Law: What is it good for? Part 2

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-20

Concerning our discussion yesterday, read the passage above and consider a few things:

-The law being discussed in this passage is not some new law, but the 'law and the prophets'. This is specifically referring to the law given through Moses in the Old Testament and backed up by the prophets.

-What does 'fulfill' mean? Does it mean obedience to the law? Does it mean that His coming fulfills prophecy concerning Him? Does it mean that He came to obey it perfectly thus 'fulfilling' it in the lives of all who believe?

-If in the word 'fulfill' Jesus has in mind His obedience to the law so that believers are released from the obligation to obey it (not necessity to obey, as justification comes by faith alone), then wouldn't it be better to paraphrase Jesus' words by saying: 'I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, thus it will be abolished after my death and resurrection'?

-Who was Jesus talking to when He said 'whoever relaxes'? Was He talking to Old Covenant believers, New Covenant believers, or all believers? If He was talking only to Old Covenant believers in the sense that this 'relaxing' would not be possible after His death, would it be correct in saying that this 'relaxing' warning only applied for less than 3 1/2 years, up until the completion of Jesus' earthly ministry? That is, since His death supposedly gave the power to 'relax' the command, then He was only speaking this warning to those who wouldn't see the New Covenant, correct?

-What does 'until all is accomplished' referring to? Was this referring to His death and resurrection? If so, then why does He equate the 'accomplished' with 'until heaven and earth pass away'? Doesn't this seem like a time reference here? Or is it simply a statement of fact?

-Does the statement: 'whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven' refer to just Old Covenant believers, New Covenant believers, or all believers? Is this only applicable to those in His hearing and not to those who lived to see the New Covenant 3 1/2 years later and beyond?

Law: What is it good for?

Romans 6:14 says:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

What is Paul talking about here? What is meant by the terms ‘under law’ and ‘under grace’?

Or, in this passage:

For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. – Gal 2:19

Or here:

…the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. – Gal 3:24-26

Too often I hear the assertion that New Covenant/New Testament believers are not ‘under law’, without any definition of what is meant by these terms. So, to illustrate:

Is it perfectly OK for me to lie as a professing Christian? Hey, as long as I don’t make a practice of it like 1 John warns, why worry about the sometimes necessary pains it takes to always tell the complete truth?

Is it perfectly OK for me as a professing believer to commit adultery in my heart by lusting after women other than my wife? Hey, as long as I don’t actually commit the act, then its ‘washed in the blood’ and water under the bridge, correct?

Well, there are several answers that can be given to these questions, one of which is how Paul responded to in Romans 6: Do we sin though that grace may abound? Certainly not!

However, my aim today is to show that in order for the term ‘sin’ to even exist, there must be a definition or standard by which to measure. By necessity, the use of the term ‘sin’ implies a law. Is it a sin to lie? Of course! Thus, there is a ‘law’, or a ‘precept’, or a ‘standard’ (all synonyms of God’s law) by which sin is measured. As it says in the book of 1st John, sin is lawlessness, as it is any breaking of the law.

So, unless you believe that in the New Covenant there is absolutely no standard whatsoever given to the Christian, then you must deal with the fact that there is still a ‘law’, and Christians are commanded to obey it. Also consider that the church cannot practice church discipline if there is no law. We cannot ‘know them by their fruits’ if there is no law. Ultimately, we cannot even know how to ‘live Godly in this present age’, if there is no law.

I say these things because I would like to write some future posts on the law vs. grace debate, along with the Dispensational, Covenant, and New Covenant Theology disagreements on this subject as well. This will serve as a simply 'defining our terms' post so that the air is clear before we start throwing around terms such as 'law'. Speak now if you disagree with the assessment that anything that is a sin is a law, and that as Chrisitians, we are commanded and obligated to obey what God has commanded.

Conclusion:
When I use the term 'law' from here on out (to refer to that which is commanded and expected of New Testament Christians), I am referring to any thought, word, or deed which God considers a sin. When I use the term 'law', I am never referring to a external standard of conduct that justifies or condemns those who place faith in Christ. Salvation is by faith through grace, and is a gift from God, not a result of works.

SDG

The Holy Spirit P2

So in my last post, I opened up the discussion regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, and I considered what exactly changed with the resurrection of Christ and the New Covenant in the New Testament.

