tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21811379236353821922024-02-19T17:04:02.969-08:00The Pastors' PenThoughts from the pastors of Emmaus Road Church. Our church exists to proclaim the gospel of repentance from sin and faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ, and to disciple those who believe the message of the gospel. Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-73713691437361687402023-06-04T17:51:00.001-07:002023-06-04T17:51:08.336-07:00Why Do Christians Gather Together? <p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> What I hope to communicate<span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> today is both simple and profound, drawing from the very heart of our faith: the Church gathering exists primarily for fellowship and the sharing of meals. This may sound surprising to some of you, but let's delve into the Scriptures together and discern the truth from the Word of God.</span></span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium; white-space: pre-wrap;">We begin in the early days of the Church, as described in the book of Acts. Acts 2:42 says, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Here we see the first Christians, their hearts ablaze with the newness of their faith, gathering not only to pray and learn but also to break bread — to share meals together. They were devoted to sharing meals together and to fellowshipping together. If we examine the typical modern church gathering, we are devoted to the apostles teaching and then we go home. We thus leave off three fourths of the aims that the early church was devoted to pursuing. We sell ourselves short on fellowship, we sell ourselves short on eating together, we sell ourselves short on praying together and for one another. Because in our modern </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">arrangement we come, we sing, we listen, and we go. There's usually no eating together. There's usually no praying together. There's usually no fellowship together. There is simply the devotion to the Apostle's teaching. This is not good. We often think of the sermon as the main point, the main motive for gathering. We are gathered together to hear a sermon. But eating together was, at the beginning, one of the most primary reasons for gathering together in the first place. </span></span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This act of eating together was no casual, peripheral part of their gatherings. It was central to their experience of being a community, a body of believers, the Church. As they ate, they remembered Christ, his sacrifice, and his resurrection. The act of sharing food was symbolic of their shared faith, their shared hope, and their shared love.</span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Consider, too, the apostle Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:20: "When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat." Paul chastised the Corinthians for missing the point of their gatherings. They were not coming together in true fellowship and unity; they were not eating the Lord's supper as a genuine expression of their common faith. They were gathering together to eat together. That was the main reason for gathering. Paul corrects them because the wealthy were not waiting for the poor to get off work and come eat, but they were eating everything available so that when the poor would arrive, there would be nothing left. This was loveless and wrong. But again, why were they meeting? They were meeting to eat and fellowship together. </span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">These examples in Scripture are not isolated instances; they indicate a broader biblical and historical pattern. In Acts 20:7, we read, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…" The breaking of bread is at the center of their gathering, and this passage just comes right out and says why they were gathered together, "when we were gathered together to break bread." The breaking of bread is the act that brings them together as a church, as the body of Christ.</span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Now, you may ask, "If this was the practice of the early church, why do we not see it emphasized today?" For that, we turn to early church history. Documents from the Council of Laodicea, held in the middle of the 4th century, reveal a significant shift. Canon 28 of this council prohibited the practice of hosting "Agape" feasts, communal meals of fellowship, in church buildings. The statement reads, <span style="color: #2b00fe;">"</span></span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">It is not permitted to hold </span><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); background-color: white; text-decoration-line: none;">love</a><span style="background-color: white;"> feasts, as they are called, in the Lord's Houses, or Churches, nor to eat and to spread couches in the house of </span><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); background-color: white; text-decoration-line: none;">God</a><span style="background-color: white;">."</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: large;">The reasons for this were complex and involved the misuse of these meals by some factions within the Church. However, it is crucial to note that it was not the principle of shared meals and fellowship that the Council disputed but their practice within the church building.</span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But should the Church not return to the roots of its earliest traditions? Why does Scripture repeatedly allude to a body which gathered together for the purpose of eating and fellowshipping primarily? Why do we usually not do any of that? We think it's time to fix that aspect of the church gathering, especially as hostility to the body is increasing. </span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Remember, that our Savior himself used a shared meal to illustrate the new covenant he was establishing. The Last Supper was not a solemn, standalone religious ceremony. It was part of a meal. Jesus literally gathered his disciples so that they could eat together, a Passover feast shared among friends. In this context, Jesus broke the bread and shared the wine, inviting his disciples to remember him in the act of shared eating and drinking.</span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">When we gather as a Church, it should be more than a ritual; it should be a joyful coming together of believers, sharing in the bounty of God’s blessings, breaking bread and building relationships. It should be more like a family reunion than a formal Ted Talk. The Church, in essence, is a fellowship, a community formed around the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus established this fellowship to exist over a table of shared food. </span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">To gather around the table is to affirm that we belong to each other because we belong to Christ. When we eat together, we bear witness to the grace of our Lord, who welcomes all to His table. And so, in the spirit of our Lord's invitation, let us reclaim the tradition of the early Church, the tradition of fellowship, of shared meals, and shared lives.</span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">May we always remember that our gatherings as a Church are not only for prayer, singing, or hearing the Word of God, as vital as these are. They are also for eating together, for fellowship, for sharing our lives in the love of Christ, remembering His sacrifice and celebrating His resurrection. For it is in sharing our bread and our lives that we truly become the body of Christ.
We're not trying to downplay the importance of learning the Scriptures or leaning the Apostle's teaching, but I'm trying to show that there are some very important aspects that are being overlooked.
</span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">So at New Covenant Church, you will find a group of believers who gather together and attempt to be devoted to all four aspects of the gathering which the early church practiced. Our gathering begins with food and fellowship and prayer for one another, then the Lord's supper, and then singing, and learning from the Scriptures. To these things, we are devoted. If you're looking for a church and want to try something that is a little different, but in a good way, we encourage you to come and experience New Covenant Church. </span> </span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="--tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-ring-color: rgba(69,89,164,.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 transparent; --tw-shadow: 0 0 transparent; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid rgb(217, 217, 227); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.25em 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.nctx.church/</span>
</span></p>Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-69251031184313214712020-04-30T09:53:00.003-07:002020-04-30T10:00:15.132-07:00Richard Barcellos Proves that Reformed Baptists Live on Inconsistency (part 2 of 2)<br />
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br />
Last time we looked at an article written by Richard Barcellos showing from Scripture that the Sabbath has been abrogated and has ceased. However, due to his allegiance to the Reformed Confessions of Faith, Barcellos must affirm that the Sabbath has not ceased. So after having correctly examining Hosea and Colossians (and concluding that the Sabbath has ceased) Barcellos must try to find Biblical warrant for the continuance of the Sabbath. He believes he finds it in Isaiah 56. </div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
Let's look at his argument from the same article that we looked into last time. Remember, his first point was "<i>“</i><i style="font-weight: bold;">The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant." </i>In other words, there is now no more Sabbath. It has come to an end. <i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>But now, as he continues his article, he's going to say that the Old Testament also prophesies the continuation of the Sabbath. According to Barcellos, it prophesies both the end of the Sabbath and the continuation of the Sabbath. Does that sound like contradiction? It is! But let's see how he tries to reason it through. Let's examine his second point. </div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfg8j6-5fuxxqkqDpgLrBhvK_KmlRCzEi6MDdV8gyGFpCG55xUCdGnk_RZMMKvCR7VAPbxFWkQ0_7s7mcKYZVdYUp3fHsRTmTII4eo0xbRi2vYxUXiEle49TWFZNBGuYKgebgFDR7WbUE/s1600/journal.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfg8j6-5fuxxqkqDpgLrBhvK_KmlRCzEi6MDdV8gyGFpCG55xUCdGnk_RZMMKvCR7VAPbxFWkQ0_7s7mcKYZVdYUp3fHsRTmTII4eo0xbRi2vYxUXiEle49TWFZNBGuYKgebgFDR7WbUE/s1600/journal.png" /></a></div>
<b><i>2. The Old Testament prophesies the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.</i></b></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<i>Just as there is evidence from the OT that the Sabbath will be abolished under the New Covenant, so there is evidence that it will continue. At first glance this appears contradictory. But on further investigation, it is not contradictory and, in fact, fits the evidence provided thus far for the creation basis of the Sabbath and its unique place in the Decalogue in its function as moral law. Two passages deserve our attention at this point, </i><a href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Isa.%2056.1-8"><span class="s1" style="color: #dca10d;"><i>Is. 56:1-8</i></span></a><i> and </i><a href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jer.%2031.33"><span class="s1" style="color: #dca10d;"><i>Jer. 31:33</i></span></a><i>. Isaiah‘s prophecy of the Sabbath under the New Covenant is explicit and Jeremiah‘s is implicit.</i></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
So after having affirmed, "the Sabbath has ceased" he now moves to his second point "the Sabbath continues." He recognizes that this "appears contradictory" but let's allow him to explain what he means and why he thinks that the abrogated Sabbath is not abrogated.</div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
He begins by examining Isaiah 56:1-8</div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<i>Thus says the LORD: </i>―<i>Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, "The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, "Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants--everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant--even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, </i>―<i>Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.</i></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<i><br /></i>Barcellos begins by putting forth the argument that Isaiah is speaking in reference to the days of the New Covenant. I agree, and furthermore I've never heard an argument to the contrary. Isaiah is speaking of the days of the New Covenant is as clear a fact as I can imagine. The text obviously mentions the keeping of a Sabbath, so maybe it stands to reason that there IS a Sabbath for the New Covenant. Let's see how Barcellos interprets this text.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwpCd2nQNftl_KR4cevOYgXeURiHmnlZJGDXUsTpopSP65uI1KBkVjyKHca3zuhvU0LKnn9DiUy_auiYQwOvw8TpzrLcYrHEZuGgFT7eyLuoL087jZRBExJmmr-a4HM27Towqqk3VKJts/s1600/barcellos+picture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwpCd2nQNftl_KR4cevOYgXeURiHmnlZJGDXUsTpopSP65uI1KBkVjyKHca3zuhvU0LKnn9DiUy_auiYQwOvw8TpzrLcYrHEZuGgFT7eyLuoL087jZRBExJmmr-a4HM27Towqqk3VKJts/s200/barcellos+picture.jpg" width="200" /></a><i><br />The New Testament sees Isaiah‘s prophecy as fulfilled under the New Covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold there (</i><a href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Isa.%2056"><span class="s1" style="color: #dca10d;"><i>Is. 56</i></span></a><i>) are transformed to fit the conditions brought in by the New Covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the New Covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the New Covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the New Covenant (i.e., from the seventh to the first day). Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when</i><i> being fulfilled. </i></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<i><br /></i>So Barcellos argues that Isaiah is not speaking in reference to the Old Covenant elements specifically, but uses these elements of the Old Covenant to "accommodate his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant People." Again, I agree. So when Isaiah uses the words "people" "house" "burnt offerings" "sacrifices" "altar" he is using Old Covenant language to describe new covenant realities. For example, when Barcellos states, "the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant" he's referencing the change from Old Covenant temple made with sticks and stones into the New Covenant temple made out of human bricks. The New Testament makes this demonstrably clear; "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5) This is a clear pattern throughout the New Testament, the Old Testament earthly and physical elements are carried into the New Covenant as SPIRITUAL realities, just as Barcellos has put forth; Isaiah and all the prophets speak in a way that "accommodates the language of the Old Covenant people." The elements of the Old Covenant were simply human/earthly pictures of spiritual/heavenly realities. Barcellos is on the right track here. But Barcellos is going to get inconsistent in his interpretation very quickly. </div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
According to Isaiah in this passage, the people of the New Covenant will be required to "keep my Sabbath" and "offer burnt offerings and sacrifices on my altar." As Barcellos has acknowledged, and I agree, the prophet is speaking of Old Covenant elements which are simply physical pictures of spiritual realities. And it's exactly at this point that Barcellos becomes inconsistent with his own hermeneutic. He wants to read "keep my Sabbaths" as a literal practice while interpreting "offer burnt offering and sacrifices" as figurative. It seems like he's picking and choosing here. What stops a man from deciding that he wants to consider the Sabbath language as figurative and the offering animal sacrifice as literal? This presents quite the problem for Barcellos. He has to offer an explanation that doesn't allow for literal interpretation of sacrifices offered on altars but demands literal understanding of keeping a Sabbath. He does this in his article by immediately changing his language to obscure the matter. He writes, "the NT sees Isaiah's prophecy as fulfilled under the New Covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold there are transformed to fit the conditions brought in by the New Covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the New Covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the New Covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the New Covenant." </div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYvuXWH3bKZZxIy5ykyYo_sWpP-hnUA6CBC-9vE_gsmyrzXF0ur_tVC2xYykTv2AINeXsnSxOKFGNavaVXs7dSfWLXJV-I63aix7NAoYco2rlEIJJX0E6vWSbkC-kYx2P3I3ThlFKf668/s1600/a3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="350" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYvuXWH3bKZZxIy5ykyYo_sWpP-hnUA6CBC-9vE_gsmyrzXF0ur_tVC2xYykTv2AINeXsnSxOKFGNavaVXs7dSfWLXJV-I63aix7NAoYco2rlEIJJX0E6vWSbkC-kYx2P3I3ThlFKf668/s320/a3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
