believe that "Israel" in this passage means the Jewish people collectively and nationally. This passage shows a saint praying for his own people and it should be a model of prayer for us.

First of all we should have a desire and prayer for Israel to be saved. Secondly, it shows how we should pray for those close to us and our own people. Interestingly, neither the Calvinistic view of predestination nor the Arminian view of free will are part of this prayer. It relies on the sovereignty of God in operation - a truth emphasised by Calvinists. It reflects the love of God for lost people - a truth emphasised by Arminians. The fact that men have free will does not prevent an Arminian from praying that God will save a lost friend. The belief that someone may not be predestined to salvation does not prevent the Calvinist from pleading with God to save that individual. If, as C.H. Spurgeon argued, an Arminian becomes a Calvinist on his knees, then the reverse is also true: A Calvinist becomes an Arminian on his knees. On our knees, brothers in Christ meet together and pray for that God will act in his sovereign power, motivated by his love for a lost world.

The Eloquent Hogwash of C.H. Spurgeon

2009-08-07T10:18:00.000-07:00

C.H. Spurgeon was not called the Prince of Preachers without reason. He was a very gifted and influential speaker. He had great Bible knowledge and led many people to the Lord. However he sometimes spoke the most eloquent hogwash. Ridiculous words and arguments that were put eloquently, but hogwash all the same. His sermon "Free Will - a Slave" reads more like a malicious diatribe than a sermon aimed at glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ. Referring to John 5:40 he states:

This is one of the great guns of the Arminians, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved.

When I read the pitiful phrase "the poor Christians called Calvinists" I burst out laughing. In what way are they poor? It was the Arminians who were persecuted severely by the Westminster "divines" in Parliament when the Westminster Confession of Faith was composed. Secondly, Spurgeon has failed to substantiate his caricature of the Arminian position. I know of no Arminian who teaches that the will is entirely free or that we must make ourselves willing to come to Christ. Spurgeon does not cite any examples. This is unworthy of a servant of God to slander a brother just for not agreeing with Spurgeon's Calvinism. He also states:

You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it.

Let's look at how a saint prays. The Apostle Paul prayed for his people Israel:

"Brothers my hearts desire and prayer to God is for Israel, that they might be saved" (Romans 10:1)

This is how all saints pray for those close to them, their unsaved family and friends. This is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian. It recognises the sovereignty of God in the operation of salvation. It also reflects God's desire for the lost to be saved. It is true that Arminians lay aside the doctrine of free will when praying for loved ones who are lost. It is also true that the Calvinist lays aside the doctrine of election when praying for loved ones who are lost. A consistent Calvinist prayer would be "Lord please save those of my friends you have elected and damn (or pass by) those that you have not chosen, according to your pleasure". If a Calvinist prays otherwise, he is being just as inconsistent as the Arminian he is ridiculing. Spurgeon digs a hole further for himself:

Fancy him [the Arminian] praying, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them." That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that.

Nobody else? More like nobody at all! I know of nobody who prays like that. Spurgeon was good at setting up straw men. This sermon sadly has influenced many Calvinistic pastors and is parroted out by many of them blasting Arminians from the pulpit.

The Simplicity of Salvation

2009-07-30T15:01:00.000-07:00

We cannot save ourselves from God's wrath but God has provided salvation for us. It is easy to be saved.

4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. 6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. 7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. (Numbers 21)

The Lord Jesus used this as an illustration of the sacrifice of himself:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16).

Just as the Israelites had to look on the serpent to be healed, we have to look upon Christ to be healed of our sin. God's provision requires a response - even though God had provided the remedy, it is ineffectual if it is not applied. The response is to trust in him. The gift of God's one and only Son is sufficient to save all and effective only for those who believe.

Some Israelites may have failed to look at this provision and tried to find their own remedy. Today many religious ignore God's provision and focus their efforts on good works and fail to come by the means God has provided. If the Israelite failed to look at the serpent and instead focused their attention on their wounds, they would have perished. Many believers today are likewise very introspective and focus on their sins and how to do better. This is not the solution.