Specifically, I pointed out how Jesus taught explicitly about the Holy Spirit in John chapter 3, and then rebuked the Pharisee Nicodemus for being a teacher and not understanding these truths (obviously, from the Old Testament alone).

So today, I want to throw a few more questions out there to think on:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. – Acts 8:14-17

Here we have people who believed and were baptized in Jesus, but who had not yet had the Holy Spirit fall on them. This raises a few questions:

-Why, in the New Covenant and after Pentecost, had the Holy Spirit not 'fallen' on them?

-If we cross reference Matthew 16:17, we see that Peter verbally acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ. The passage teaches us that He did this not by his own power, but by the power of the Spirit. This is further explained in 1 Cor 12:3 where Paul teaches us that nobody can truly say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.

So, if we are Calvinists, and we believe that man is dead in his sin, and we believe that man cannot do good on his own, and that man cannot repent without the work of the Spirit, then how did these people confess Christ and even go to the length of being baptized without the work of the Spirit?

A Few of My Thoughts:
These people did have the Holy Spirit. In fact, they had the New Covenant/post-Pentecost Holy Spirit in the exact manner as we do today. That is proved by their conversion post-new covenant and post-Pentecost. However, in the above passage, it is noted that Philip was performing signs and great miracles (8:13), and these people were not. Thus, I believe that there is a distinction in the scriptures between the power of the Spirit to do supernatural things (tongues, heal, prophesy), and the indwelling of the Spirit that brings regeneration, faith, etc. Let me explain further:

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.” – Acts 10:34 – 38

Above we see a reference to the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and an affirmation that beginning with His baptism (the Holy Spirit, if you recall, fell upon Him in the form of a dove), He was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power.

So, we must ask ourselves: did Jesus perform signs and miracles before the baptism of John? No He did not, at least from any record in scripture. So then, was the Holy Spirit absent from Jesus until the baptism of John? Again, I would say no. The Spirit was with Him, being that He had perfect fellowship with the Father and was without sin, but the supernatural power of the Spirit to do signs was not given to Him until His baptism.

Conclusion:
I believe that the supernatural power to perform things such as tongues, prophecy, and healings, was a special pouring out of the Spirit during the time of the Apostles, and that there must be a distinction made between the indwelling of the Spirit, which all believers have, and the power of the Spirit to do wonders. If we read the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament, we frequently see ‘the power of the Spirit’ being associated with the laying on of hands by the Apostles, or the specific pouring out of the Spirit in response to the Apostle’s teaching.

To back this up, I can point to at least a dozen or so Old Testament passages that speak of the gift of prophesy being given to unbelievers. Saul is one example, Balaam is another. But from these I think a case can be made that the 'power' of the Holy Spirit to perform supernatural things is different than the permanent indwelling of the Spirit promised to believers in the New Covenant.

Thus, I see Pentecost as an aberration of sorts. The Spirit has always been at work in the lives of believers, only now, we have been told that He does not depart from us. But just because He does not depart does not mean that the power to perform supernatural signs has been given for the entire church age. Simply put, I believe it is clear that it has been close to 2000 years since the miraculous gifts have been given to the church (great signs, wonders, healings, have obviously been absent). Just like in the Old Testament in the 400 years of silence, God Himself chooses when to pour out these things, and He has only done it during select times in the history of the world.

The Holy Spirit

I saw a comment the other day where a Charismatic said to a cessationist:

I haven’t met any serious cessationists who were under the age of 60 in a REALLY long time.

Despite my disagreement with his non-cessationist views, this statement has some truth to it. The younger crowd of Christians, this same crowd that is for the most part starting to embrace the doctrines of Calvinism as biblical truth, tend to be more ‘open’ to the possibility of spiritual gifts than the older crowd. There are a number of reasons for this, the main one being (in my opinion) a bad taste left over from the rigid, overly-dogmatic, legalistic, harsh ‘rules’ that the fundamentalist movement forced upon us while we were growing up. This is, in a way, a very good thing! We have a generation that wants to get back to what the Bible says! Praise God! But taking this 'back to the book' approach, to the untrained reader, it is easy to be seduced by the notion that the book of Acts or 1 Corinthians describes the normal way of life in the NT church.