In the first part of his article he admitted that the prophets and the Apostle Paul have abrogated the Sabbath, but now he says that the Sabbath has been "transformed." I must ask, which is it? Is it abrogated? Or is it transformed? Why have you changed your language? If the Sabbath and the Sacrifices have only been transformed, then we need to continue keeping a Sabbath (but perhaps on a different day) and we need to keep offering blood sacrifices, but perhaps with different animals; whereas God had earlier required a bull, we can offer a dog; or whereas before it was overseen by the Levitical class, now these sacrifices can be overseen by a Gentile class of priest. This is what it means to be "transformed." If it's only transformed, then the practice remains with some change in the elements of the practice. Has God abrogated the sacrificial system and the priesthood of Aaron? Or has he simply transformed it? Has God abrogated the temple in Jerusalem, or has he transformed it, perhaps he destroyed it so he could do a re-build; maybe add some new paint or a new color curtain? No, certainly, these things have not been transformed, they have been brought to an end. They have been abrogated. Barcellos was fine using the word abrogated when speaking of the Jewish requirement of Sabbathing on the last day of the week, but now as he attempts to promote the continuance of a Sabbath, he no longer wants to use the word abrogated even though using the word transformed would mean that we should rebuild the physical temple in Jerusalem and begin animal sacrifice. If the practices are to continue but simply on a different day or in a different place, then we could simply argue that the Sacrifices were made on Saturday in the temple, but now are to be made on Sunday in the churches. That's what "transformed" means. It's simply a change IN the practice, not a complete abrogation OF the practice. So by saying that all these things are simply transformed and not abrogated, he must still practice them all. He doesn't realize it, but by resurrecting the Sabbath, he has resurrected the whole Old Covenant. But we know the truth. We know that all these things have been brought to and end, they have been abrogated. </div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
I wonder why he should change his language from one paragraph to another? In the first part of his article he quoted the prophet who speaking for God says, "I will BRING TO AN END your Sabbath." The prophet never mentioned a transformation of the Sabbath. He speaks plainly. God will bring it to an end. The prophet's language is consistent with abrogation not transformation. Furthermore, the prophet doesn't just say that the Sabbath will come to an end, but he says that God will put an end to the New Moons, and the Festivals. If Barcellos wishes to be consistent, he's going to have to say that the New Moon celebrations have not really been brought to an end, the Festivals have not really been brought to an end which is why Isaiah continues to speak of "burnt offerings and sacrifices" in the New Covenant. When does Barcellos think those burnt offerings and Sacrifices were required? During the New Moon and Festivals of course. Again, if you resurrect the Sabbath you have to resurrect all of it. You can't have a hermeneutic which allows for the Sabbath to be resurrected and a different hermeneutic which calls for the abrogation of everything else mentioned in the very same passage. Well, you can, but the inconsistency proves that error is present. If he wishes to be consistent, then he must admit that the prophet declared that God would bring these things to an end. He was very sure of this in the first part of his article saying, "The Old Covenant and all its ceremonies are obsolete and have vanished away (<a href="https://bible.faithlife.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb.%208.13"><span class="s1" style="color: #dca10d;">Heb. 8:13</span></a>). Taking these passages and <a href="https://bible.faithlife.com/bible/kjv1900/Col.%202.16"><span class="s1" style="color: #dca10d;">Col. 2:16</span></a> together, they clearly teach that when the Old Covenant goes, the triad of <a href="https://bible.faithlife.com/bible/kjv1900/Col.%202.16"><span class="s1" style="color: #dca10d;">Col. 2:16</span></a> goes as well." </div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhX3ayJV5JddX9JTWyIBHB8PCKbWcA7RCJuyk8vxAkygHT3qW-HA-fZSQ0o4QF7OpDJcfKOeqn_jA6qHTfncl4dlBx3Zu3OJMFNLINxZcmrVtWYw9gaWsBfBGXeTb7hqP-h-9zK1SI-H8/s1600/figurative+language.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhX3ayJV5JddX9JTWyIBHB8PCKbWcA7RCJuyk8vxAkygHT3qW-HA-fZSQ0o4QF7OpDJcfKOeqn_jA6qHTfncl4dlBx3Zu3OJMFNLINxZcmrVtWYw9gaWsBfBGXeTb7hqP-h-9zK1SI-H8/s320/figurative+language.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
When Barcellos reads Isaiah, he knows and acknowledges that Isaiah is writing in a way that "<i>accommodates his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant people." </i>In other words, Barcellos recognizes that Isaiah is speaking figuratively. When Isaiah says, "burnt offerings" he doesn't mean literal burnt offerings will be given in the New Covenant. When he says that God will bring you to his mountain, he's not talking about literally being brought to Mount Sinai. When he says, "sacrifices" he doesn't mean literal sacrifices. We see the Apostle Paul showing that physical sacrifices were meant to be a figurative picture of "spiritual worship." In Romans 12 he writes<b>, "</b>I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a <b>living sacrifice</b>, holy and acceptable to God, which is your <b>spiritual worship</b>." When Paul says, "Present you bodies as a living sacrifice" he's not suggesting that you build an altar and climb on. Likewise, when Isaiah says, "burnt offering" he doesn't mean literal burnt offerings. When he says, "I will bring them to my holy mountain" he doesn't mean a literal mountain that you can climb. As it is written in the new covenant, "you have not come to a mountain that can be touched" but instead we've come to the "heavenly Jerusalem." (Hebrews 12). These physical elements are simply human earthly representations of spiritual realities. The burnt offerings and sacrifices represent our "spiritual worship" the Holy Mountain represents our very real and close proximity to God, our very salvation, the "heavenly Jerusalem." And the Sabbath day represents the rest we find in Christ for his is our rest, the true rest. There are no more burnt offerings or Sacrifices in the New Covenant. Barcellos knows this. To believe and write that the Sacrifices, burnt offerings, mountains, and everything else in the passage is symbolic while the Sabbath is literal is to be obviously inconsistent. If Barcellos would have stopped at the prophet's proclamation that God has brought the Sabbath to an end, he would have not erred. But when one starts with the theological need to affirm errant Confessions from almost 400 years ago, he will not allow Scripture to speak plainly. So instead, Barcellos affirms the figurative language of Isaiah for every element in the passage except for the Sabbath. This he would have us believe is literal despite the fact that he had earlier proven to us that the Sabbath has been abrogated, just like the Sacrificial system and the need to ascend a literal mountain in Jerusalem for every Jewish festival. If we wish to read Isaiah rightly and consistently, we have to take it as figurative, just as Barcellos confirmed that Isaiah was writing in a way that would "accomodate his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant People." </div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdNFL03l_RYyyGTDDguTxzogMEE6zECtXK322DpMwGtpRUAxiy3iS2psVrOiG1Obo_aD0EXZMy0lcuOZXVRkprNiCpz0LBIr5bsIzzTv4xOos_ZtTCXLMvNbu2hb_V9xa6Nyk49Dm3BkE/s1600/hell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="802" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdNFL03l_RYyyGTDDguTxzogMEE6zECtXK322DpMwGtpRUAxiy3iS2psVrOiG1Obo_aD0EXZMy0lcuOZXVRkprNiCpz0LBIr5bsIzzTv4xOos_ZtTCXLMvNbu2hb_V9xa6Nyk49Dm3BkE/s320/hell.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Finally, not only has Barcellos shown himself to be inconsistent in his hermeneutic, and put himself in a position of being unable to argue against continuance of animal Sacrifices, temples in Jerusalem, new moon ceremonies and festival celebrations, but he has also condemned his fellow Christians to hell. If he is correct about the Sabbath being transformed from Saturday to Sunday; if he is correct that it has not been abrogated completely, if he is correct that God abrogated the Sabbath and then later reinstated it; if he is correct that Isaiah tells us to observe a literal Sabbath, then we have to conclude that no one will be saved except Sabbath keepers. This is simply what Isaiah says. <i>To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths... I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." And again, "everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant--even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar." </i> In other words, whoever does not keep the Sabbath will NOT be brought to the holy mountain (will not be saved), and whoever does not keep the Sabbath will not be accepted. And whoever does not keep the Sabbath will not be given an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. In other words, in very plain language by Isaiah, the Sabbath breakers do not and will not belong to God. Thus we see that if my understanding is correct, if Sabbath observance was a physical representation of our rest in Christ, then all who are trusting in Christ are considered Sabbath keepers by Isaiah, and will be given an everlasting name and will be brought to God's holy mountain, and their worship will be accepted by God. And ALL who trust in Christ are saved. But if Barcellos is correct, then only those who observe a physical Sabbath day are saved.<br /><br />So the question has to be asked? Is Isaiah speaking of a literal Sabbath and a figurative everything else? Or is he speaking of a figurative everything? If all of the Old Covenant elements and images are figurative, then there is no place that prophecies the continuation of a Sabbath and Barcellos must stop at his original conclusion, "<i style="font-weight: bold;">The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant." </i><span>Does he really want to open the door for the renewal of animal Sacrifice, and building of a temple? Does he really want to condemn all non-Sabbatarian Christians to hell? No Dr. Barcellos, you had it right the first time. The Sabbath has been abrogated. There's not a single passage of Scripture that re-institutes it. </span></div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-17258375716743154152020-01-28T12:42:00.005-08:002020-04-29T16:52:45.519-07:00Richard Barcellos Proves that Reformed Baptists Live on Inconsistency (part 1 of 2)<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLfnpaxcoJtlpHiNmoZ_orzRZQRdgElZPRYArocvn-5AZgSL3v55JXsMh4nDvwT780SHl-WbZyQYsExCE96fF8JwqMOdyb4dPLtuTyZNa4IYVEYNRChOq_faUT-BVwjznL-g_n8yw3-RM/s1600/barcellos+picture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLfnpaxcoJtlpHiNmoZ_orzRZQRdgElZPRYArocvn-5AZgSL3v55JXsMh4nDvwT780SHl-WbZyQYsExCE96fF8JwqMOdyb4dPLtuTyZNa4IYVEYNRChOq_faUT-BVwjznL-g_n8yw3-RM/s1600/barcellos+picture.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">A while back I examined <a href="http://www.thepastorspen.org/2016/10/dr-renihan-confesses-new-covenant.html" target="_blank">a sermon</a> preached by Reformed Baptist leader Dr. James Renihan and highlighted his shocking claim that Christians don't have to keep the Sabbath. Today we will see that his good friend and defender of everything Reformed Baptist, Richard Barcellos agrees with Renihan. According to Barcellos, the Sabbath has been abrogated and has ceased. The clear evidence of this, which Renihan exegeted </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">and which Barcellos cites, is Colossians 2:16-17.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red;"><i><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Therefore let no one pass judgment on
you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival
or a new moon or a Sabbath. </span></i><b><i><span style="background: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">17 </span></i></b><i><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">These are
a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (ESV)</span></i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Clearly,
Paul says that no one is to pass judgment on whether or not a Christian keep a
particular holiday or observance since these things were temporarily given to
point us to the Christ. The phrase "festival, new moon, or Sabbath"
clues us in to the fact that Paul is abolishing the whole Jewish system.
Festivals were yearly, new moons were monthly, and the Sabbath was weekly. In
other words, Paul is saying, "let no man pass judgment on you... in regard
to any holiday whether it be yearly, monthly, or weekly." In fact, this
triad of observances, is commonly used throughout the Old Testament and is used
as shorthand for the whole Jewish system of observances. One of those Jewish
observance was the weekly Sabbath and here Paul tells Christians not to allow
anyone to pass judgment on you in regards to this weekly Sabbath. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHGkWeALenYFTnG_KpewMzeRd6jUvPUJVpwm5j7rfxeipqXjPb23P0AhKJvx983SLPeavrFfEN-8yRvMj_VkJJmq0-06YChGW1my-3XkKSCA6zW_WTtGi7J-jVYgaceEF-auDPwP5yU2A/s1600/bending+over+backwards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="514" data-original-width="332" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHGkWeALenYFTnG_KpewMzeRd6jUvPUJVpwm5j7rfxeipqXjPb23P0AhKJvx983SLPeavrFfEN-8yRvMj_VkJJmq0-06YChGW1my-3XkKSCA6zW_WTtGi7J-jVYgaceEF-auDPwP5yU2A/s200/bending+over+backwards.jpg" width="128" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Many valiant and athletic attempts of exegetical gymnastics have been made in an effort to
explain this text away. Some have tried to argue that the word
"Sabbath" here refers to the monthly Sabbaths. Others have tried to
claim that "Sabbaths" refers to special Jewish ceremonies. Many have
tried to contort the word "Sabbath" away from its simple and true meaning, the weekly
observance. But no matter how hard the contortionists try, they just can't make their explanation fit the text. And since they can't make it fit, our friendly Reformed Baptists have finally given up and conceded that
Paul is speaking of the weekly Sabbath in this text. So to their credit, Barcellos and Renihan contend, that the Apostle Paul has put an end to the weekly Sabbath.<br /><br /><br />In an article from his "Reformed Baptist Theological Review" Barcellos approaches the text of Colossians 2 by examining it in light of Old Testament prophecy. And then he goes on to prove that the Sabbath has been abrogated. The article begins:<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHC4M8QyKqQD8VTeGqNzwovWunAH3HVVAPE4nMzcpzAMtvBt2TpwzV4rXCMs-MRFhJSfcGFHhgViGd8QaMfGarUTaBbhZhEP2V-oKBW7Ebk33P_mmsS8XQ7helopSZEDBZ-HnjwB3gjU0/s1600/journal.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHC4M8QyKqQD8VTeGqNzwovWunAH3HVVAPE4nMzcpzAMtvBt2TpwzV4rXCMs-MRFhJSfcGFHhgViGd8QaMfGarUTaBbhZhEP2V-oKBW7Ebk33P_mmsS8XQ7helopSZEDBZ-HnjwB3gjU0/s1600/journal.png" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: white;">“<b>The Old Testament
prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.</b><br />
<br />
The OT clearly
prophesies the abrogation and cessation of ancient Israel‘s Sabbaths. It does
so in Hos. 2:11, which says, ―I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her
feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths--all her appointed feasts." We
will make several observations that bear this out. First, Hosea‘s prophecy is
dealing with the days of the New Covenant. The phrase ―in that day" (vv.
16, 18, 21) is used prophetically of New Covenant days in Is. 22:20. Revelation
3:7 quotes Is. 22:22 and </span></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: white;">applies it to Christ.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></i>
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">What
Barcellos is saying is that the prophets of old foretold that when the New Covenant comes, the Sabbath would come to an end. His chosen title for his
first paragraph sums it up nicely, <b>“The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and
cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.”</b> I agree completely. The Old Testament does prophesy the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">He
continues,<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br />
<i>Second, Hos. 2:11 clearly prophesies the
abrogation of Old Covenant Israel‘s Sabbaths, along with ―all her appointed
feasts." Hosea uses a triad of terms (―feast days, New Moons,
Sabbaths") that is used many places in the OT (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron.
2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; and Is. 1:13-14). Clearly, he is speaking of the abrogation
of Old Covenant ceremonial laws. When the Old Covenant goes, Israel‘s feast
days, New Moons, Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts go with it.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Again,
I have to agree with Barcellos. Hosea knew that when the New Covenant was
inaugurated, that the requirement to keep a Sabbath would pass away. But
Barcellos is not content to let Hosea be the lone voice, after all, even
Scripture calls for two or three witnesses. So he turns his attention to the
New Testament and Colossians 2:16-17.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: 49.5pt; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: -31.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"> Third, the NT confirms this understanding of Hos. 2:11. It uses
this triad of terms in Col. 2:16, which says, ―So let no one judge you in food
or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." In the
context, Paul is combating those who were attempting to impose Old Covenant
ceremonial law on New Covenant Christians. So Col. 2:16 is clear NT language
that sees Hosea‘s prophecy as fulfilled. It is of interest to note that Paul
uses the plural for Sabbath in Col. 2:16 (σάββατον). It is not too hard to
assume that Paul had the OT triad in mind and Hosea‘s prophecy while penning
these words. The NT announces the abrogation of the Old Covenant in many
places. For instance, 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 3-4; Eph. 2:14-16; and Heb. 8-10 (cf.