Just one look was all that was required for healing. Likewise, when someone throws themselves on God's mercy and trusts in The Lord Jesus as the lamb of God who takes away their sin, they are forgiven once and for all time. Salvation is not reversed when we take our eyes off the Lord, but we are preserved by him and disciplined by him that we may grow in grace and righteousness (John 6:47-40, Hebrews 12).

When Satan tempts me to despair

and tells me of the guilt within

upward I look and see him there

who made an end of all my sin

Because the sinless saviour died

My sinful soul is counted free

for God the just is satisfied

to look on him and pardon me

Will Everyone Be Saved?

2009-07-30T11:41:00.000-07:00

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

We have two erroneous interpretations of this passage. First, the universalists will argue that all men will be saved as Christ is the Saviour of all men. Second, Some Calvinists teach that it means that Christ is the "Saviour" of all men in that he is the temporary provider and sustainer of them. However, consistency requires us to interpret the word "Saviour" in the same way that it does in chapter 1 verse 1: Our great God and saviour Jesus Christ. This verse means that Christ is the saviour of all men in terms of his role. A.T. Robertsons commentary on this verse states that God is the potential saviour of all1. J.C. Ryles exposition (on another passage relating directly to Christ) is very helpful in understanding this:

Christ is to the souls of men what the sun is to the world. He is the center and source of all spiritual light, warmth, life, health, growth, beauty, and fertility. Like the sun, He shines for the common benefit of all mankind--for high and for low, for rich and for poor, for Jew and for Greek. Like the sun, He is free to all. All may look at Him, and drink health out of His light. If millions of mankind were mad enough to dwell in caves underground, or to bandage their eyes, their darkness would be their own fault, and not the fault of the sun. So, likewise, if millions of men and women love spiritual "darkness rather than light," the blame must be laid on their blind hearts, and not on Christ. "Their foolish hearts are darkened." (John 3:19; Rom. 1:21.) But whether men will see or not, Christ is the true sun, and the light of the world. There is no light for sinners except in the Lord Jesus.2

Christ is the Saviour of all men in the sense that he provided salvation at the Cross. It was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole human race, but it’s effect can only be experienced by belief. A father is the provider for his family, but the children still have to eat that provision. If the child rejects it and starves, the father is still the provider. In the same way, man can reject Christ and go to eternal doom, yet he is still their saviour as he has already provided it for them.

This passage in no way affirms that everyone will be saved.

1 A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in The New Testament.
2 John 1, Provided by www.gracegems.org

Does All Mean All?

2009-07-30T11:37:00.001-07:00

The pastoral epistles contain a number of passages which clearly indicate that God desires the salvation of all men. The first one is found in the epistle of 1 Timothy.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (2:1-6)

This verse clearly states that God desires all men to be saved. The term "all" means "the totality of the person or things referred to" (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p21, Thomas Nelson 1985). Yet some would argue that "all men" means "all kinds of men" and not "all men". In other words, the phrase means "all men without distinction but not all men without exception". They reason that the verse "for kings and all who are in high places" means that various classes are in mind rather than each man alive. This is a strained interpretation. All men means all men, and the simple reason we are commanded to pray for "kings and all that in high places" is so that we may lead tranquil and godly lives, and that all men under their authority may get live tranquil and godly lives, because God wants all men to be saved. The reason for this desire for all men to be saved is that there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Not one mediator for some men, but for man (i.e. the entire human race). Where the Bible says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" it does NOT mean that all sorts of men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No Calvinist would dispute the plain meaning of "all" in that passage as it is not detrimental to their theological system. Later we find the truth repeated:

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (4:10)

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world (Titus 2:11-12)

There is a distinction in these verses between "all men" and "those who believe". If the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 Timothy 2v4 is correct then we should expect this passage to read as "God is the Saviour of all kinds of believers, especially those who believe". This is nonsense. Most Calvinists, however, do not interpret the passage this way. Whilst they would dispute the "Arminian" understanding of "all" in chapter 2v4, they default to the Arminian understanding here. Instead of redefining the term "all" in the latter passage, they redefine the word "Saviour". This latter word is understood to mean that God is the preserver of all men in that he provides them with temporal benefits like food and air to breathe, The preservation apparently does not include eternal salvation. This again is a selective translation which they do not apply to the same phrase in chapter 1 verse 1 "God our Saviour" and other verses such as "Our great God and saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). A more honest approach is to allow the terms "all" and "Saviour" to mean what they say and to allow them to mean the same thing in each occurrence.