But the issue of the gifts is not the topic of this post. Instead, I make the above statements to emphasize how sad our (when I say ‘our’, I mean the majority of modern-day Christianity, including myself) doctrine of the Holy Spirit is. There are just way too many people running around saying all of this stuff about the Spirit who haven’t a clue what the scriptures say about this Divine Person.

For example, can you defend the deity of the Holy Spirit? Ask yourself if you can show from scripture how the Spirit is a separate person from God the Father and God the Son, and how He is still God in Himself. Or, to give another example, why did Jesus say that He must depart to the Father before the Spirit could be sent? Doesn’t this make it seem like the Spirit and the Son are in fact the same Person? TD Jakes and other Oneness Pentecostals sure think so. But sadly, many Christians now days just take the orthodox Trinitarian truths at face value without ever looking into them close enough to defend these doctrine in the face of detractors.

So, from the looks of things, we have a whole ‘younger’ generation who loves to debate whether the sign gifts have ended or not, but who in reality can’t really defend the basic truths about the Spirit in general. This should not be so! It is my firm conviction that if people would just get their doctrine of the Spirit right, ie, from scripture, then these debates over the continuation of gifts would decrease significantly.

Thus, today I would like to pose you a question on the Spirit:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. - John 14:25-27

Notice a few things about this passage: First, Jesus speaks in the future tense in that he will ask His Father and He will give the Spirit. Secondly, however, notice that Jesus sums the discussion up by saying that He dwells with you, present tense.

So, which is it? Did the disciples have the Spirit? Or were they to receive the Spirit at a future time?

Well, it is my position that they most certainly had the Spirit before Pentecost (though He came and went). In fact, every believer before Pentecost (all OT believers) had the exact same Spirit as is present after Pentecost. Pentecost wasn't some special annointing that would have ramifications throughout the entire church age. No, it was simply a special working of the same Spirit (as was in the OT) to build and establish the gentile church. But regeneration (the new birth) is certainly not possible outside of the work of the Spirit, so if anyone prior to Pentecost is in heaven, in must be because of the work of the Spirit.

To back up my point, consider that Jesus in John 3 emphatically tells Nicodemus that one must be born of the Spirit to see the kingdom of heaven. In 3:8 Jesus specifically ties salvation to the Work of the Spirit. But was Jesus prophesying about Pentecost? Was He simply teaching what would be true after His death? Definitely not. The next verse down in 3:9-10 it says,

“Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"

Jesus expected Nicodemus to have a correct doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament alone. Would Jesus rebuke you just the same?

SDG

Does the OT teach a future for Israel?

In my last post, entitled ‘A Future for Israel?’, Troy asked an excellent question:

“Why are the quotes from the OT that teach the future restoration of the nation of Israel not valid? And why are they not taken at face value just as the NT quotes?”

Now, Gordan had a great response to this question (see the comment section), and I encourage you to read his comment, but I thought a detailed response here might benefit our readers who don’t usually stray into the comment section.

The question essentially is: what about all of the OT promises that teach a glorious future for Israel?

First, let me remind you to brush up on your Dispensationalism so that you accurately understand how these men interpret scripture.

Secondly, let me say that I do take the OT promises concerning a future for Israel literally, though I clearly let the New Testament define these terms. Let me explain:

To put it in the simple terms, when the Old Testament speaks of Israel, it is speaking of the ‘type’ or ‘shadow’ of God’s chosen people. Israel was chosen out of all the other nations on earth, and God set His special love on them. He delivered them out of bondage and into the ‘promised land’. All of these are figures of how God deals with His elect. Bondage represents our sin, promised land represents the heaven that awaits us, the unconditional ‘choosing’ of Israel represents the unconditional choosing of His elect, etc. Even more so, the imagery gets very explicit and Christ-orientated. The serpent on the pole represents Christ on the cross, the manna represents Christ and the ‘bread from heaven’, the rock represents Christ in ‘living water’, the entire sacrificial and priesthood system represented what Christ does for us now, so on and so forth.

Essentially, the Old Testament uses lots of symbolism in pointing to realities that were to come, and the book of Hebrews is a good place to research this more. But Christ is the ultimate reality to which all of these 'figures' pointed to. This is one reason why the Jews of Jesus’ day missed their Messiah: they were focused so much on the realities in the OT that they missed the truth that the realities OT pointed to! Jesus Himself repeatedly said that the Law and the Prophets all speak of Him. All of the ceremonies, temple, sacrifices, sabbaths, etc., pointed towards what would be a reality in Christ.