esp. 8:6-7, 13; 9:9-10, 15; 10:1, 15-18) are clear that the Old Covenant has
been abrogated. </span></i><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 31.5pt; margin-right: 49.5pt; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: -31.5pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 4.5pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">So
there you have it. The Sabbath has been abrogated. There is a good probability that Paul was thinking of Hosea's prophecy of abrogation when he penned the words of Colossians 2 declaring that the abrogation had taken place. The new covenant has brought
an end to festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18px;">(yearly, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18px;">monthly and </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">weekly). The prophets spoke of it, the Apostle Paul confirms it, and
Barcellos affirms its end. He has effectively shown that observing the weekly Sabbath has ceased.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb9nGakxhZ9Z4ta2ohXANYm75N_3c9Bq3oNIJYyOcSQ1ObGAqMDf_wx-8K1smIl4TTJsbYbkwHbaJLs7x8Kl040u-pA72BrePyaranEPOcyhI1XgS_WyyYyvWH1jvjBvbhMXVrlndTZuM/s1600/abrogate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="265" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb9nGakxhZ9Z4ta2ohXANYm75N_3c9Bq3oNIJYyOcSQ1ObGAqMDf_wx-8K1smIl4TTJsbYbkwHbaJLs7x8Kl040u-pA72BrePyaranEPOcyhI1XgS_WyyYyvWH1jvjBvbhMXVrlndTZuM/s320/abrogate.jpg" width="181" /></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">The point has been proven and we should stop here. However, for Barcellos, it cannot be the end of the matter. Barcellos is a Reformed Baptist,
and as a Reformed Baptist he is beholden to other scriptures, namely the1689 London Baptist Confession. He has to make the Scripture of the Bible affirm the scripture of the 1689. Therefore, after having proven that the Sabbath day has been abrogated, he has to resurrect this part of the Old Covenant and call Sunday a “new Sabbath day" for the New
Covenant. No longer is the Sabbath on Saturday he argues, but it has now moved
to Sunday. So in a way, he hasn't been honest. Even though he rightly sees that the Bible is calling for the abrogation and cessation of Sabbath observance, he himself believes that it doesn't. He doesn't actually believe that the Sabbath has ceased, instead he believes that it has been transferred to the first day of the week instead of the seventh day. Here we see some cognitive dissonance in his theology. He declares that it has ceased but will later declare that it didn't cease, it simply moved next door. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;">In the next installment I will examine the Hermeneutical contortions that Barcellos performs in order to make the Scriptures match the Reformed confessions by trying to prove that a Sabbath day remains in force. He not only has to overcome Hosea's prophecy and Paul's words of abrogation, but he has to overcome his own proper exegesis of those passages. Tune in next time to see his attempt to justify his belief that this abrogated Sabbath still abides as moral imperative upon the lives of Christians everywhere. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-91074356834525884112019-07-25T20:15:00.000-07:002019-07-26T11:46:08.361-07:00Jordan Hall, Sabbatarians, and Arminianism<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">A few years ago, I had the pleasure to debate Jordan Hall regarding the Sabbath. Before the debate we enjoyed lunch together and I told Jordan that during the debate I would take the gloves off and throw few bare fist theological punches. However when the time came, I relented and went a little softer than I had planned- even though at some point in the evening I did refer to him as a "Sabbatarian Bruce Jenner, who can only self identify as Sabbatarian yet doesn't actually have what it takes to actually be one." So today, I'd like to be a little more direct and say some of the things that I had planned to say on that warm October day in Phoenix. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIE3b0hTNbEfkX1BPeIxrbcN3_G1bPqaNVNEoYK6i7xOj4QtXUC2VNdFlaFWkt40LhlRD4g_N289UlDZd4JVs2snmkvZ5bX_RmBZWizhn4QqLT1W13m15CKhv8myzHHsucgomlou55NzE/s1600/porchcon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="636" data-original-width="960" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIE3b0hTNbEfkX1BPeIxrbcN3_G1bPqaNVNEoYK6i7xOj4QtXUC2VNdFlaFWkt40LhlRD4g_N289UlDZd4JVs2snmkvZ5bX_RmBZWizhn4QqLT1W13m15CKhv8myzHHsucgomlou55NzE/s400/porchcon.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZYcc7t1xfAD89TBA0MTtIa0lL7ImizT78izswWKCAMvGsxghRIIc9IRwav08r3sgmQFUtAlsL4gbYVlicLXrVQlQbVs1tX9w0TH0reeoQ9IT0h_YfDqpxvOVbaC7Rt6W5nre537bAfm0/s1600/sabbath+debate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="float: left;"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; mso-ignore: vglayout;"></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Jordan Hal, along with a majority of Sabbatarians, is a Calvinists who thinks that Arminians are inconsistent and wrong in their Soteriology. But would it surprise you to lean that Sabbatarians, like Jordan Hall for example, actually have a lot in common with Arminians? You may ask, "what could Jordan Hall (and all other "Christian Sabbatarians") possibly have in common with Arminians?" After all, the two seem so very different. I think Charles Spurgeon can answer that question.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I've always been a fan of Charles Spurgeon. I love his clever wit and style of examining and communicating theological issues. One particular work of his on Arminian theology has always been one of my favorites. He writes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpaxfgBPYCz174nJYAXc7LpYL4AgcVOee54AitkuYyH1fK0G432UjxFj8RBkh0tQmg3cOkf_zstzpsoqs-A0gExbOc0aChZy0ovHbm-gAqSHiXVimFXZJhP5_ELQGM0xVM4aXCM9Xi138/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="409" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpaxfgBPYCz174nJYAXc7LpYL4AgcVOee54AitkuYyH1fK0G432UjxFj8RBkh0tQmg3cOkf_zstzpsoqs-A0gExbOc0aChZy0ovHbm-gAqSHiXVimFXZJhP5_ELQGM0xVM4aXCM9Xi138/s320/spurgeon.jpg" width="320" /></a><b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">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 prays desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it... <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<b style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Now, when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out.</b><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Here, Spurgeon is keying in on an aspect of Christian regeneration, namely; that Christians may have different understandings of certain theological issues, but the Spirit of God at times will not allow certain behavior from his children. They can<i> think</i> that they believe some note of doctrine when they're preaching slowly, but when it comes time to act, the truth comes out. Spurgeon notes this as the "brogue of his country where he was born," but it's more appropriate to think of it as the brogue of the county into which he's been born again. This principle of the Spirit of God not allowing for such error in practice has been noted in different ways throughout history. Spurgeon's observations in this matter are accurate. But this principle does not only apply in the Arminian practice of prayer, but it also applies in the Sabbatarians' practice as well. Let's look at Spurgeons words again, but this time I will replace the references to Arminianism with Sabbatarianism. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">You have heard a great many Sabbatarian sermons, I dare say; but you never seen a Sabbatarian practice such doctrine! For the saints in practice appear as one in word, and deed and mind. A Sabbatarian in practice would look desperately like a non-Sabbatarian. He cannot practice a Sabbath in the New Covenant, there is no room for it... <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br />Now, when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to practice the Sabbath, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Both the Arminian and the Sabbatarian are equally contradictory in word and practice. Sure, they may have grand sermons on the need to believe in and practice a Sabbath, but when they come to actually live what they preach, the true thing slips out. They can't help but live as non-Sabbatarians and allow every man to live according to his own conviction (either to observe a Sabbath or not observe). But as soon as they allow men to refuse to observe a Sabbath, they become deniers of the Sabbath doctrine which they profess.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Consider that at the outset of the debate, Jordan Hall made it a point to affirm that I'm his brother in Christ. He also affirms the same for other non-Sabbatarians like John MacArthur, as well as all other Christ honoring New Covenant, and Dispensational Theologians. But he can only do so in direct contradiction to his professed Sabbatarianism. True Biblical Sabbatarianism cannot affirm non-Sabbatarians like myself or John MacArthur or the millions of other non-Sabbatarian believers around the globe. They must label all non-Sabbatarians as false converts and heretics. Here's why.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In Romans 14, Paul says, <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSbxZyUnM5KrduTp3KCyyMXIR87U1bt4mB_G50G81k2yzxUVY9zMzYTugsJHTX1-k-XJ_TWy2jf2pq22isVrLgDe939T6tUiT6A_b76va-1Xh12JIfzpwEjjWWIWhHEnrM3ClDbDX7eYE/s1600/romans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="416" data-original-width="555" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSbxZyUnM5KrduTp3KCyyMXIR87U1bt4mB_G50G81k2yzxUVY9zMzYTugsJHTX1-k-XJ_TWy2jf2pq22isVrLgDe939T6tUiT6A_b76va-1Xh12JIfzpwEjjWWIWhHEnrM3ClDbDX7eYE/s320/romans.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but do not quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgemnt on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. </b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black; letter-spacing: 0.2pt;">See? This passage proves that there is no such thing as a Sabbath. Some believers choose to esteem one day above the rest, but some believers esteem all days alike. Thus, there is no obligation to treat one day above the rest. "This proves that there is no Sabbath." says the Sabbath denier. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: .2pt;">"Not so fast," says the Sabbatarian, "</span><span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black;">It is evident that these texts are not referring to moral commands, but refer only to the Jewish ceremonial days. The Apostle does not have the Sabbath day in view here. Paul is referring to disputable matters within Christianity such as whether or not a person can in good conscience observe Passover or any other Jewish ceremonial days. The Sabbath command is moral and not one of the disputable matters."<br /><br />That is how the Sabbatarian vs. non-Sabbatarian arguments go.<br /><br />So if the non-Sabbatarian is correct in his interpretation of this passage, then the idea of a Christian Sabbath is a disputable matter and each believer is free to practice or not practice as he sees fit. Thus, it's not a moral issue at all, but just one of preference and no one is under any obligation to observe a special day. But if the Sabbatarian is correct here, then this is NOT a disputable matter. The Sabbatarian cannot then allow each man to do as he chooses. He must demand that all Christians observe a weekly Christian Sabbath; for it is a moral matter. But that's not what the Sabbatarian does. Instead, after having argued that Paul does NOT believe the Sabbath to be a disputable matter, he walks away from the text, forgets his argument against the non-Sabbatarians, and then pretends as if the non-Sabbatarian is correct in that it's a disputable matter. He allows each Christian to practice or not practice a Sabbath; thus adopting the non-Sabbatarian interpretation of this passage and admitting by his practice that the Sabbath is indeed <i>not</i> a moral issue. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Imagine for a moment if we were not speaking about the fourth commandment (the commandment concerning the Sabbath) and isntead, imagine if we were speaking about the first, second, third, or fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth, or ninth or tenth. Imagine for a moment Paul arguing, "one man esteems the Lord above all the rest, and another esteems all gods alike, let each one be convinced in his own mind." Or perhaps, "one man esteems one sex for a bride, while the other man esteems both sexes alike." Or how about, "one man esteems one idol above the rest, and another esteems all idols alike?" These of course are moral issues and Paul would never say such a thing regarding moral issues. </span><br />
<span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOEBcuONT6Jr0z8IqUHcY07sMOfKValPCHqwArtgdfOrv5Tt-XcsqANBD0r3AW7yCxC03ODLmRNGgjjMNIqx55alcRmNSnZi1EIgd6HwaOqMIFOU6nzLpVLCi3zr3UC0DKSZMp2BJl4TM/s1600/a1tony+jones.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="265" data-original-width="414" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOEBcuONT6Jr0z8IqUHcY07sMOfKValPCHqwArtgdfOrv5Tt-XcsqANBD0r3AW7yCxC03ODLmRNGgjjMNIqx55alcRmNSnZi1EIgd6HwaOqMIFOU6nzLpVLCi3zr3UC0DKSZMp2BJl4TM/s400/a1tony+jones.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tony Jones, Emerging Church minister who argues for open-marriages,<br />
as well as polyamory.<br />
<a href="http://apprising.org/2011/08/10/tony-jones-argues-for-open-marriage-and-polyamory/">http://apprising.org/2011/08/10/tony-jones-argues-for-open-marriage-and-polyamory/</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black;">Moral issues are not disputable matters, they are not open for personal interpretation, and a person cannot veer from these issues and still be called a Christian. A Christian cannot say, "you have your moral code and I have mine and we can disagree" or "you have your many gods and I have my one, but we can disagree" or "you have your polyamorous poligamous bisexual marriage and I have my monogamous heterosexual one, but we can disagree." Nope! That's not possible! The only correct response would be, "this is not a disputable matter! This is a moral matter based on the moral command of God and you must repent of your sin or else you are demonstrating that you are cut off from Christ!" And the Scripture affirms this as true, "for no one who abides in God keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him." (1 John 3:6)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background: rgb(250 , 250 , 250); color: black;">So why doesn't the Sabbatarian respond that way? Why doesn't he say, "this is not a disputable matter, you must repent!" After all, when he's preaching or talking slowly, he's very clear, "this is not a disputable matter, the Sabbath is a moral obligation given by God, and it is a perpetual, and moral obligation, binding on all men!" But we know that's not what happens when it comes to actual practice. Instead, they wish to clearly and unequivocally assert that it <i style="letter-spacing: normal;"><b>is</b></i> a disputable matter (which is of course the non-Sabbatarian position).<br /><br />Thus, although Spurgeon was a Sabbatarian himself, he would have to assert of the Sabbatarians, "</span>when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to practice the Sabbath, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In order to hold to the Sabbath doctrine, the Sabbatarian must tell the non-Sabbatarian that just like all other moral issues, Sabbath doctrine is not a disputable matter. Do Christians allow for disagreement on commands such as adultery, and idolatry? Of course not! But for the Sabbatarian and Arminian alike, he has to allow his practice to remain completely divorced from and unaffected by his belief. For if he wished to be consistent, the Sabbatarian must tell all non-Sabbatarians that if there is no repentance from his immoral Sabbath breaking ways, there is no communion with Christ. Isn't that what he believes about idolatry? And adultery? And murder? And every other commandment? Why then does he make an exception regarding the 4th commandment? Could it be that <o:p></o:p><span style="background: rgb(250, 250, 250);">"</span>when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to practice the Sabbath, the true thing slips out?" </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3qWB90f4Q9087wzvaJKEchgs64j65lrANbEy9pVe2QxdSoGu1lyXTKCh-uP7mR2gx_R3i6wVQ0EzMh8XOXhjUTyY46O6-emhgnpH2NZr2kMCgSQatOSYnLOzuXpBFt9QlbfAI_XhLxcA/s1600/clayton+preaching+jesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1066" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3qWB90f4Q9087wzvaJKEchgs64j65lrANbEy9pVe2QxdSoGu1lyXTKCh-uP7mR2gx_R3i6wVQ0EzMh8XOXhjUTyY46O6-emhgnpH2NZr2kMCgSQatOSYnLOzuXpBFt9QlbfAI_XhLxcA/s400/clayton+preaching+jesus.jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Clayton Jennings </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Let's look at a living example. Jordan Hall and his ministry have written extensively about Clayton Jennings, a popular minister and speaker who also happens to be an unrepentant sexual predator, and noted his lack of repentance for sexual sin and has labeled him as a false professor of Christianity. They write, <b>"w</b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222;"><b><span style="background-color: white;">e also would covet your prayers for Jennings, </span><span style="background-color: yellow;">that he might find saving faith that leads to repentance.</span><span style="background-color: white;">"<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/12/14/clayton-jennings-ends-restoration-process-says-mentor-tony-nolan/" target="_blank">1</a></span></span></b><span style="background-color: white;"> Why does the Pulpit and Pen deem Jennings to be in need of saving faith? After all, Jennings repeatedly and consistently professes himself to be a Christian. He even preaches and teaches at churches. Why then does Jordan Hall and the Pulpit and Pen ministry label him as a false brother? They do so because he persists in breaking the 7th commandment without repentance. Now, it's true that Jennings also consistently breaks the 4th commandment regarding Sabbath keeping far more frequently and repeatedly than he breaks the 7th commandment regarding adultery, but for some reason, Hall doesn't seem to care about his breaking of the 4th commandment so much. I have yet to see a single article from Hall or his ministry, condemning Clayton Jennings or any other ministers who refuse to keep a Sabbath. But of course the lack of repentance towards breaking of the 7th commandment necessitates a handing over to Satan and calling him a false brother. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222;"><br /><span style="background-color: white;">In order to highlight the extreme failure of Sabbatarians in this matter, imagine for a moment that Jennings was not only guilty of sexual immorality himself, but also was also teaching thousands of people that they could do the same. How would Hall respond in this matter? Would he sit quietly while this man was teaching thousands that they are free to break one of the Ten Commandments? I doubt that any Sabbatarian, with or without a watch-blog ministry, would sit quietly while a popular pastor taught that they could cast off the 7th commandment, or any other commandment. So what about pastors who not only rejects Sabbath observance for himself, but he openly and actively teaches others that they too can cast off that commandment? How do Sabbatarians relate to those who not only persists in breaking the 4th commandment themselves, but teach others that they may do the same; let's say someone like John MacArthur? For example, in a Sermon about Sabbath doctrine, MacArthur told his congregation, <b>"</b></span></span><span style="word-spacing: 1.92px;"><b>Don’t let anybody hold you to the sabbath. It was part of the system that included the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices. It’s gone. It was only the shadow, not the substance.</b>"</span><a href="https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-379/understanding-the-sabbath" style="word-spacing: 1.92px;" target="_blank">2</a><span style="word-spacing: 1.92px;"> Imagine the outcry if MacArthur would have said, "don't let anybody hold you to the 2nd commandment about not making idols." Or "don't let anybody hold you the 7th commandment about not committing adultery."</span><span style="word-spacing: 1.92px;"> Had he said something about any of the other nine commandments, no doubt Hall would have written an article about MacArthur's apostasy. But in this case, the Spirit of God testifies to Hall and other Sabbatarians about the reality of the abrogation of the Sabbath, and they continue to embrace one another as brothers should.</span><span style="word-spacing: 1.92px;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222;"><span style="background-color: white;">Thus, Jordan is careful to make sure to communicate to the wider Christian body that non-Sabbatarian men like John MacArthur are his brothers in Christ. His reasoning? Because MacArthur thinks Sunday is a special day and refers to it as "the Lord's Day."