The Earth Shall Tremble

2009-07-18T03:12:00.000-07:00

But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. (Jeremiah 10:10)

The God of Jeremiah The Prophet, The God of Israel, is the God of whole earth and there is a time coming when his wrath shall be known upon the earth. This is a recurring theme throughout the Bible:

6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? 7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. (Jeremiah 30:6-7)

1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Daniel 12:1)

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (Matthew 24:21).

Yes, we are living in troubled times now. The world is fearful of international terrorism, climate change and other threats to our world. This is nothing compared to what is to come. The verses above warn of a time of unequalled trouble. The repeated phrase "there is none like it" means that there can only be one such time, and that they are speaking of that same one time. Is this day to come or has it been already?

Whilst God has judged Israel and other nations individually, history tells us of no judgment upon all nations similtanously. The Lord Jesus Christ gave us a clue to the timing of this:

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:29-30).

If the glorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ is immediately after the tribulation of those days, it follows that this tribulation is immediately before. Unless we spiritualise the words of the Lord, we can agree that this has not happened yet (and Jesus The Messiah did not return in glory in AD70).

Why is God putting the world through a time of tribulation? There are many reasons but one is to express his wrath against the world. There is no doubt that the world is very wicked. I live in the UK which is one of the most evil nations on this earth. I believe the trembling spoken of in Jeremiah 10:10 is a global earthquake.

I'm sure most reading this blog are concerned with the future of this world. The only way we can know true peace is to trust in Jesus The Messiah and you will be delivered from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10, Romans 5:9). More on this on another post, or see previous post on "The Departure"

The UK Judged By God (Part 2)

2009-07-17T15:27:00.000-07:00

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: 16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. 17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.

This passage teaches how God deals with nations who are rebellious against the commands and light he has given. The UK is currently under this curse. At present we are quite wealthy compared to many other nations but due to the credit crunch and inflation we are seeing prices of both luxuries and necessities rising. The price of gas and energy, in turn affecting prices in supermarkets, are becoming less affordable. How important it is to pray for our nation, and that we acknowledge God in all our ways. Never has a time of national prayer to the one and true God, and his Son the Lord Jesus Christ, been more necessary.

The UK Judged By God (Part 1)

2009-07-16T14:57:00.001-07:00

These verses, in context, are God’s promises to Israel if they rebel against him. It teaches a lesson in how God deals with nations. The UK, like Israel, has been blessed with much light from God in the past centuries. I believe that God has cursed the UK both in the city and in the field. The current credit crunch and the regular attacks on our cities. Some may remember that London had to close for a day on October 17th 1987 after the most ferocious storm devastated huge parts of the country. In 2005 the city was attacked by terrorists and faced torrential flooding in August 2007. In early 2009 it was brought to a standstill by unprecedented snowfall. We have not seen the last of this, as apocolyptic moves like Flood are not far from reality. The Thames Barriers are not strong enough to hold back this possibility.

We have also been cursed in the field. Foot and mouth disease has destroyed our livestock and crops being destroyed by draught and floods. There is no doubt that these things have come upon us as a nation because we have abandoned God and the only solution is to repent and seek the Lord while he may be found. How important it is that we pray for our nation and government, that righteousness and justice may be established in the land once again and he may relent from his judgment.

Most people reading this post will be worried about the future of the world and of this country. Not all trust in our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. He holds the future in his hands and whilst he does not promise a rose garden, you can have your sins forgiven and know where this world is going and experience peace and deliverance from God's wrath in him.