Thus, when we get to Israel, we find another ‘type’ and a ‘shadow’ that modern day people focus on instead of the reality to which the term points! Are we honestly going to say that Israel the nation is something special because of bloodline and not because of Christ? No, Israel is simply ‘the people of God’, and nationalities play absolutely no role in the matter once Christ has come. All who are in Christ are in the 'Israel' of God! How can I say this?

-Romans 11:13-24 clearly says that us Gentiles have been ‘grafted in’ to Israel. Does that mean we have replaced Israel? By no means! But we have been joined with Israel in Christ.

-Paul, in Romans 2 says that “no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” And to follow that up, in Romans 9 he says “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’”.

But how does Paul follow those up? Well, in regards to Romans 2, he says elsewhere in Colossians 2 that ‘In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism…” He also calls the church the “true circumcision” in Philippians chapter 3. And in regards to the Romans 9 passage he follows up the 'not all are of Israel' comment with affirming that it is God's elect who are of Israel when he says, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”

-Peter in 1 Peter 2 calls the gentile church “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,” This is language used specifically to describe the nation of Israel in the OT. In Exodus 19:6 God says “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

-Jesus states in John 10:16 that, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

-In Ephesians 2 it says: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”

Much more scriptural evidence could be given (for a detailed look at this, see this document), but I hope that this little taste of scripture will show the reader that there is ‘neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.” – Galatians 3: 28.

What are those who are 'Abraham's offspring'? Israelites of course! How can anyone seriously dispute this scriptural truth? It is so crystal clear, but for some reason, just like in Jesus' day, you have people focussing on the temporal instead of the heavenly reality. Just as the author of Hebrews states: "you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," and a little later..."For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." (Hebrews 12:22; 13:14)

OT promises concerning Israel are indeed future realities to be hoped for by us, but the authors of the New Testament clearly show that what the prophets had in mind was not a group of people with a certain bloodline, but rather that Israel was a ‘picture’ or a ‘shadow’ of the true people of God: the Israel of God, Galatians 6:16.

SDG

A Future for Israel?

Dear reader, whether you are familiar with this topic or not, would you please just take a moment and consider whether Jesus Himself taught a future for the nation of Israel? For many are the teachers now days who love force this unsupported notion down our throats.

It’s no wonder why Spurgeon called Dispensationalism “Stupidity” (hat-tip to Davide Palmer for the quote). Here are but a few parables to consider, and please take a moment to point out to me where the restoration of Israel lies in this teaching:

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” –Matt 8

“There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.” – Matt 21

“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy… - Matt 22

“Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God.” Luke 13

“A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’” – Luke 14

And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus. And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him. But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” – Luke 23

Dogma: An Absolute Necessity

Given all of the controversy surrounding the 'Stop and Think' video, which is still making waves in the over-politicized blogsphere, I thought a little JC Ryle will help bring a perspective into things that some might not have thought of:

The times require at our hands distinct and decided views of Christian doctrine. I cannot withhold my conviction that the professing church is as much damaged by laxity and indistinctness about matters of doctrine within, as it is by skeptics and unbelievers without. Myriads of professing Christians nowadays seem utterly unable to distinguish things that differ. Like people afflicted with color blindness, they are incapable of discerning what is true and what is false, what is sound and what is unsound. If a preacher of religion is only clever and eloquent and earnest, they appear to think he is all right, however strange and heterogeneous his sermons may be. They are destitute of spiritual sense, apparently, and cannot detect error...Carried away by a fancied liberality and charity, they seem to think everybody is right and nobody is wrong, every clergyman is sound and none are unsound, everybody is going to be saved and nobody is going to be lost. Their religion is made up of negatives; and the only positive thing about them is, that they dislike distinctness, and think all extreme and decided and positive views are very naughty and very wrong!

These people live in a kind of mist or fog. They see nothing clearly, and do not know what they believe. They have not made up their minds about any great point in the gospel, and seem content to be honorary members of all schools of thought...They are eaten up with a morbid dread of controversy and an ignorant dislike of "party spirit," and yet they really cannot define what they mean by these phrases. The only point you can make out is that they admire earnestness and cleverness and charity, and cannot believe that any clever, earnest, charitable man can ever be in the wrong! And so they live on undecided; and too often undecided they drift down to the grave, without comfort in their religion and, I am afraid, often without hope.
...The whole result is that a kind of broad religious "agnosticism" just suits an immense number of people, and specially suits young people. They are content to shovel aside all disputed points as rubbish, and if you charge them with indecision, they will tell you, "I do not pretend to understand controversy; I decline to examine controverted points. I dare say it is all the same in the long run." Who does not know that such people swarm and abound everywhere?