<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://pulpitandpen.org/2015/06/28/sundays-are-for-sabbath-rest-4/" target="_blank">3</a></span> </span>But for MacArthur, "the Lord's Day" is not a Sabbath and he considers himself free to work and to play on the Sabbath<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> </span><a href="https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-380/why-sunday-is-the-lords-day" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4</span></a></span>, both of which are popularly accepted Sabbath violations, one of which Hall considers to be a Sabbath violation (working). But, why the double standard? Why write extensively about one minister's breaking of the 7th commandment and remain silent in regard to the persistent breaking of the 4th? Especially when it includes not just the breaking of the command but the teaching of others to do the same</span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222;">?</span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222;"> This is sin upon sin. This is egregious! He should be condemned far more harshly than someone like Clayton Jennings. But of course, in practice, this isn't what happens. In the case of MacArthur specifically, Hall accepts his Sabbath breaking because he appreciates that MacArthur calls Sunday "the Lord's Day," but such acrobatics just won't do. Again, imagine the man in Israel about to be put to death for having collected sticks on the Sabbath protesting, "but I'm not guilty of breaking the Sabbath, I call today 'the Lord's Day!'" Such an excuse will not do. Nor could I see Moses protesting, "but Lord, sure he was picking up sticks and breaking your Sabbath, but the day is special to him and he calls it 'your day.'" No. Such a thing could have never happened. Sabbatarians may dutifully proclaim the moral obligation of Sabbath keeping, "</span>when he is preaching and talking very</span> slowly the Sabbath is binding on all; but when he comes to practice that doctrine, the true thing slips out; he cannot help it."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The observation that Sabbatarians resemble Arminians in this way is not new. In his book, <i>In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver</i>, John Reisinger notes, </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsXcm-CzLbECm9AZgP3SuwAPPMRqPtTzw_m1YL1szUy0KHQkGVYB6tuZnR1l1tuM1DWpGvPesDUbmAwf-_FW0e26UEz3nYon7HO7-gFH63D6kLw_DBsw0nClEIA3yEf93lSmYjCFJbt84/s1600/in+defense+of+jesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="327" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsXcm-CzLbECm9AZgP3SuwAPPMRqPtTzw_m1YL1szUy0KHQkGVYB6tuZnR1l1tuM1DWpGvPesDUbmAwf-_FW0e26UEz3nYon7HO7-gFH63D6kLw_DBsw0nClEIA3yEf93lSmYjCFJbt84/s200/in+defense+of+jesus.jpg" width="130" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>"<span style="background: white; color: #1d2129;">The next time someone insists that the Sabbath is a moral commandment just as binding on a Christian today as it was when first given to Israel, ask this question: Exactly what must a person do before your church will discipline him or her for Sabbath breaking? After a moment of silence, ask if the church has ever disciplined someone for breaking the Sabbath commandment. When he or she says no, then say, “You must have a church filled with extremely conscientious Sabbath-keepers or else you have a very hypocritical leadership that treats a moral commandment of God as if it had a nose of wax that could be twisted to mean anything any individual wanted it to mean.”</span></b><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #1d2129;"><br /></span><span style="background: white; color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #1d2129;">I</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">n other words, every member's Sabbath doctrine must match the pastor's view of the Sabbath in all points, or else be excommunicated from the church as someone who does not know God. Is this claim too extreme to be believable? It shouldn't be. It is standard Biblical doctrine. Jordan Hall confirms this in a Facebook exchange between him and I. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_wg5kQ5muc5Dhndpk0-0q0_qgqDbSGMVLvs_hN3FwRgTLPlPPK-S-IpuxO1ccuHj54G_hbeZSsuqsrITeLZmtqvH12cgnqLEgRDVrE6Q0yVt6JJ-wMXFL0hg8mr6Ime6jewVwquNO7zM/s1600/Jordan+hall+sabbath+breakers+punished.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1182" data-original-width="1122" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_wg5kQ5muc5Dhndpk0-0q0_qgqDbSGMVLvs_hN3FwRgTLPlPPK-S-IpuxO1ccuHj54G_hbeZSsuqsrITeLZmtqvH12cgnqLEgRDVrE6Q0yVt6JJ-wMXFL0hg8mr6Ime6jewVwquNO7zM/s400/Jordan+hall+sabbath+breakers+punished.jpg" width="378" /></span></a><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">To the left is a screenshot of the interaction. Jordan begins by quoting the <i>1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith </i>regarding what God requires from men every Sunday. I saw this post and asked, "what should be done with those who unrepentantly break the Sabbath?" Hall answers, "They should be handed over to Satan, that they may be taught." The phrase "handed over to Satan" comes from 1 Corinthians 5 and is the Scriptural instruction to be carried out on a man who has been urepentantly having sex with his father's wife. In the passage, Paul argues that anyone who calls himself a Christian "brother" and yet engages in unrepentant sin is to be put out of the church and not to be numbered among the believing Christians. </span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">So we know that Hall rightly sees Sabbath breaking as no different than sexual immorality, such as the type of sexual immorality for which he calls Clayton Jennings to repent and considers him a false brother. Here we see that Hall is being very consistent in his theology of penology. Although this is very surprising since the <i>1689 London Baptist Confession</i> from which he quotes here condemns Hall himself as a Sabbath breaker for playing basketball with friends on Sunday. As he speaks slowly in sermons and on Facebook, he says the right thing concerning consistent Sabbath doctrine and rightful penalties, but when it comes to practice, the old brogue of his heavenly country cannot help but slip out. So he calls Sabbath breakers (ironically, himself included) brothers. Surprised that he verbalized such a consistent penal theology for Sabbath breaking, I asked, "Are you referencing 1 Corinthians 5?" and he replied, "Sure. It's the same for any unrepentant sin." Now consider the two facts together. One, Sabbath breakers are to be handed over to Satan, and two, even if Sabbath breakers give Sunday a beautiful title like "the Lord's Day," Sabbath breaking is still Sabbath breaking. There's no excuse for it. There's no reason for Sabbatarians to allow for such unrepentant sin in the church simply because they say "today is the Lord's Day" while they go about breaking it, especially when someone like John MacArthur hold such extensive influence over thousands of other Christians, telling them that they can ignore any Sabbath command because the Sabbath is "gone." Again, what would Hall say if MacArthur said, "feel free to commit adultery because that commandment is gone?" It is highly unlikely that Hall would support such a man simply because he gives marriage a beautiful title such as "the Lord's union." To call it "the Lord's Union" while at the same time ignoring what the union requires is nothing but bold faced hypocrisy, and the same applies to the Sabbath. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHsJhmauttZK0JHSrTqbBsWUWfkf9JR5M5dS8uEDsB3fMVJc3bMrKHg2t1jmKe4hbi7xz9DkekOklhUg0oriSo-Uefq9zp3FAuNYQJwXuEzNwW-wdFeapJ1Xy3x-72b7I-S9HloJhSP7k/s1600/a2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="186" data-original-width="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHsJhmauttZK0JHSrTqbBsWUWfkf9JR5M5dS8uEDsB3fMVJc3bMrKHg2t1jmKe4hbi7xz9DkekOklhUg0oriSo-Uefq9zp3FAuNYQJwXuEzNwW-wdFeapJ1Xy3x-72b7I-S9HloJhSP7k/s1600/a2.jpeg" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Depiction of Jan Hus (right) at the council of <br />Constance where he was excommunicated and<br />declared a heretic. </span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">Now a seemingly easy solution to this problem is for Hall and other Sabbatarians to simply respond by declaring me and all other non-Sabbatarian Christians, false believers, heretics, those who are "to be handed over to Satan." But the problem is far more troublesome for the Sabbatarian. Because if he hands non-Sabbatarians over to Satan for Sabbath breaking, then he also has to hand over all of his fellow Sabbatarians to Satan as well. </span><span style="color: #1d2129;">This is because there exist no two Sabbatarians who agree on what the Christian Sabbath requires. And because they don't agree, they must consider one another to be guilty of unrepentant and immoral Sabbath breaking. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="clear: right; color: #1d2129; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><a href="http://1u5ilm12cfb12440k5vbz3o1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Edelstein5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Image result for soccer girl" border="0" src="http://1u5ilm12cfb12440k5vbz3o1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Edelstein5.jpg" height="133" width="200" /></a>Consider the Sabbatarian who thinks it's perfectly to play in an organized sporting event after church. According to Hall, she is a Sabbath breaker who should cease her unrepentant Sabbath breaking ways or else be handed over to Satan. All this despite the fact that she considers herself a genuine Sabbatarian who simply disagrees with Jordan's personal opinion on what is permissible on the Sabbath. But there's no room for disagreement on this issue. If Hall is correct and playing in organized sports is a breaking of the Sabbath, then she is guilty of unrepentant Sabbath breaking and should be "handed over to Satan." Morality has no room for each man to hold his own opinion. It doesn't matter if she's a Sabbatarian or not. It only matters what the Sabbath does and does not require. If it requires abstinence from organized sports then anyone who partakes in them is guilty of Sabbath breaking. Again, she must be handed over to Satan. </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span><span style="color: #1d2129;">The commandment breaker is not allowed to have her own personal interpretation of the commandment. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">But the issue becomes even more problematic for the Sabbatarian because conversely, while he believes that it is acceptable to play sports on Sunday, she thinks it sinful to travel on the Sabbath because, flight attendants, pilots, tarmac directors, tower control officials, baggage handlers, clerks, repairmen, and many more have to work on the Sabbath in order for Hall to enjoy the luxury of immediate travel. Therefore, she must hand Hall over to Satan because she believes he too is in violation of the Sabbath. The Sabbath command not only prohibits an individual from working but, according to many Sabbatarians, it also prohibits an individual from asking others to do the work for him. So just as he is to hand her over to Satan for playing in organized sports, she will be handing him over to Satan for traveling on the Sabbath. But of course there's disagreement on what types of travel are permissible as well, and some Sabbatarians will condemn her for putting gas in her car while on her way to her sporting event. Without question, there is disagreement on all issues. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.giphy.com/media/UAHZijO91QCl2/giphy.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="The Office Finger Guns GIF" border="0" height="225" src="https://media.giphy.com/media/UAHZijO91QCl2/giphy.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Possible footage of Sabbatarians accusing one another</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">This is why every Sabbatarian is guilty of Sabbath breaking in the eyes of every other Sabbatarian. This is why everyone of them is logically forced to point the finger at one another and hand all the others over to Satan. No one adopts the exact standards as another. In fact, we saw above that Hall does not even agree with himself. In one moment he quotes the 1689 LBC which forbids recreation, and the next moment he says that recreation is permissible. They all adopt their own, and so no one agrees. Therefore, they are all Sabbath breakers in one another's eyes and they all have to point the finger of judgment and call for repentance, everyone to another. (And yes, Christians are called to judge one another and is Paul's thesis in 1 Corinthians 5). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In all seriousness, the only person that a Sabbatarian would be able to consider a true Sabbath observer is oneself. I am not deliberately attempting to make a reductio ad absurdum argument, it's just that the logic requires a universal condemnation of all others. According to all other Sabbatarians, the only true Sabbatarian can be one's self. The reason for the infinite number of opinions on what the Sabbath requires is because it is not just a question of can I play sports or not. But it explodes exponentially into questions of </span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> whether or not one can go out to eat on a Sunday, or if one can drive on a tollway (I know a pastor who refuses to do so), or when the Sabbath begins and ends? Does it begin at Sundown according to the Biblical precedent, or the modern practice of midnight? </span><br />
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBE8RLHPV9yl638OhegiCRspJNTSqjSpie9fUzVCHbJRcz0y8c4mbLunGtrwvVneTSBz20W8XsZZcKhteJPLZBIHJ0ZdS4VfhL8xJaQ8mHh5hY0sFOFXgPhKoCTjARrGFG9de6nM25R4s/s1600/a3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="350" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBE8RLHPV9yl638OhegiCRspJNTSqjSpie9fUzVCHbJRcz0y8c4mbLunGtrwvVneTSBz20W8XsZZcKhteJPLZBIHJ0ZdS4VfhL8xJaQ8mHh5hY0sFOFXgPhKoCTjARrGFG9de6nM25R4s/s320/a3.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">And what happens when one travels into a different time zone? Is their home timezone indicative of the Sabbath or the new timezone where they now reside? What about men who live up north where daylight can last for months? How can they observe Sabbath from sundown to sundown? How long does the Sabbath last? Is it 24 hours? Is it only daylight hours? Is it only until the church service is over (a famous pastor whom Hall looks up to once told me that it ends once the church service is over)? These questions of time and duration have never been agreed upon. There are also disagreements about or whether one is permitted to read the newspaper, listen to secular radio, watch secular TV, read non-religious books, go out to eat, use Facebook, use a phone, use running water, use public transportation, take a nap, visit friends, buy or sell, or even shave their face. What if I don't take advantage of a day of preparation before hand? Does failing to observe the day of preparation constitute a breaking of the Sabbath itself? (The 1689 London Baptist confession teaches that failing to prepare for the Sabbath is a breaking of the Sabbath). Can I celebrate birthdays? Hall has preached that birthdays cannot be celebrated on the Sabbath. What about weddings? My previous church would not allow for weddings. The disagreements between Sabbatarians abound. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">Questions like these abound, and no one agrees perfectly with any other. Every Sabbatarian is a Sabbath breaker at some point in the eyes of every other Sabbatarian. </span><span style="color: #1d2129;">Because of this reality, Scripture requires them to hand one another over to Satan. Jordan Hall is right, "it's the same for any unrepentant sin." And this is exactly the point that I am trying to make. It </span><i style="color: #1d2129;">is</i><span style="color: #1d2129;"> the same. You won't find me saying this very often in a discussion about the Sabbath, but I agree completely with Hall! Sabbath breakers should be treated the same way every other rebellious unrepentant sinner is treated. So why does Hall (and all other Sabbatarians) always abandon his theology at this point and go out of his way to embrace Sabbath breakers as Christian brothers? They can only do so in contradiction to their professed theology. When they are preaching or talking slowly, they profess the most ardent and sincere Sabbath doctrine, but when it comes to practice, the true brogue of their heavenly home cannot help but slip out, and they accept all Sabbath breakers who profess Christ.</span></span><br />
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Thus, <span style="color: #1d2129;">like the Arminian, the Sabbatarian has a real problem with consistency. And Jordan Hall's response to me during the debate; </span><i style="color: #1d2129;">"I may be bad at practicing a Sabbath, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one"</i><span style="color: #1d2129;"> doesn't really answer the problem at hand. It's not just that he's </span><i style="color: #1d2129;">bad</i><span style="color: #1d2129;"> at practicing a Sabbath, it's that he </span><i style="color: #1d2129;">cannot</i><span style="color: #1d2129;"> practice a Sabbath. Well, he could, but if he did he would have to label all non-Sabbatarians as heretics who should be "handed over to Satan." As we have seen, this includes Christian brothers like myself as well as a dearly loved brothers of his such as John MacArthur, and even all other professed Sabbatarians who disagree with Hall's personal list of Sabbath obligations and prohibitions. And according to Hall's own profession of the 1689 LBC, he would have to even hand himself over to Satan for playing a friendly game of basketball on the Sabbath.<a href="http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/the-sabbath/how-the-sabbath-should-be-kept/" target="_blank">5</a></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">Even if Sabbatarians could find a reason to maintain the bond of fellowship with one another, they cannot consistently embrace those who verbally and actively cast off the Sabbath command. They have to hand us over to Satan. Imagine for a moment if all Sabbatarians actually did so. They would be claiming that the only ones who belong to Christ are those who call themselves Sabbath keepers (a very tiny number). To employ their doctrine would reveal that our salvation is literally tied to the keeping of holy days; in this case the keeping of the Christian Sabbath. This is the Galatian heresy. Fortunately for the Church, Sabbatarians, just like Arminians, don't actually put their profession into practice. </span><span style="color: #222222;">" For </span><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">when he is preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when he comes to practice that doctrine, the true thing slips out; he cannot help it."</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">The Sabbatarian and the Arminian alike may preach and profess a belief in certain doctrine, but the Spirit of God cannot help but shine through when it comes time to practice. When it comes time for prayer, the Arminian abandons his theology and prays like a Calvinist. And when it comes time to practice the Sabbath, the Sabbatarian abandons his theology and embraces his brothers. </span><i style="background-color: transparent;">You have heard a great many Sabbatarian sermons, I dare say; but you never seen a Sabbatarian practice their doctrine! </i></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></i>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span><i> </i><a href="https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/12/14/clayton-jennings-ends-restoration-process-says-mentor-tony-nolan/">https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/12/14/clayton-jennings-ends-restoration-process-says-mentor-tony-nolan/</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2 </span><a href="https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-379/understanding-the-sabbath">https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-379/understanding-the-sabbath</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3 </span><a href="https://pulpitandpen.org/2015/06/28/sundays-are-for-sabbath-rest-4/">https://pulpitandpen.org/2015/06/28/sundays-are-for-sabbath-rest-4/</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4 </span><a href="https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-380/why-sunday-is-the-lords-day">https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-380/why-sunday-is-the-lords-day</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span> </span><a href="http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/the-sabbath/how-the-sabbath-should-be-kept/">http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/the-sabbath/how-the-sabbath-should-be-kept/</a> <span style="background-color: white; font-family: , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">. . . after the public exercises of God’s worship are over, the work of the Sabbath is not over; but we must retire to our families (not seek our pleasure in the fields, or in vain company) and there repeat over what we have heard, catechise and instruct children and servants, sing Psalms, pray with our families, and whilst we moderately make use of any creature refreshment, we must discourse of the things of God. We ought also to take time in the evening to retire into secret, and there examine ourselves as to the carriage of our hearts before God in the day; labour in meditation to get the Word wrought more thoroughly upon our hearts; we must also endeavour to pour out our hearts before God in secret prayer, humbly confessing sin, earnestly and believingly requesting pardon and further supplies of grace, and thankfully praising God for all His mercies, especially for His Son Jesus Christ, and the gospel privileges which we have in and by Him. In such variety of holy exercises we may spend the whole Sabbath, which we should make as long as we can. And when the day is at an end, we should long for the Sabbath in heaven, which will never have an end.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-84976725717039926302018-04-22T12:49:00.001-07:002018-04-22T14:21:08.516-07:00Open Letter to Thabiti AnyabwileDear Thabiti,<br />
<br />
I'm sure you don't remember me, but we met a few years ago. I was one of Voddie Baucham's pastoral interns at GfBC in Houston, and you were a speaker at our annual conference. You preached from 1 Corinthians 12 and the unity of the one body, the church. It was one of the best handlings of that particular text that I can remember hearing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZNzctv__Ys4BPR1zYI285PmEd4dGJ1GsMDR0p7ycYq30Hc7d4YE_hmWdTbXdXgOHjOe7knh0okTakM0_d_D4bYrsidyhyJq7I63ohH6S7cVjJ6H0btBgMUwipBS4L0CMH0L6PxpCNEig/s1600/unity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1000" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZNzctv__Ys4BPR1zYI285PmEd4dGJ1GsMDR0p7ycYq30Hc7d4YE_hmWdTbXdXgOHjOe7knh0okTakM0_d_D4bYrsidyhyJq7I63ohH6S7cVjJ6H0btBgMUwipBS4L0CMH0L6PxpCNEig/s320/unity.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The reason I write you now, ironically, is because I think you're doing harm to the one body. I think you're causing and prolonging division. You've said so yourself. Perhaps not in those words exactly, but if you'll hear me out, I think you'll agree with my assessment.<br />
<br />
If I understand your position correctly, you claim that there<i> is</i> division in the church, and most African American Christians (like yourself) won't reconcile with the church until there is repentance from white brothers and sisters.<br />
<br />
Now, I am a white pastor at a small congregation, but one that is significantly made up of African Americans, and unity is of the utmost importance to me. In fact, I just preached yesterday on Philippians 1:27-28 where Paul urges the body to be unified for the sake of the gospel. I love Christ with all my heart and want to see him glorified through the advancement of that gospel. According to Paul, if anything is going to stop that advancement, it's not going to be the enemy that impedes, but division in the ranks. Division is inherently gospel stifling. And so I, (and I'm sure you as well) want nothing more than for the church to be unified, because ultimately, we want Christ to be glorified. He is all that matters.<br />
<br />
And so this is why I'm troubled. You know that there is a lack of unity and you won't (can't) be the first one to move towards unity. You claim that you, and other like-minded black men and women, will not forgive and reconcile with the "white church" until something happens first. And this brings me to the reason for writing. WHAT do you want to happen? WHAT needs to happen to attain this unity? I want nothing more than unity with all people, red, and yellow, black, and white. So let's get to work and identify clearly what needs to be done to seek attain the unity that Christ has purchased with blood. Are you interested?<br />
<br />
You obviously want racial reconciliation; and when I say racial reconciliation I refer to racial reconciliation "in the Church," not the world. For it's the unity of the body that I'm after. I hope that when you use the term "racial reconciliation," you also are referring to reconciliation within the church; for it is the body of Christ that is called to be unified. In fact, the only people on earth that <i>can </i>be unified is the body of Christ.<br />
<br />
<b>TOWARDS RACIAL RECONCILIATION</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxmARAYFtwBm8a4TAypvgBF3H3im9xqS5T1Nfv8XQdQQ5HIgD4OR4pLdBaBL1wh1u2c8Get3rQBvlF57AUL7jXogIwsgyJx04fJAPiL0kmAQNbvkuibFaZM_e56lgUrkH4Ma4VTFjA_w4/s1600/reconciliation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="900" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxmARAYFtwBm8a4TAypvgBF3H3im9xqS5T1Nfv8XQdQQ5HIgD4OR4pLdBaBL1wh1u2c8Get3rQBvlF57AUL7jXogIwsgyJx04fJAPiL0kmAQNbvkuibFaZM_e56lgUrkH4Ma4VTFjA_w4/s320/reconciliation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
You state that there can be no reconciliation in the church until white people do something first.<br />
<br />
You have written,<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Racial reconciliation does </span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222325; font-family: "Gotham A", "Gotham B", -apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">not</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> start with forgiveness...</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">There’s </span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222325; font-family: "Gotham A", "Gotham B", -apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">no</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> form of reconciliation that </span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222325; font-family: "Gotham A", "Gotham B", -apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">starts</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> with forgiveness. All reconciliation—if it’s informed and true—begins with either the injured party declaring someone’s offense or with the confession and repentance by the guilty party. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Jesus teaches us this clearly in </span><a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Matt 5.23-26" data-version="esv" href="https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matt%205.23-26" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #66a343; font-family: "Gotham A", "Gotham B", -apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation; transition: all 0.6s cubic-bezier(0.19, 1, 0.22, 1) 50ms;" target="_blank">Matthew 5:23-26</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">. The guy claiming to worship can’t go on worshiping at the altar when he remembers there’s a rift with a brother. He needs to leave his gift—the very gift that was being offered to God </span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222325; font-family: "Gotham A", "Gotham B", -apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">for forgiveness</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">. He needs to reconcile. Agree to terms. Get things patched up by dealing with the facts of the offense, and so on, and </span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222325; font-family: "Gotham A", "Gotham B", -apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">then</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> come back to the altar where forgiveness with God and man might be enjoyed in a clean conscience during worship.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> "</span><br />
<br />
So obviously, you want someone to confess to something. You want someone to seek forgiveness for something. And you claim that if that someone would come, confess, and seek forgiveness, then reconciliation will follow. We can make that happen. Since you're the one saying that you will not reconcile until white people act first, then you need to say what action we need to perform. If you would clearly identify WHO you want to confess and WHAT you want them to confess to, then I'm sure white Christians would be happy to "leave our gifts at the altar" and "first be reconciled to our black brothers." We've been trying to get you to reconcile for a long time.<br />
<br />
You contend that you want confession of sin from the "white church" white people don't know what that means. We're confused concerning what you're after since the white church as already confessed. The Presbyterian Church in America offered a <a href="https://www.theaquilareport.com/pca-ga-overture-43-on-racial-reconciliation-approved-861-123/">public condemnation of racism</a> throughout their history. The SBC has also offered <a href="http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention">a public apology</a> to "all African-Americans," as well. White people are striving for unity, even to the point of passing a resolution to "urge churches to demonstrate their heart for racial reconciliation by seeking to increase racial and ethnic diversity in church staff roles, leadership positions, and church membership." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many efforts that the "white church" has made to seek reconciliation. We're doing all that we know to do.<br />
<br />
We are sincerely trying to tell you that we are sorry. So it leaves me wondering why you wrote an article saying, "We Await Repentance for Assassinating Dr. King? We have "left our gift at the altar" and have gone to you, and confessed and repented. You said that is what was necessary for you to offer forgiveness, but obviously, it's not since you're still "Awaiting Repentance."<br />
<br />
When the SBC published their apology to African Americans, it was received by Reverend Gary Frost who said,<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmwMsOSlMWVD0tG0aovDQbMGlC6slpgZhagYEaffOae15use5NihOR7NNWSEy24HzvcXcSxb1TRPX1qHt8Cl9vzMECKe5IsmWP1Ukv1r_TdMXnGpYLlrvDevzkOWptS-JgtcCC7tYT0ZY/s1600/frost.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmwMsOSlMWVD0tG0aovDQbMGlC6slpgZhagYEaffOae15use5NihOR7NNWSEy24HzvcXcSxb1TRPX1qHt8Cl9vzMECKe5IsmWP1Ukv1r_TdMXnGpYLlrvDevzkOWptS-JgtcCC7tYT0ZY/s320/frost.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
"On behalf of my black brothers and sisters, we accept your apology and we extend to you our forgiveness in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Ephesians chapter 4, verses 31 and 32 say, 'let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice, and be kind, one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as god, for Christ's sake has forgiven you.' Because of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, and his great love toward us, we extend that same love, forgiveness, grace and mercy towards you. We pray that the genuineness of your repentance will be reflected in your attitudes and in your actions. We forgive you, for Christ's sake, amen."<br />
<br />
The way that it seems from where I sit, white believers are seeking reconciliation, and some black Christians, like Rev. Frost, are saying, "we forgive you." But you, as well as others, are still saying, "you can't have forgiveness until X happens first." But I have placed X in that sentence because we don't know what X is. We don't know what has to happen.<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>THE CORE ISSUE</b><br />
<br />
This brings me back to my core questions. WHO do you want to confess? And WHAT do you want them to confess? And if you want more than confession and a plea for forgiveness, then you need to tell us. What exactly, in your eyes needs to be done? Up to this point, you've said that asking forgiveness was all that was necessary, but obviously, that doesn't seem to be the case. White Christians are desirous for forgiveness; for your forgiveness. What do we need to do in order to get it? What still stands in the way?<br />
<div>
<br />
<b>LET'S MOVE FORWARD</b></div>
<br />
I don't ask these questions in rhetorical fashion and these questions don't serve to advance an argument. I'm seriously and sincerely asking very real questions; very real questions that you <i>must</i> answer. Your white brothers have left their gift at the altar, come to you, and asked for your forgiveness. The ball is in your court so to speak. You have to be the one to tell them why they still can't have your forgiveness even though they've asked. What more do we (as white brothers) need to do? Please seek to answer this question clearly and openly. What still needs to be done to attain the unity that we have in Christ?<br />
<br />
We want forgiveness. We're striving for forgiveness. Why don't we have it?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPKP7FxK-sKGW2dDKmVUZHX-sGx9gjqk9br3To-9JgEMoWvE1Q-t0vzb7ikseKNGqUWNFxVKXgENUASXHb1NsgLxI2yyBQQmRnENIzid01Z8bOX4qBfkr2Fi7vrV34BEvO-002LIYufFA/s1600/unity+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1600" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPKP7FxK-sKGW2dDKmVUZHX-sGx9gjqk9br3To-9JgEMoWvE1Q-t0vzb7ikseKNGqUWNFxVKXgENUASXHb1NsgLxI2yyBQQmRnENIzid01Z8bOX4qBfkr2Fi7vrV34BEvO-002LIYufFA/s320/unity+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
We need to get this done so that we can move on to the real work of advancing the gospel. Let's reconcile, for the sake of our Lord. His gospel and his glory demand it. We can't afford to continue stalling on this issue. And we can't move forward until these questions are answered. Let's do this!<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">"Only </span><span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-29372AV" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-29372AV" title="See cross-reference AV">AV</a>)" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">let your manner of life be </span><span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-29372AW" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-29372AW" title="See cross-reference AW">AW</a>)" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">worthy</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you </span><span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-29372AX" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-29372AX" title="See cross-reference AX">AX</a>)" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">that you are standing firm in one spirit, with </span><span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-29372AY" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-29372AY" title="See cross-reference AY">AY</a>)" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">one mind </span><span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-29372AZ" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-29372AZ" title="See cross-reference AZ">AZ</a>)" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">striving side by side for the faith of the gospel." Philippians 1:27</span></span></h3>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-4438939687139420472018-03-31T12:48:00.001-07:002018-03-31T13:44:12.591-07:00Philippians 1:6 Probably Not What You Think It Means<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In the movie "The Princess Bride" the
inimitable character Vizzini keeps using the word "inconceivable" at
every chance possible. Finally, Inigo Montoya can't take it anymore, turns to
Vizzini and says, "you keep using that word, I don't think it means what
you think it means."<br />
<br />
As Christians, I think we might have more in common with Vizzini than we would
care to admit. I sure wish I had an Inigo Montoya there to correct me when I
needed it. But if the truth be told, I have someone better than Inigo Montoya.
Jesus called him "the comforter" or "the advocate."
We call him, "the Holy Spirit." He has many functions, and correcting
us is one of them. Let me offer an example.<br />
<br />
All my life I've been convinced that Philippians 1:6 was a declaration of our
continued progressive sanctification. You know the verse, "And I am sure
of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to
completion at the day of Jesus Christ."</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">That's
about progressive sanctification right? Or is it not? As I was studying this passage recently,
I began to have my doubts. It was like the Holy Spirit was there whispering in
my ear, "you keep using that verse, I don't think it means what you think
it means." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="separator" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6RvtM0V_P7XGmv3E-a5Gl-_RV9YGh8D7gXlEh8Ir4oqBNCwIBVahuqZKOgnLfETe8r0zo3M0N2HAWVNd2J85Ky40Hk_H807Y59oDKjKTBvKhRajUecl030QB_pCHaUYpP0ZKvhyw_45c/s1600/phil+1.6+inigo+montoya.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1223" data-original-width="1600" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6RvtM0V_P7XGmv3E-a5Gl-_RV9YGh8D7gXlEh8Ir4oqBNCwIBVahuqZKOgnLfETe8r0zo3M0N2HAWVNd2J85Ky40Hk_H807Y59oDKjKTBvKhRajUecl030QB_pCHaUYpP0ZKvhyw_45c/s400/phil+1.6+inigo+montoya.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6RvtM0V_P7XGmv3E-a5Gl-_RV9YGh8D7gXlEh8Ir4oqBNCwIBVahuqZKOgnLfETe8r0zo3M0N2HAWVNd2J85Ky40Hk_H807Y59oDKjKTBvKhRajUecl030QB_pCHaUYpP0ZKvhyw_45c/s1600/phil+1.6+inigo+montoya.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="float: left;"><span style="background: white; color: blue; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6RvtM0V_P7XGmv3E-a5Gl-_RV9YGh8D7gXlEh8Ir4oqBNCwIBVahuqZKOgnLfETe8r0zo3M0N2HAWVNd2J85Ky40Hk_H807Y59oDKjKTBvKhRajUecl030QB_pCHaUYpP0ZKvhyw_45c/s400/phil+1.6+inigo+montoya.jpg"
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6RvtM0V_P7XGmv3E-a5Gl-_RV9YGh8D7gXlEh8Ir4oqBNCwIBVahuqZKOgnLfETe8r0zo3M0N2HAWVNd2J85Ky40Hk_H807Y59oDKjKTBvKhRajUecl030QB_pCHaUYpP0ZKvhyw_45c/s1600/phil+1.6+inigo+montoya.jpg"
style='width:300pt;height:228.75pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'
o:button="t">
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/Louis/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg"
o:title="phil%2B1.6%2Binigo%2Bmontoya"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Before
I continue, let me put your fears to rest. I still believe in progressive
sanctification. I think it's all over the pages of the New Testament. I just
don't think it's on<i> this </i>particular page, not in this
particular chapter, and not this particular verse. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So
if Philippians 1:6 is not about progressive sanctification, then what is it
about?<br />
<br />
<br />
In verse 6, Paul references the "good work" which God began in the
Philippian church. But Paul is not referencing this "good work" in a
vacuum, he's already mentioned what that good work was in verse 5, the
"partnership in the gospel." Paul is citing the Philippians continues
to share with Paul, their money, their people, and in suffering. In fact, in
chapter 4, Paul says, "<span class="text"><span id="en-ESV-29440" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">Yet it was kind of you to
share</span></span></span><span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="text"><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;"> </span></span><span class="text"><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">my trouble.</span></span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span><span id="en-ESV-29441" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="versenum"><b><span style="background: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">15 </span></b></span></span><span class="text"><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">And you
Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I
left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and
receiving, except you only."</span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
<br />
<span class="text">The Philippians are most likely afraid that all of their
efforts have been done in vain now that Paul is sitting locked up in a Roman
prison cell. Imagine investing all you have into a company only to see the
government come in and shut them down. You would feel like all of your effort
and investment has been done in vain. I imagine the Philippian church felt the
same way. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text">Thus, Paul mentions their "partnership in the gospel from
the first day until now" in verse five and then immediately says, that
this "good work" that God began will be brought to completion at the
day of Christ. In other words, I think Paul is saying, </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text">"you've partnered in the gospel with me. You've invested
money in me. You've invested people to serve me. You've invested in prayers and
suffering with me, and all of this partnering with me in the work of the gospel
will not be short circuited simply because I'm sitting in a Roman prison cell.
Instead, this partnership in the gospel 'will be brought to completion at the
day of Jesus Christ' so don't worry. Be encouraged. Nothing was in vain. The
work will not stop just because I'm behind bars."</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text">I think that makes verse 6 encouraging for two reasons.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">1. Whatever you have done in service to God will not be lost,
thwarted, short circuited, erased, or diminished. God WILL bring it to
completion at the day of Christ. So whatever you've done in service to God that
you feel like was done in vain, you're wrong. Partnering with God in the work
of the gospel will be brought to completion at the day of Christ, even if our
natural eyes see it having come to an end. Don't believe the way things appear.