Now I do beseech all who read this message to beware of this undecided state of mind in religion. It is a pestilence which walks in darkness, and a destruction that kills in noonday. It is a lazy, idle frame of soul which, doubtless, saves men the trouble of thought and investigation; but it is a frame of soul for which there is no warrant in the Bible, nor yet in the Articles or Prayer Book of the Church of England. For your own soul’s sake dare to make up your mind what you believe, and dare to have positive distinct views of truth and error. Never, never be afraid to hold decided doctrinal opinions; and let no fear of man and no morbid dread of being thought party–spirited, narrow or controversial, make you rest contented with a bloodless, boneless, tasteless, colorless, lukewarm, undogmatic Christianity.

Mark what I say. If you want to do good in these times, you must throw aside indecision, and take up a distinct, sharply cut, doctrinal religion. If you believe little, those to whom you try to do good will believe nothing. The victories of Christianity, wherever they have been won, have been won by distinct doctrinal theology, ...Christianity without distinct doctrine is a powerless thing. It may be beautiful to some minds, but it is childless and barren. There is no getting over facts. The good that is done in the earth may be comparatively small. Evil may abound and ignorant impatience may murmur, and cry out that Christianity has failed. But, depend on it, if we want to "do good" and shake the world, we must fight with the old apostolic weapons, and stick to "dogma". No dogma, no fruits! No positive evangelical doctrine, no evangelization!

... It was "dogma" in the apostolic ages which emptied the heathen temples, and shook Greece and Rome. It was "dogma" which awoke Christendom from its slumbers at the time of the Reformation, and spoiled the pope of one third of his subjects. It was "dogma" which one hundred years ago revived the Church of England in the days of Whitefield, Wesley, Venn and Romaine, and blew up our dying Christianity into a burning flame. It is "dogma" at this moment which gives power to every successful mission, whether at home or abroad. It is doctrine—doctrine, clear ringing doctrine—which, like the ram’s horns at Jericho, casts down the opposition of the devil and sin. Let us cling to decided doctrinal views, whatever some may please to say in these times, and we shall do well for ourselves, well for others, well for the Church of England, and well for Christ’s cause in the world.

[Holiness, J.C. Ryle, Charles Nolan Pub, P. 354-355, Wants of the Times]

The Christian 'Wave'?

There was a Christian youth conference in Atlanta a few weeks ago (go here for more...and turn down your computer speakers) called Passion 2007. Lou Giglio, a former teacher at North Point Community church, formed the Passion conferences, and among the speakers this past weekend included John Piper. According to the website, 22,000 youth showed up this year to the Atlanta conference.

Now, I’ve got three quick comments to make on this:

First, I live in Atlanta and have now for almost 20 years, and I would love to know where these 22,000 young people are who seek Jesus Christ and His truth with a ‘passion’. Not to say that they don’t exist, but just from personal experience, its pretty bare-bones around here. Maybe I’m just not in the right circles, but I would certainly love to get to know more young people who are serious about following the Lord, because it sometimes seems as though there aren’t many around.

Secondly, I was a little surprised to see that Piper was speaking at this conference. Not that I disagree with that decision, for I honestly don’t know too much about Passion, but it just doesn't seem like the kind of circle that would find Piper’s theology worth listening to. Nevertheless, on a sad note, Piper must have adapted to his audience quite well, as he has now apologized for using foul language from the pulpit during one of his sessions. Yes, I love Piper’s ministry (his books are way better than his sermons, as they come with an editor), but I must say that I was truly disappointed in this.

Lastly, I came across this short clip of what it was like during one of the sessions. Personally, and I will not win readers with this comment, but I cant figure out what is worse: doing the wave while supposedly offering worship to a sovereign and holy God, or being reverent and singing a song with such poor doctrine as ‘we must choose’.

SDG

Matthew 10:23

Have you ever wondered what this verse means?

[Jesus talking to His disciples] “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” – Matthew 10:23

A few months ago I posted my own exegesis of Matthew chapter 24, and I noted (among other things) that I believe that the statement by Jesus in 24:29-31 (they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven) does not refer to a ‘coming in judgment’ like many exegetes claim. In fact, here is what I said on the passage:

V29-31: In opposition to the Preterist argument, I do not believe that this section is referring to Jesus’ coming in judgment on disobedient Jerusalem. This was discussed in more detail here, but essentially, my position is based upon: A) the description of this coming is too detailed to be taken figuratively (as opposed to other passages in scripture that do speak of God coming in judgment only). B) Jesus is again answering a twofold question in which part of the question refers to His coming at the end of the age (this present age, not a supposed Jewish age). C) In Matthew 25:31, Jesus describes His 2nd coming when He will judge the nations. The language used here is very similar to the language of 24:29-31, thus I believe they describe the same event. If not, then we have no basis for affirming that 25:31 is literal (which it obviously is because of the judgment described), but that 24:29-31 is figurative. Nope, that position is extremely inconsistent.

Now, as it stands now, I still stand by my interpretation, although my reasoning for doing so might be slightly different. You see, in Matthew 10:23 above, we run into a bit of a problem. Here, Jesus is clearly using the language of the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in a sense that does not and indeed cannot refer to His bodily return to earth to judge the nations. Beforehand, I have always identified all of the language of the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in reference to His physical 2nd coming as described in Acts chapter 1, but this has led me to rethink a few things.

But just to summarize, upon looking at this verse this week (10:23), I was unable to find even one commentator out of over 2 dozen that I completely agreed with. Sadly, dispensationalists come to passages like this and their eyes glaze over just like they do in Matthew 24. The attempt to place these things in the future (and explain them in their context) is so clearly exegetically fallacious that it is sad to even read. But even many noted amillennialists and preterists stumble over this passage, in my opinion. Some of their reasoning is a little sketchy at times.

So I’d like to challenge my readers to go to Matthew 10:23, read it in its context, read what others say about it, and see them try to come up with a coherent answer. When you find one, let me know. Undoubtedly, if you are honest with yourself, you will have to admit that the phrase ‘coming of the Son of Man’ can and must have more that one blanket meaning. We must define it by the context, and not by our own presuppositions.

More on this verse soon, that is, whenever I figure it out (which could be a few dozen years).

SDG

Family Blog

Only one month to go until my little girl is due. My wife is surprisingly doing very well for this late in her pregnancy. The Lord is certainly been gracious to us.

We have started a ‘family blog’ so that our friends and family can keep up with photos of baby Hannah. This might come in handy now that my parents are moving to Denver this month to be with my sister and her family. But we hope you are blessed by some of our pictures. The address is thewhitehousenews.blogspot.com

SDG

The Stop and Think Controversy

There's a video going around that's caused an uproar among some of the reformed bloggers in the blogsphere. Steve Camp (Camp on This), and Frank Turk (Centuri0n), have butted heads on the gospel presentation given in this video.

If you have an extra 15 minutes, I encourage you to check this video out for yourself. I will not offer a lengthy opinion on it right now, but I am curious as to what some of my readers think of it. Please make sure that if you view it, view it until the end. Personally, I thought the first half of it wasn't all that bad, but it certainly went downhill fast in the last few minutes. Watch until the end before commenting please.

I have respect for both Campi and Centuri0n, even though they deeply disagree on this issue. I mentioned Christian music yesterday, and so this is a perfect opportunity to recommend Steve Camp's album, Desiring God. It is one of my favorites, and is a must-have for any reformed believer. Please check it out (he's like a modern-day Keith Green with his passion and lyrics). Also, if you will remember, Centuri0n designed the Strange BaptistFire graphics for me, free of charge. He is a good man, has a good blog, and is a solid contributor at Team Pyro.

All things considered, I am finding myself agreeing with Steve at this point. I won't offer an opinion now, but I will end with a comment I posted on Campi's blog today:

Certainly there are some good things said in the video, but that does not in itself make this video an accurate or even acceptable presentation of the gospel.

Viewing the video myself, I couldn't find anything overly specific enough to make this presentation something that Catholics, Mormons, and JWs couldn't give a hearty 'amen' to. That in itself is a frightening thing.