God is still using what you thought was done in vain. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span class="text"></span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6B77lQVexJDOUw-P3-IZZVIPjmSjZp_OuzcFcK9LfZDEUE2nejiUFMm6gW43GEiHErkD-UKpvfbK_p27HE1MvCsrEAWmRnXagXjHGFNxY98TvP1luRlCu3lBUuku-vEakaHN3ByVNC8Y/s1600/phil+1.6+plant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1280" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6B77lQVexJDOUw-P3-IZZVIPjmSjZp_OuzcFcK9LfZDEUE2nejiUFMm6gW43GEiHErkD-UKpvfbK_p27HE1MvCsrEAWmRnXagXjHGFNxY98TvP1luRlCu3lBUuku-vEakaHN3ByVNC8Y/s400/phil+1.6+plant.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span class="text">2. We can be encouraged to continue our efforts for the sake
of the advancement of the gospel with full assurance that our efforts are not
in vain and never will be. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text">Thus, we have hope for both the seed that we have planted in
the past, and the seed that we have opportunity to plant today, and
tomorrow. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="text"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So let's roll up our sleeves, get to work, and join in the
gospel work that God is doing. We have full assurance that our partnership in
the gospel will not be in vain, God will bring it to completion at the day of
Christ. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="text"><span style="font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="text"><span style="font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="text"><span style="font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="text"><span style="font-size: 18px;">Here are two more detailed arguments concerning verse 6. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="text"><span style="font-size: 18px;"><br />1. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="text" style="font-size: 18px;">https://bible.org/article/does-philippians-16-guarantee-progressive-sanctification-part-1</span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span class="text Phil-4-15" id="en-ESV-29441" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br />2. </span><br />
<span class="text Phil-4-15" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">https://faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Hart.html</span><br />
<span class="text Phil-4-15" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="text Phil-4-15" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="text Phil-4-15" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="text Phil-4-15" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="text Phil-4-15" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="text Phil-4-15" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-54922714664209328512018-03-11T11:51:00.002-07:002018-06-06T19:17:35.636-07:00Shane Claiborne's False Gospel <div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
My wife often calls me prolix. It's a word that we learned
from watching Downton Abby. It means that I talk a lot. Case in point, today
someone asked me a question on Facebook. I typed out my answer, and it was too
long to post. So I'm creating a blog post just for that particular answer.<br />
<br />
Since it's a Facebook comment, you won't find citations, you
may find poor grammar or misspellings, but at the end of the day, you'll find
my answer. Oh wait. I guess I should give you the question.<br />
<br />
"What makes you think that Shane Claiborne is not a
brother in Christ?"<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
This is going to be hard for me to do because
Claiborne hides pretty well. Many years ago, when the emergent church was being
developed, men like Rob Bell, Brian McClaren,Tony Campolo, Doug Pagitt, Mark Driscoll (who
ended up leaving the movement because it denied the gospel), and many others
introduced a new sort of theology into the church at large.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJAxzdbQrzlE3OZT5eBfgR8HVpcgmLND1pG1s7S7coCW-XqIIzVwDoA8-QoYdkMPMOjfNhT7bB6ZX-TTRyP52XgYvlcWRxRe9qWMyKQsWWkG1heyRQSCVEqZuBALq4PVshFn35guOqySc/s1600/claiborn+pagitt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJAxzdbQrzlE3OZT5eBfgR8HVpcgmLND1pG1s7S7coCW-XqIIzVwDoA8-QoYdkMPMOjfNhT7bB6ZX-TTRyP52XgYvlcWRxRe9qWMyKQsWWkG1heyRQSCVEqZuBALq4PVshFn35guOqySc/s320/claiborn+pagitt.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">This theology had many differing characteristics depending upon who you
asked but three points of theology upon which all agreed (except for Driscoll,
which is why he left) was 1. "there is no salvation apart from Jesus, 2.
God is love, and 3. Jesus had already saved everyone whether they realized it
or not." </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Of course, such theology would be immediately identified as heresy by the
church at large, so here's how the deceit works. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">1. State that salvation is in Jesus alone</span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">2. Speak about God's love and showing love to others</span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">3. Don't mention that you believe everyone is already saved, no matter
what they believe. (as an analogy, imagine a person who ran a red light and got
ticketed. A neighbor paid their fine. You tell them that the neighbor paid
their fine and they don't believe you. But just because they don't believe
doesn't mean that their fine isn't paid.) This is how these men see the
atonement. All Muslims, Buddhists, and Roman Catholics are saved because Jesus
paid their fine, even if they don't believe. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">[now some of those men hold to the governmental theory of atonement and
they deny penal substitution but I'm just giving an example to show that they
believe that all men are saved and explain how some of them get there. Other
men hold to the same doctrine but arrive there in other ways]</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">So at the end of the day, you had a strong group of radical men within the
church proclaiming that there is no salvation apart from Jesus, and speaking
about loving God and loving neighbor. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">What a great message right? Salvation in Christ and loving neighbor!
Completely in line with the gospel and the word of God. However, it's the
silence of point 3 (that all men are already saved) that makes things very
difficult. Because, if all men are already saved, then the need to proclaim
point 1, expound on point 1, teach point 1, and focus on point 1, is
unnecessary. Thus, point 2 becomes the focus. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">That's why when you listen to these men, you will hear a lot about point 2
(how to love one another), but virtually nothing about point 1. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Thus, Jesus is preached, not as savior of sinners, but as the exemplar for
how to love and how to treat your neighbor. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Shane Claiborne is a part of this group. I'm not saying that he's a part
of the Emergent Church (in fact, he doesn't even like the term Emergent Church)
but he's a part of this new wave of theology that holds to points 1,2,3 as
listed above. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">The reason that it's difficult for me to prove it to you is because he
tries very hard to be silent on point 3. The fact that he is willing to confess
Jesus as savior and that he speaks much about how to love neighbor are evident,
and make it sound like he's a part of the body of Christ. This is how he hides
under the radar. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">But take quick note of what I said earlier. These men of whom I speak,
will all write, speak, and act A LOT concerning point 2, (how to love neighbor)
while NEVER preaching repentance in order to be saved. (because they believe
everyone is already saved) so the focus of their message will always be about
this world, and this life, and how to make this world the best world possible.
In other words, let's work to abolish poverty, disease, suffering in this life.
After all, if everyone is already saved, then what is the need to speak about
the world to come? Does that describe Claiborne? Yes it does. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">But let's continue. As I said, it's almost impossible to pin these guys
down because they don't come out and preach point 3 (that all men are already
saved). So since all we hear is a little bit of point one and a lot of point 2,
they seem orthodox. After all, who's going to declare them heretics for
preaching about loving neighbor? So as I continue, I'm asking you to look closely
and see that they will come as close to preaching point 3 as they can without
actually saying it directly. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZfALvoWIrLZOQj_hOzJo38Hqb9g7X2IXkpSO330BTQw8eHZ2Jr6zkr6wXC2MLURxItSFoMO_g5zHHlj3nLgTYKtWkzKie1ALOQBi4mYxInL6ft2v4GKOQvia_Ng9I58IT1y7xcc8Tg3g/s1600/farewell+rob+bell.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="121" data-original-width="417" height="115" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZfALvoWIrLZOQj_hOzJo38Hqb9g7X2IXkpSO330BTQw8eHZ2Jr6zkr6wXC2MLURxItSFoMO_g5zHHlj3nLgTYKtWkzKie1ALOQBi4mYxInL6ft2v4GKOQvia_Ng9I58IT1y7xcc8Tg3g/s400/farewell+rob+bell.png" width="400" /></a></div>
This was the case with Rob Bell. He flew under the radar for a long time
and no one listened to my warnings about this very thing until he wrote the
book "Love Wins" and came out and declared point 3 publicly in no
uncertain terms. Of course, once he did, he was rejected by the church at
large. You may or may not remember John Piper tweeting "Farwell Rob
Bell" when the book was published.<br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Claiborne continues to fly under the radar but every once in a while his
tail fin will poke above the radar line and you can see a tiny bleep on the
radar screen. And unless you already know that the Shane Claiborne bomber is in
the air, you might think that blip is just a bird, or perhaps a kid flying a
kite. Or you might be confused as to what you're seeing and say something like
Jay has said, "he seems iffy." You can tell that there is something
wrong, but you won't be able to see it clearly. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">So let's begin looking at a few tail fins that have popped up on the radar
screen. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"when the curtain of the temple was torn open as Jesus died on the
cross. Not only was God redeeming that which was profane but God was setting
all that was sacred free. Now God dwelled not behind the veil in the temple but
in the eyes of the dying and the poor" </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Here, when Claiborne says that he sees God dwelling not inside believers
who are dying and poor, but he sees God as dwelling inside EVERYONE who is
dying and poor, whether they believe or not. Point 3 has shown a bit on the
radar. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"As I looked into the eyes of the dying, I felt like I was meeting
God.”</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Not those who were believers and who were dying, but those who were
unbeleivers who were dying. (not to mention that even if they were believers
this would still be a troubling statement) But suffice it to say that Claiborne
sees God dwelling in unbelievers. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"one of the barriers seems to be the assumption that we (Christians)
have the truth and folks who experience things differently (Muslims) will all
go to hell"</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Here, Claiborne is affirming that even Muslims will be saved because it's
only an "assumption" that Christians have the truth. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">In speaking to Tony Campolo he tells Tony,</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"You also note in your book the encounter of Francis of Assisi and
the Muslim Sultan …they came together across major religious divides and had a
mystical unity … Maybe we will even find a mystical union of the Spirit as
Francis did."</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Really? Are we to have "mystical unity" with Muslims? </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"“Let’s dive into the Scriptures together, correcting distorted
understandings of the warrior God by internalizing our allegiance to the
slaughtered Lamb" </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">There are a few problems with the quote above.</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">1. He claims that God is not a warrior God and was not responsible for the
crucifixion. </span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">2. He claims that God is a loving sacrificial God who wold never make war
on anyone. </span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">3. He denies that Jesus is returning to make war against the wicked. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"The other night I headed into downtown Philly for a stroll with some
friends from out of town. We walked down to Penn's Landing along the river,
where there are street performers, artists, musicians. We passed a great
magician who did some pretty sweet tricks like pour change out of his iPhone,
and then there was a preacher. He wasn't quite as captivating as the magician.
He stood on a box, yelling into a microphone,... He talked about how we are all
going to die and go to hell if we don't know Jesus... All I could do was think
to myself, I want to jump up on a box beside him and yell at the top of my
lungs, "God is not a monster.'" </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Here Claiborne shows his hatred for the gospel. He thinks that the God who
would send people to hell is a monster. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"In closing, to those who have closed the door on religion — I was recently
asked by a non-Christian friend if I thought he was going to hell. I said,
"I hope not. It will be hard to enjoy heaven without you." If those
of us who believe in God do not believe God's grace is big enough to save the
whole world... well, we should at least pray that it is." (ellipsis his)</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Here Shane appears on the radar screen in two small blips. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">1. He recognizes that there are men who "believe in God" but
they don't believe that Jesus' grace can "save the whole world" but
he doesn't put himself in that category. In other words, he himself is one who
thinks that God's grace is big enough to save the whole world. And he
encourages anyone who disagrees to pray that God's grace IS going to save the
whole world. </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Shane wrote a series of articles for CT called "The Gates of
Hell". Here's how the editor sums up his first article. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0VaCNLCvwMNxJDB5GizcghinV8vep-rw3qvGL8IhxVvxByY9X_ZVYC8F7YvUImCYf5hit0Hy1Ttd0uPDg4gcSsvDuE8wd_SHB892BN361FfCWrtU38hUocucArkyl40OJjfHHmM_3gls/s1600/ct+today.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="295" data-original-width="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0VaCNLCvwMNxJDB5GizcghinV8vep-rw3qvGL8IhxVvxByY9X_ZVYC8F7YvUImCYf5hit0Hy1Ttd0uPDg4gcSsvDuE8wd_SHB892BN361FfCWrtU38hUocucArkyl40OJjfHHmM_3gls/s1600/ct+today.jpg" /></a></span></div>
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span>
<br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"In part one of his post, Shane Claiborne challenged our assumptions
about hell. Is it merely something people experience after death, or is hell a
living reality for many on earth?" </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">You see? He's challenging our assumptions about hell. It's not a place for
the wicked in the future, it's a place here and now (because everyone is going to heaven). </span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"Just as we are building walls to keep people out of our comfortable,
insulated existence, we are trapping ourselves in a hell of isolation,
loneliness and fear. We have "gated communities" where rich folks
live. We put up picket fences around our suburban homes. We place barbed wire
and razer-wire around our buildings and churches. We put bars on our windows in
the ghettos of fear. We build up walls to keep immigrants from entering our
country. We guard our borders with those walls - Berlin, Jerusalem, Jericho.
And the more walls and gates and fences we have, the closer we are to hell. We,
like the rich man, find ourselves locked into our gated homes and far from the
tears of Lazarus outside, far from the tears of God."</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Hell for Claiborne is poverty and suffering.</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">"Let us pray that God would give us the strength to storm the gates
of hell, and tear down the walls we have created between those whose suffering
would disrupt our comfort. May we become familiar with the suffering of the
poor outside our gates, know their names, and taste the salt in their tears?