A Personal Note on Christian Music

I must confess, I’m not much of a music guy, even for music under the Christian heading. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) As an unbeliever, music had a powerful hold on my life. I liked the way hard rock made me feel. It stirred up passions of anger and pride that felt really good, and it kept me coming back for more! I listened to that music and fed off of it for many years. It doesn’t take much even now to stir up those old memories, and for my heart to search for outlets of pride and anger in music even as a believer.

2) As a believer, I recognize how easy it is to get caught up in music (Christian) simply for the emotional high that it can bring. Many times these emotions are good! But only if they are directly related to a clear thought of specific biblical truth. Simply put, I sometimes listen for music for self and self only, even Christian music with good lyrics, and that bothers me.

3) I grew up in an SBC mega-church, if you didn’t know that already. Unfortunately, this church abused music to an ungodly extreme. Rock concerts, mosh pits, crowd surfing, etc., were all done in the name of ‘Christ’, and left a permanent stain on my perception of Christian music. I saw how awful the lyrics usually were, how fleshly (prideful) the performances were, and how the people just fed off of this music whether they were saved or totally lost. One of the very first things I realized once the Lord brought me to Himself was how awful much of Christian music often is.

With those in mind, I’d like to elaborate more on point #3, although the first two factor into these words as well.

Unfortunately, when I first became a believer, I was so troubled by contemporary Christian music that I made it a big point of contention whenever I would talk with other believers. I was like a ‘cage-stage Calvinist’ in that I lacked the maturity to reason with grace and the knowledge to argue with biblical clarity, even though my intentions were often good (oh, wait, I was also a cage-stage Calvinist at this time as well). I would offend others unnecessarily, have long arguments over how much ‘rockiness’ was acceptable in the Christian life, and would go to great links to communicate to others how much I disapproved of their views. I’m ashamed of many of these things that I did and said, and even embarrassed, but the Lord is faithful. He brought me out of the cage-stage Calvinism, and He brought me out of my unbalanced focus on externals as well. Thus, my views since then have not changed very much, but the Lord has shown me that the intentions of the heart are the 'root of the tree' that really matters. Yes, I am still troubled by these types of music, but instead of freaking out about it, I offer only the brief argument below.

So I said all of that to say this: I still think that the vast majority of ‘Christian’ music today is shameful, and that even many worship services now days do little to follow the biblical guidelines for worship. However, as strongly as we sometimes feel these things, we have no right to go beyond His written word. It is with this that I offer a verse for you to think on. Saying nothing of the words that should fill your music (sound doctrine of course, which is rare indeed), I would have to say that Hebrews 12:28-29 should sum up our view on worship:

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire.

So leaving the debate over secular music aside, in your Christian music, are you offering up worship to God that is reverent? Does it promote humility, awe, and submissiveness along with the praise and joy that is easier to come by? I pray that it does. And if it doesn't, please ask yourself if you are really worshipping the Lord in your music, or if you are simply using the 'Christian' heading to feed your own selfish desires, entertainments, and emotional highs. Honor God in your worship! Don't be like those in yesterday's post who are 'stuck' on honoring themselves.

Personally, one album in which I believe captures good theology, reverent worship, joyful adoration, and skillful music, is an album called Carry Away by Shane & Shane.


Seriously, if you are a believer who values reverent worship and sound doctrine, this is a very good album to have. I highly recommend it. Oh...and you might find a drum or two in there as well :)

SDG

God is my Girlfriend

I heard a Christian song the other day that caught my interest, only to have it royally topped by a song Alan Kurschner brought our attention to.

First, check out the lyrics of this song by the Christan group, Sanctus Real:

How do we explain the source of life
That runs within these veins and keeps my heart in time?
You are the music and I'm drawn in
Caught in the movement, I'm letting go, I can't resist

('Cause)
You're magnetic
I can't help it... I'm stuck on you
There's something magic in the way that you love me
I'm stuck on you

I know I have the freedom to decide
You don't make me love you
I just can't deny the force of gravity
And you are the ground that keeps me standing here with you

You're magnetic... I can't help it
I'm letting go of all control
Can't deny it, I won't fight it
No matter what I do I'm drawn to you

As some have so beautifully pointed out, these type of lyrics are certainly not directed towards our Lord, but towards ourselves. But wait, there's more, check out this video below (from the Gadlfy):

Pat Robertson Predicts Horrific Terrorist Attack on U.S. in 2007

Tuesday, Pat Robertson predicted a horrific terrorist act on the United States in 2007 (HT: Tiffany). Article below:

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

"I put these things out with humility," he said.