then when "the ones God has rescued," the Lazaruses of our world -
the baby refugees, the mentally-ill wanderers, and the homeless outcasts - are
seated next to God, we can say, "We're with them." Jesus has given
them the keys to enter the Kingdom. Maybe they will give us a little boost over
the gate."</span><br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2;">And salvation is salvation from temporal suffering. Jesus died to help us
put an end to temporal suffering.<br /><br /><br />Twenty three days from this posting, Shane Claiborne will be meeting with Tony Campolo at Yale University. If anyone disagrees with my opinions given above, I challenge you to watch the live stream of the conversation he has at Yale. Listen for talk about sin, repentance, hell, punishment, and the need for everyone to become a Christian or be cut off from God forever. It's 23 days away. I'm not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet but I can tell you this. There will be NO talk about the need for men to come to faith in Christ. There will be NO talk about all other religions being false. There will be no attempt to save men from the wrath to come. How do I know this? Because I know Claiborne and Campolo. They're false teachers.<br /><br />There may be talk about Jesus and how he loves and wants to save. But be careful, because they won't be referring to salvation from sin, they will be referring to salvation from suffering and "evil in this world."<br /><br />One of the greatest ways to detect a false teacher is not to listen to what he says, but to pay close attention to what he does NOT say.<br /><br />Below you will find the link for the live feed of the Yale conversation. You will have to copy and paste it since it's not a live link yet. (at least not for another 23 days)<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rf_WWjrUU</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="background-color: #eff1f3;"></span>Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-81868942005236340482017-08-09T22:38:00.002-07:002017-08-09T22:38:49.791-07:00The Three Forms of Covenant Theology (part 3; The Law of the New Covenant)I've finally gotten the time to record , edit, and publish this very important message. The Message is in 2 parts. The first section is a proof that the New Covenant must be comprised of a new law, both logic and Scripture require this. After having shown that the New Covenant must have a new law, part two identifies and explains what that new law is.<br />
<br />
Part one ends at the 25 minute mark, so if you just want to know what the law of the New Covenant is, and you're pressed for time, then I recommend that you begin at that mark. However, if you don't see how the New Covenant requires the establishment of a new law that did not exist in the Old Covenant, then be sure to watch from the beginning.<br />
<br />
I identify the law of the New Covenant in four sections,<br />
<br />
1. The commands of Christ<br />
2. The example of Christ<br />
3. The Apostolic instructions written in the NT<br />
4. The Record given to us in the OT<br />
<br />
I also, spend some time contrasting the law of the OT vs the law of the NT.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm certain that I could have done a much better job on this. I worked on this message for a long time, struggled to preach it, and have never been perfectly happy with it. However, I pray that the Lord may use my weakness for his own glory, and I pray that you will be spurred on to learn more for the purposes of becoming more like Christ.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/swndhrkVmjw/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/swndhrkVmjw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-18927453345111945602017-06-07T21:03:00.001-07:002017-06-07T21:03:12.959-07:00The Forms of Covenant Theology Part 2: 1689 Federalism and New Covenant Theology<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Last time we examined the<a href="http://www.thepastorspen.org/2017/05/the-three-forms-of-covenant-theology.html"> 3 major forms of Covenant Theology</a>. This week we will examine a new form of Covenant Theology called New Covenant Theology. This form is very close in almost every aspect to 1689 Federalism. However, there are some important differences.<br />
<br />
I was contacted by a few individuals who were unsure how they differed after watching part 1 of this series. In this video I explain the two major differences between the systems. One difference concerning a covenant in the Garden of Eden, and the other difference concerning the nature of the Decalogue.<br />
<br />
I hope you are edified and encouraged. I don't use any quotes from New Covenant Theologians in this presentation since I'll be covering what they believe in more detail in Part 3 of this series.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fNDBMh2ExY4/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNDBMh2ExY4?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-11452408707757447572017-05-24T18:42:00.002-07:002017-05-25T12:14:33.072-07:00The Three Forms of Covenant TheologyOver the past twenty years, thousands of young Christians have been leaving behind the Dispensational and Arminian theologies of their parents. This is a good thing in my opinion. I think the Dispensational ideas have been hurtful to Christianity. But with the many young men and women of my generation leaving Dispensationalism, the question is, "where are they going?" <br />
<br />
Most young Christians, the Young, Restless, and Reformed, and many other young people, are heading into the Reformed school of thought. This is a good thing. But as they enter they are usually unaware of what "Reformed" actually means. Some think that holding to Calvinism makes one "Reformed." Some think that holding to the "5 Solas" makes on Reformed. Those things, and others, are important aspects of Reformed Theology, but they do not form the basis of Reformed Theology. And at it's core, "Reformed" means that one holds to one of the Confessions which underpin Covenant Theology, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (for Presbyterians) or the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (for Baptists).<br />
<br />
However, what many don't realize is that there are 3 forms of Covenant Theology? <br />
There is actually a Covenant Theology for Presbyterians, a different form of CT for Baptists, and a third, which is a mix of the Presbyterian and Baptist forms.<br />
<br />
1. Westminster Covenant Theology<br />
2. 1689 Federalism<br />
3. A freakish blend of 1 and 2. It is sometimes referred to as 20th century Baptist Covenant Theology.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the video below I'll try to adequately describe all of the views for you, so that you can begin to understand what being Reformed is and why the difference between Presbyterians and Baptists has nothing to do with Baptism, but everything to do with the way they view the Mosiac Covenant vs. the New Covenant. (The Abrahamic Covenant is of great importance as well, but I'll save that for another day)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wDHKvqtMysg/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wDHKvqtMysg?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
NOTES:<br />
<br />
I seek to study well and confirm all positions before I speak about one. I want to bring correct and unbiased views when I present information. However, every time I put forth someone's theological position, they respond by saying, "that's not a correct representation of the position." Additionally, within each view there are sub-groups which may vary on various aspects. So for the record, I'm posting links so that each position may be able to speak for itself. <br />
<br />
The major points that I'm trying to get across are<br />
<br />
1. Presbyterianism = One Covenant of Grace with Two administrations (the Mosaic vs. the New)<br />
2. 20th Century RB = One Covenant of Grace with two administrations (with the exception of infant baptism)<br />
3. 1689 Federalism = Two distinct covenants (Mosaic and New; the New being the Covenant of Grace)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The first link connects to the Westminster Confession which posits that there is only one covenant and two administrations.<br />
<br />
The second link is from the blog of Brandon Adams who is a scholar and a man of understanding who specializes in 1689 Federalism (as well as all other Reformed topics), and is more than adequate and qualified to communicate what 1689 Federalism (this Historical Baptist view) teaches. Clearly, the 1689 view rejects the Presbyterian view and sees two completely different covenants.<br />
<br />
The third link is again from Brandon Adams who contrasts the 1689 Baptist view with the 20 Century Baptist view.<br />
<br />
The forth link is posted at Brandon Adam's blog but is an argument from Sam Renihan against the 20 Century view and for the Historic 1689 view.<br />
<br />
For more information, www.1689federalism.com is a great source.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Link 1: The Westminster/Presbyterian view posits one covenant and two administrations (paragraph 5 and 6)</b><br />
<br />
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VII.html<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Link 2: The 1689 Reformed Baptist View rejects the Presbyterian view of one covenant of Grace with with two administrations</b><br />
<br />
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/calvin-vs-1689-federalism-on-old-vs-new/<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Link 3: The most popular view of the 20th century is the freakish blend of view 1 and 2.</b><br />
<br />
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/?s=baptist+covenant+theology<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Link 4: A 1689 Federalist seeks to correct a 20th Century Baptist View of Covenant Theology</b><br />
<br />
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/covenant-substance-vs-administration-in-the-1689-lbcf/<br />
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-19222732215025227452017-05-05T07:03:00.005-07:002017-05-05T18:27:51.704-07:00Les Lanphere and the Warning Passages<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">This morning, Les Lanphere put a challenge to Baptists. He states,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
Show me that the New Testament <span class="highlightNode" style="background-color: rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.14902); border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.298039); font-family: inherit; padding: 0px 1px;">warnings</span> of covenantal apostasy are just hypothetical to put fear in the Saints, and I'll show you an immediate contradiction in thinking. If you know they can't happen, then you can't be fearful of them.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
The <span class="highlightNode" style="background-color: rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.14902); border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.298039); font-family: inherit; padding: 0px 1px;">warnings</span> would only work on people that don't yet know they can't actually happen, so the <span class="highlightNode" style="background-color: rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.14902); border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.298039); font-family: inherit; padding: 0px 1px;">warnings</span> are temporary for people with bad theology. And you explaining it to me would be effectively causing me to stop being fearful of them. This is an unintelligible interpretation. God doesn't warn against things that can't happen.</div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><br />
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
<b><br /></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BAPTISTS AND PRESBYTERIANS</b><br />
<b><br /></b> <b>I</b>f you know anything about Baptist beliefs, you must know that we submit that the only members of the New Covenant are saved individuals. One who professes to be a part of the New Covenant and is not really saved may profess to be in the covenant, but he is not.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
<br />
<br />Presbyterians on the other hand seek to advance the claim that there are saved members in the New Covenant, and there are unsaved members of the New Covenant. Thus, Les' statement about "covenantal apostasy" make sense. He believes that there can be members of the covenant who become apostate and are removed from the covenant.<br />
<br />The warning passages in Scripture seem to support this idea. After all, "how could a warning be hypothetical?" If it were hypothetical, an empty threat simply made to "put fear in the Saints" that would be "an immediate contradiction in thinking." I mean, "if you know they can't happen, then why be fearful of them." That's madness! Obviously, these warnings are real, and they <i>can</i> happen. Thus, we must confess that people can be tossed out of the covenant. But if we acknowledge that God will never lose any of his own, then we must confess that there are those in the covenant who are not "God's own," those who are not saved. Hence, the membership of the New Covenant must consist of both the saved and the unsaved. See? It's all very logical. Logical... and wrong.<br />
<br />At times there are Scriptures that directly contradict one another, if I may speak that way. For example, in Ephesians 2, Paul says that salvation comes "by faith, not works" while in James 2, James says, "</span></div>
<span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Of course, we protestants understand how these passages complement one another. We understand that instead of being contrary, they give the Christian a more accurate and holistic understanding of salvation. <br /><br />Thus, those who err on this matter do so only when they take one passage as "the way it is" and ignore the other passage. For example, those who over-focus on salvation by faith end up falling into the error of the ever-sin-loving "believer" who is saved no matter what his life looks like. While those who over-focus on Jame's salvation that is comprised of faith with works and ignore the passages about salvation by faith alone, end up teaching that salvation is by faith plus works. The key to interpreting Scripture however is to reconcile the two seemingly contrary passages. We can't afford to "explain away" the claims of a particular passage simply because it contradicts a passage that we value.<br /><br />At this point, perhaps you're asking, "why is this important? And what does this have to do with Les Lanphere and the Presbyterian position. Well, it seems to me that Mr. Lanphere is erring by over-emphasizing one passage to the neglect of another. Instead of harmonizing the two passages as he ought, he emphasizes the warning passages while he ignores the passages that seem to contradict the verses that he values.<br /><br /><b>THE "CONTRADICTION" IN QUESTION</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">In Jeremiah 31, the prophet tells us that all those in the New Covenant are saved. Their iniquity is forgiven and their sins are "remembered no more." In fact, Jeremiah says that this is true of <i>all </i>the members of the New Covenant, "from the least to the greatest." Therefore, since we know that when God says, "their sins are remembered no more" that all members of the New Covenant are saved. There is no exiting the New Covenant to find ourselves in a place where God <i>will</i> remember our sins again. Once you're in the New Covenant, there is no leaving it. There is no way to be lost. But, didn't we see earlier in Mr. Lanphere's argument that people <i>can </i>commit "covenantal apostasy?" Didn't we already see that the warning passages have to be real because after all, "God doesn't warn against things that can't happen." Therefore, it must be possible to exit the covenant, and if it's possible to exit the covenant, then the covenant must be made of some saved and some unsaved.<br /><br />So here we are. We have two passages that seem to contradict one another. On one hand, Jeremiah says that all who are in the covenant will "have their sins remembered no more" and all who are in the New Covenant must be permanently saved. But on the other hand, God doesn't warn against things that can't happen, therefore, exiting the covenant and being damned must be possible. What are we to make with these contradictory passages? Mr. Lanphere, and our other Presbyterian brothers decide that they will focus on the meaning of the warning passages and ignore the fact that Jeremiah 31 contradicts their interpretation. They of course will claim that Baptists focus on Jeremiah 31 and ignore the fact that the warning passages contradict our interpretation. And perhaps that may be true for some baptists. But I will now show the harmonization between the two passages which validates the Baptist interpretation. (Conversely, I posit that Mr. Lanphere and other Presbyterians cannot harmonize Jeremiah 31 with their interpretation. Let them attempt to do so if they wish).<br /><br /><b>THE BAPTIST INTERPRETATION</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span> <span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">Baptist want to harmonize all of Scripture (as does anyone who loves God's word; and I count many Presbyterians in that group as well.) But my contention is that there is a difference between </span><i style="color: #001320; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">wanting to </i><span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;">harmonize the Scripture and actually doing it. Mr. Lanphere is guilty here of wanting to harmonize the passages but failing to do so.</span></span></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;"><br />Here are the competing claims of Scripture<br /><br />1. All members of the New Covenant, from the least to the greatest shall have their iniquity forgiven and their sins remembered no more.<br />2. God warns of those who exit the new covenant and are damned (because their sins were NOT forgiven.)<br /><br />Baptists harmonize these two passages by affirming Jeremiah, that all members of the New Covenant will be saved and by affirming that the warning passages are real, yet "it can't happen," it never will happen. God warns of something that will never happen. Therefore, the passage in Jeremiah is free to stand as is, and the warning passages are free to stand as is as well. Of course, Les is arguing that it's illogical to say God would "warn against something that could never happen." But a lot of things in Scripture are illogical. For example, Jesus is 100% God <i>and </i>100% man (that's 200% for those of you keeping score). God is immortal, yet he died on the cross. God ordains all men's actions, yet man is 100% responsible for his own actions. God is one, yet at the same time He is three. Logically, none of these things make sense. How can you be both one and three at the same time? But we believe them not because we can logically make sense of them, but because Scripture teaches them. And this is Len's error. He wants logic over Scripture. He wants to focus on the warning passages and ignore Jeremiah 31. This way the logic can stand. He is right after all, "it's an immediate contradiction" because "God doesn't warn against things that can't happen." Logically, he makes perfect sense. But what if I told you, that God <i>does warn </i>against things that can't happen?<br /><br /><br /><b>SHOW ME! </b><br />Okay Mr. Lanphere, if you want me to show you that the New Testament warnings can be hypothetical to put fear in the Saints, then I will. I just ask that you listen with a willingness to hear the argument and consider that I may be onto something. Turn in your Bible to Acts 27. Here we find that Paul is sailing to Rome to stand before Caesar. As they make their way across the sea, a mighty storm happens upon them. The men become fearful for their lives and begin to panic. What they don't know is that Paul had already been visited by an angel who promises that all will survive. Let's read the text.</span><span class="text Acts-27-21" id="en-ESV-27862" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"><br />21 </span>Since they had been without food for a long time, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27862O" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27862O" title="See cross-reference O">O</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and incurred this <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27862P" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27862P" title="See cross-reference P">P</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>injury and loss.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="text Acts-27-22" id="en-ESV-27863" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;">22 </span>Yet now I urge you to <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27863Q" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27863Q" title="See cross-reference Q">Q</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="text Acts-27-23" id="en-ESV-27864" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;">23 </span>For this very night <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27864R" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27864R" title="See cross-reference R">R</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>there <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27864S" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27864S" title="See cross-reference S">S</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>stood before me <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27864T" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27864T" title="See cross-reference T">T</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>an angel of the God <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27864U" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27864U" title="See cross-reference U">U</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>to whom I belong and <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27864V" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27864V" title="See cross-reference V">V</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>whom I worship,</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="text Acts-27-24" id="en-ESV-27865" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;">24 </span>and he said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27865W" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27865W" title="See cross-reference W">W</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>you must stand before Caesar. And behold, <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27865X" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27865X" title="See cross-reference X">X</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>God has granted you all those who sail with you.’<br /><br />So we we see that God Himself, by way of an angel, has promised that "there will be no loss of life among you" and again, that God has "granted you all" to arrive in Rome.</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTw29R5Wpgmw1a7zP8le5mJqWwRgNu-U_yEm1nuwVSN3Qtz5fGwAZoYh45V1_wqCxnGnEzxIZkMX92FNe0Z7gHsROpjyLmpw7VqGphLujO7vAPIo7j9ALWcMqvQaOz8u9nqlt6KiEYOeI/s1600/acts+27.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" height="118" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTw29R5Wpgmw1a7zP8le5mJqWwRgNu-U_yEm1nuwVSN3Qtz5fGwAZoYh45V1_wqCxnGnEzxIZkMX92FNe0Z7gHsROpjyLmpw7VqGphLujO7vAPIo7j9ALWcMqvQaOz8u9nqlt6KiEYOeI/s320/acts+27.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span class="text Acts-27-24" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">So now that all of them have been guaranteed, by God himself, to keep their lives, how silly and illogical it would be for God to warn them that they could die. But let's keep reading. Skip down to verse 30,<br /><br /><span class="text Acts-27-30" id="en-ESV-27871" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and had lowered <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27871AB" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27871AB" title="See cross-reference AB">AB</a>)" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;"></span>the ship's life boat into the sea under pretense of laying out anchors from the bow,</span> <span class="text Acts-27-31" id="en-ESV-27872" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;">31 </span>Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, <b>“Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.”</b></span><b> </b><span class="text Acts-27-32" id="en-ESV-27873" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><br /><br />Well that's weird! Why would God start by promising that none of them would die and then immediately turn around and say, "if those men get off the ship, you will die?" That's what Les Lanphere would call, "an immediate contradiction." But there it is, staring us right in the face, mocking us, challenging us to surrender our natural logic and calling us to wrestle with the Scriptures.<br /><br />How shall we answer Paul here? "But Paul, how can you warn us that we will die if those men get off the ship? You already promised us, by a promise of an angel from God, that none of us will die?!"<br /><br />Should we believe Paul here? Should we believe that they would in fact die if those men got off the ship? Is Paul's warning of certain death even applicable since he had already warned of certain life? Shall we tell Paul that his warning of death can't be true? Or are both statements true? Is this one of those times when Scripture seems to have a contradiction and we have to figure out how to harmonize them before we arrive at the truth? What's the answer to this illogical dilemma?<br /><br />Let us look at the text again.<br /><br /><span class="text Acts-27-31" id="en-ESV-27872" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.”</span> <span class="text Acts-27-32" id="en-ESV-27873" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="versenum" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;">32 </span>Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship's boat and let it go."<br /><br />What purpose did the warning of death serve? The warning actually caused the men to take the action necessary that fulfilled the original promise that no one would be lost. The promise of life actually came to fruition <i>because </i>of the warning of death. Was the warning of death true? Yes. We have to believe that it was. We have to hold that Paul was telling the truth, <i>IF</i> those men left the ship, then the others would die. That is true. But, we already knew that those men would <i>not </i>get off the ship because their life had already been assured. Thus, we see that the warning was not given because there was a possibility of those men getting off the ship, but the warning was given because there was NOT a possibility of those men getting off the ship. The warning actually functioned as a tool in the hands of God to ensure that His promise of life would hold true.<br /><br />So in this case, God did indeed give a warning of something that could not possibly happen. For if it could have happened, then God's original promise of certain life would have proven to be a lie, and God cannot lie. So why give the warning if it couldn't happen? Because it was the warning itself that ensured that it would not happen. It was the warning of death that caused the soldiers to cut away the life boat keeping all on board, thus sparing the life of all and bringing to pass the original promise from the angel, that "there will be no loss of life among you."<br /><br />Did the soldiers take the warning seriously even though they had already received the promise of certain life? Yes they did. Do we as believers do the same? Yes, we do. Is this an immediate contradiction. I suppose so. But it's true.<br /><br />Thus, seeing that God both promised the sailors their lives and warned them of death, we can affirm that God <i>does </i>give warnings for those things that cannot happen because those warnings serve God's purposes. And ultimately, we see that the words of Jeremiah 31 do not contradict the warning passages. The promise of life stands, even when the warning of death remains present. The warnings actually affirm the promise, and they work to assure that the promise stands steadfast and true.<br /><br />So is Les Lanphere right about hypothetical warnings being an "immediate contradiction?" Yes. He is. This is an example of a logical contradiction, like so many other 'contradictions' in Scripture. But God calls us to submit our often mistaken, fallen and errant "logical" conclusions to the truth of His word. Yes, God is both one, and three at the same time. The immortal can die. The Christ was 100% God and 100% man. And God gives warnings of death to serve his purpose, knowing that death will never come' "for all in the New Covenant will know Me, from the least to the greatest, and I will remember their sins no more." </span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #fdfeff; color: #001320; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-79813919722529932942016-10-27T20:33:00.002-07:002020-01-22T13:26:16.320-08:00Dr. Renihan confesses New Covenant Theology to Be True<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="30s6t-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="30s6t-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<div style="color: #1d2129;">
<span data-offset-key="30s6t-0-0">Well, it's official. The old guard for Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology is starting to crumble.