Robertson said God also told him that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward "national suicide."

Robertson suggested in January 2006 that God punished then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke for ceding Israeli-controlled land to the Palestinians.

A) Will we be surprised to see another 'Word from the Lord' fail? No, but why do some people take this issue of 'prophecy' so lightly as if it is actually a legitimate disagreement between well meaning Christians? Real harm is being done here in the name of the Lord. Real harm to Christ and His once for all spoken word is continually done by those who claim that God is still speaking.

B) Isn't it interesting how God never gives specific details in these 'words'? Robertson doesn't know what kind of disaster, or exactly where, or how, or when, as if he got fuzzy details from the Spirit. Are we really supposed to take this as some kind of doctrine of the 'human element' of divine prophecy that is never properly explained to us in scripture?

C) We can chalk another one up to poor dispensational theology surrounding the nation of Israel and it's role in God's future. In case I haven't mentioned it before, focusing on Israel as if it had some kind of future spiritual significance is like re-erecting a serpent on a pole and proclaiming it to be the way of salvation. That is, you're focusing on a type and a shadow of the truth rather than the truth itself! Israel fulfilled its purpose in God's redemptive plan, that purpose has been completed, and scripture couldn't be clearer.

D) "I put these things out with humility" -Wow, talk about an oxymoron. 'Look at me, God thinks I’m special so He tells me these things. Look at me, I’m so spiritual that God gives me the inside scoop. Look at me, I’m so important all you people better listen! Oh, and by the way, when I say ‘look at me’, I really mean it in all humility.'

This isn't the first time I have mentioned Pat Robertson. Check here and here for more.

SDG

Links and Podcasts I Recommend

This page is updated randomly, but probably at least once a week. If you would like to leave a comment about a link or a podcast I recommended, you can do so here. Please note: because these recommendations change ever so often, the old ones are taken down and the new ones go up. Thus, in your comment, please reference the specific link or podcast you are referring to.




May 29th, 2007:

Quote of the week:

• -"Every departure from the doctrine of election in any degree has been a departure from the gospel, for such departure always involves the introduction of some obligation on man's part to make a contribution towards his own salvation, a contribution he simply cannot make." - Arthur C. Custance
  

Podcast of the week:

• -This is a little old because I'm a little behind on my podcasts, but James White plays a few clips from a recent Johnny Hunt sermon and shows why, in my opinion, Hunt's anti-calvinism has gotten way out of hand. Seriously, the direction this man has headed on this hobby-horse has been very sad to observe. Some of my local readers can attest to that

Some links of the week:

• -Dan Phillips at TeamPyro brilliantly sums up what I believed to be an excellent, excellent 4 part 'series' of sorts in response to the discussions stemming from the Piper article I referenced last week. Part 1, P2, P3, P4. This is in regards to the hot topic of spiritual gifts/cessationism.

• -The good folks at the Monergism.org blog provides us with some excellent resources, including a 19part series on the attributes of God by JI Packer (MP3 Download).

• -(From Sam Waldron): "To this day I am convinced that the passage which I attempted to expound in response to the views that have become New Covenant Theology remains a strategic, biblical fortress against its errors. This passage teaches the truth that God’s law is substantially one and the same in all ages and that Christians do not live under a new and different law called the law of Christ. That passage is Romans 2, especially verses 12a, 14, 15. It teaches the substantial identity of and continuity between the Law Written in the Heart of Adam, the Ten Commandments, and the New Covenant law of Christ. Click here: Romans 2 and New Covenant Theology

*ARCHIVES*

March 21st, 2007:

Quote of the week:

• -"The essance of the Sabbath could not be changed without changing the nature of man." -A.A. Hodge

Podcast of the week:

• -"Why Every Self Respecting Calvinist Should Know the Difference Between Israel after the Flesh and The Israel after the Promise." -Download here.
  

Some links of the week:

• -John Piper heard the voice of God, and I agree with him

• -Sam Waldron discusses 'threats to the 1689 Baptist Confessional Heritage': Part 1 & Part 2

• -Steve Camp provides the always much-needed weekly dose of the gospel.

• -Excellent article and video clip on Strange BaptistFire entitled: Does man control the new birth?