Dr. James Renihan has ceded the NCT interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17. OK, perhaps I'm being overly hopeful. But back in 2005, Dr. Renihan unknowingly confessed that the fourth commandment, the Sabbath commandment, has been abolished. Allow me to quote the good Doctor below. What I have transcribed is an excerpt from his sermon, entitled, "New Covenant Theology" and can be found <a href="http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111605162223">here.</a> The sermon is centered mainly around a critique of the book "New Covenant Theology" by Wells and Zaspel. That book can be found <a href="https://www.amazon.com/New-Covenant-Theology-Tom-Wells/dp/1928965113">here</a></span></div>
Without further ado, let me allow Dr. Renihan make his case. <br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="4t3af-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4t3af-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5IgI9EJAoEpvewO4SUQ8lK-UguPj2W02CNwA_lgIjSQVdW8Yi_ecRwh-4uyIwSlSqBCy7nnxk0n6h9-77S-BUUuwazPGSvFeXO7KNmg4r0DWfBXO46qSffiINv6PeI7IUTHlENjgI26w/s1600/Dr.+Renihan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5IgI9EJAoEpvewO4SUQ8lK-UguPj2W02CNwA_lgIjSQVdW8Yi_ecRwh-4uyIwSlSqBCy7nnxk0n6h9-77S-BUUuwazPGSvFeXO7KNmg4r0DWfBXO46qSffiINv6PeI7IUTHlENjgI26w/s200/Dr.+Renihan.jpg" width="152" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="4t3af-0-0">"Those of us who believe in the Sabbath principle do not wish to blink our eyes at texts like Col. 2:16-17 and I had the same kind of struggle with this text that I had with a text like 1 John 2:2 on the subject of the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, wanting to be faithful with the text. Now what do you do? </span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="ckgfb-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="ckgfb-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="ckgfb-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="aopos-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="aopos-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="aopos-0-0">Well I found something very interesting as I was reading and studying this text one day, and it's in J.B. Lightfoot's commentary on the book of Colossians. And Lightfoot points out something that is of great interest to me. He demonstrates that there are six places in the Septuagint, (which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) there are six places where [one can see] the very words which Paul uses in Colossians 2:16; "festival" "new moon" and "sabbaths." </span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="52len-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="52len-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="52len-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="4tmti-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4tmti-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="4tmti-0-0">There are six places where those words occur together in the Septuagint translations, 2 Chronicles 2:4; 2 Chronicles 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33; Isaiah 1:13-14; Hosea 2:11; and Ezekiel 45:17.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="6j0rn-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6j0rn-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
And if you were to take the time and go and look at each one of those six occurrences of this same set of 3 words in the Old Testament, you will find that in every case the writers of the OT used these words as a package to refer to the fullness of time related days that were bound upon Israel to obedience. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="5b9aa-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5b9aa-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
And I think that Paul, who was trained in Old Testament theology and who understood the use of technical terms as they are found in the Old Testament. (I think we can even say at this point Rabbi Paul, who trained at the feet of the Gamaliel, the rabbi, understood how words were used in the Old Testament.) And when he uses these 3 words in the same way here in Colossians chapter 2, he is using these words in the same way that they are used elsewhere in the Bible. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="3boj0-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3boj0-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
This is the principle that our brother set out before us in the last hour when he said that we interpret Scripture by Scripture. A surface reading of the text seems to tell us that there are no Sabbaths and no one is to judge you on the basis of those Sabbaths, but everywhere else in the Bible, brothers and sisters, everywhere else in the Bible, where these three words are used together, they are used to describe the fullness of days that were obligatory for the nation of Israel. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="9nf99-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9nf99-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
And it's my conviction (and I think Lightfoot is right) that Paul uses these words in the same combination and in the same way. He refers to the package of "Jewish" days. That's what Paul is seeking to say, he's referring to the package of Jewish days.</div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="anp19-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="anp19-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
And so you and I, as those who believe that there continues to be a day of observance under the NC, can alongside of Paul gladly assert with every possible boldness, that every characteristically Jewish day has been abolished. You don't have to keep a new moon, you don't have to keep any of the Jewish festivals, and on Saturday you can go to the football game and rejoice. And you don't have to go to worship on that day. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="d7ttl-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="d7ttl-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="d7ttl-0-0">___________________________________________________________________________________</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="6t53t-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6t53t-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="6t53t-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="1a3qj-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1a3qj-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht-huD_8XMRcsDXGB3IKQvur5nEt2Ecwn86TxFY1QHvUgqN3ccyph36zQgxlhzGEMMXpmyAvqipnAi8V5ymKdcFUxbMuJWivJ0mYwZofiEfm4WiYPijuV-kxpkYdjQVckJPXnLUc0YZuQ/s1600/me.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht-huD_8XMRcsDXGB3IKQvur5nEt2Ecwn86TxFY1QHvUgqN3ccyph36zQgxlhzGEMMXpmyAvqipnAi8V5ymKdcFUxbMuJWivJ0mYwZofiEfm4WiYPijuV-kxpkYdjQVckJPXnLUc0YZuQ/s200/me.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="1a3qj-0-0">Now please allow me to interject Dr. Renihan. It seems to me that you just acknowledged that the 4th commandment was a "Jewish day" and that Colossians 2 puts forth the case that we as Christians no longer have to observe Jewish days, namely, the fourth commandment. Thus, we can ignore the commandment given to Israel and go to a football game on a Saturday. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="abm3t-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="abm3t-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
Thus, Dr. Renihan, if you confess that Colossians 2 puts an end to the 4th commandment and its requirement to keep Saturday, then it seems that we're all agreed. The Sabbath commandment is abolished. You only follow 9 of the 10 commandments.
I'm also curious as to why you changed the pattern of language you were using? To say, "on Saturday you can go to the football game" is just another way of saying, "you don't have to keep the weekly Sabbath." It seems to me that you have changed your language in an advantageous way which obscures the fact that the passage in question contradicts the Reformed Confessions. Instead of saying, "you don't have to keep a new moon, you don't have to keep a festival, and you don't have to keep a weekly Sabbath, you instead say, "you don't have to keep a new moon, you don't have to keep a festival and on Saturday you can go to the football game." But I digress. I will allow you to continue with your thoughts. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="v03o-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="v03o-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="v03o-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="3bcds-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3bcds-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="3bcds-0-0"><br /></span>
<span data-offset-key="3bcds-0-0">___________________________________________________________________________________</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="9ug5v-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9ug5v-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="9ug5v-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="abhdr-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="abhdr-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1fdiLAfcoq5hluDh5WxKW0u8xiC331PKj5L03b1rvRXCppRA2q2D2Kwx-GUfSchmzdUS9ktQHb6Juo9FQ_7pzX24QSIok36o7VQD34Jv3lhIwAiMCWdVC8LEQB-AQLKGV2-vMbpMayWA/s1600/Dr.+Renihan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1fdiLAfcoq5hluDh5WxKW0u8xiC331PKj5L03b1rvRXCppRA2q2D2Kwx-GUfSchmzdUS9ktQHb6Juo9FQ_7pzX24QSIok36o7VQD34Jv3lhIwAiMCWdVC8LEQB-AQLKGV2-vMbpMayWA/s1600/Dr.+Renihan.jpg" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="abhdr-0-0">"We can say that with all the strength of our conviction, but saying that in no way undermines the possibility of the obligation of a distinctively Christian day, the Lord's day, as a memorial of Christ's work in establishing the new creation, the new exodus, and his eschatological triumph, which is the line of reasoning that we find in Hebrews 3 and 4. </span><br />
<span data-offset-key="abhdr-0-0"><br /></span>
<span data-offset-key="abhdr-0-0"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="913ot-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="913ot-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<br />
___________________________________________________________________________________</div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="31etj-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="31etj-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzTz-ZdD8OrFnWmYLxcfaMVXCJ9zv9m5nN0mJIwNVtQb9X7awYxN977vmGAe99lEYRbINbPi6uQcWGeFlV3iTClP4qqXHMDesEYzclETTombFk7fdGBH2R__yWtVWgVZfOJc3_P5hJuYY/s1600/me.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzTz-ZdD8OrFnWmYLxcfaMVXCJ9zv9m5nN0mJIwNVtQb9X7awYxN977vmGAe99lEYRbINbPi6uQcWGeFlV3iTClP4qqXHMDesEYzclETTombFk7fdGBH2R__yWtVWgVZfOJc3_P5hJuYY/s200/me.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="31etj-0-0">Now Dr. Renihan, I'm sorry for interjecting so quickly, but if you would let me to do so I find what you have said as very troubling. It seems that you agree with me that there is no command in Scripture, and so you call it a "possibility of an obligation." That seems strange to me. </span><br />
<span data-offset-key="31etj-0-0">You said, that abolishing the Jewish Sabbath (the 4th commandment) "in no way undermines the possibility of the obligation of a distinctively Christian day [the obligation to have a Christian Sabbath]" </span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="bql7t-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bql7t-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
I have to agree. After all, anything is "possible." I suppose that the abolition of the 4th commandment in no way undermines the possibility of the obligation to keep a special Sabbath in the New Covenant. But you yourself do not see an obligation, you only see a "possibility." Thus, there is no Christian Sabbath. It will always remain just "a possibility." The "possibility of the obligation" is not the same thing as an obligation. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="3giqr-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3giqr-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
So while you have argued masterfully against the commandment which required 7th day observance, you have yet still failed to show that a new commandment has risen up and taken the place of the old one. Where is the commandment to observe a Sabbath on the first day of the week? You've shown that the Scripture kills the 4th commandment, but where is the Scripture that shows it rising from the grave and laying down new obligations upon Christians? </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="12k3u-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="12k3u-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
One cannot prove that the 4th commandment has died along with the dietary laws, only to argue that the 4th commandment returns with new demands and the dietary laws return with new restrictions. If I wanted to argue that there were new dietary restrictions, then I'd have to show a definite commandment from Scripture. Likewise, if you want to show the new obligation to observe a Sabbath for Christians, you're going to have to show a definite commandment from Scripture. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="88e1c-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="88e1c-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
The new moons have not come back to us in a different form, the festivals have not come back to us in a different form, and the dietary laws have not come back to us in a different form. With all of this you agree. Yet, for some reason, (because the Reformed confessions say so) you wish to assume that the Sabbath DOES come back to us in a different form. Why would all the other commandments mentioned in the exact same breath be abolished forever, while the Sabbath comes back with new form? That's very tricky of Paul to throw in one perpetual command right in the mix with dozens of dead ones. </div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="bi2gi-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bi2gi-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
Sincerely Dr. Renihan, you're going to have to show that there is not just "the possibility" of a new Sabbath, you're going to have to show that the command was actually given. A possibility of a command, does not a command make. Since you have so masterfully proven that the Jewish Sabbath (the 4th commandment of the Decalogue) has been abolished, please show me where a new "Christian Sabbath" is commanded? <br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8tdvr" data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0" style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0">Thank you for allowing that interjection, I'll allow you to continue. </span><br />
<span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0">__________________________________________________________________________________</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1fdiLAfcoq5hluDh5WxKW0u8xiC331PKj5L03b1rvRXCppRA2q2D2Kwx-GUfSchmzdUS9ktQHb6Juo9FQ_7pzX24QSIok36o7VQD34Jv3lhIwAiMCWdVC8LEQB-AQLKGV2-vMbpMayWA/s1600/Dr.+Renihan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1fdiLAfcoq5hluDh5WxKW0u8xiC331PKj5L03b1rvRXCppRA2q2D2Kwx-GUfSchmzdUS9ktQHb6Juo9FQ_7pzX24QSIok36o7VQD34Jv3lhIwAiMCWdVC8LEQB-AQLKGV2-vMbpMayWA/s200/Dr.+Renihan.jpg" width="153" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0">This day [the first day of the week] has substance, it has firmness, (it is the body) in the way that the Old Covenant days never could. Because the first day of the week honors the final consummate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. All of those Old Testament days could only look forward in a typical way to his coming, but the first day of the week which is the only day that we observe, in all of it's fullness has substance because on that day we rejoice in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
</span><span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0">So you see? The fact that they (Wells and Zaspel) have not wrestled with an exegesis of a text, but 13 times have cited it is a serious flaw in the argument of the book. Incomplete exegesis means incomplete argumentation, and no treatment will carry the consciences of readers until it handles thoroughly all the exegetical questions that are relevant to the subject at hand. And up to this point in the publication of their book "New Convenant Theology," Wells and Zaspel have not done this. They have not provided a thorough exegesis of the text of scripture.</span><br />
<span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0">___________________________________________________________________________________ </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzTz-ZdD8OrFnWmYLxcfaMVXCJ9zv9m5nN0mJIwNVtQb9X7awYxN977vmGAe99lEYRbINbPi6uQcWGeFlV3iTClP4qqXHMDesEYzclETTombFk7fdGBH2R__yWtVWgVZfOJc3_P5hJuYY/s1600/me.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzTz-ZdD8OrFnWmYLxcfaMVXCJ9zv9m5nN0mJIwNVtQb9X7awYxN977vmGAe99lEYRbINbPi6uQcWGeFlV3iTClP4qqXHMDesEYzclETTombFk7fdGBH2R__yWtVWgVZfOJc3_P5hJuYY/s200/me.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0">I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with your exegesis of the text. It is very clear that Colossians 2:16-17 abolishes any and all Jewish days, whether it be the Jewish observance commanded in Leviticus 23:9, the Jewish observance commanded in Numbers 29:1, or even the Jewish Sabbath commanded in Exodus 20:8-11, as recorded in the Decalogue. All Jewish observances are no longer binding upon Christians. So let's work on Saturday if necessary, or go to a sporting event, or whatever we wish. The commandment is no longer binding upon Christians.
I also agree with what you said about "all of those Old Testament days" and how they could "only look forward in a typical way to Jesus' coming." An observance of a day can only be typical. It can only be shadow. And of course this is exactly what Paul says in the very text of Colossians 2. All Jewish day are only a shadow, and Jesus himself is the substance. This is why I'm confused, because I know that you agree with the nature of the Sabbath as just a shadow. You agree that the food laws were also just a shadow. Why then, in light of Paul's words, "but the substance belongs to Christ" do you resurrect a the 4th commandment and declare, "the substance belongs to the first day of the week?" It just doesn't make sense. </span><br />
You have however exegeted Colossians 2:16-17 perfectly. Now, your next task is to find a passage to exegete that shows the resurrection of the 4th commandment, and the command to return to observing a Sabbath. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. I know that the Seventh Day Adventists have been offering money for decades to anyone who can produce one single text that commands Christians to observe a Sabbath on the first day of the week. I know that no such text exists. Thus, I can't help but wonder why you teach that such a command exists? And I can't help but wonder why, you yourself referred to this command as "the possibility of the obligation" to observe a weekly Sabbath? Have you not just admitted that the Christian Sabbath is not actually a fact? It reminds me of the evolutionists who claim, "it's possible that men came from chimpanzees." Or, "it's possible that "life just began on its own." Yes indeed, that is the type of language one uses when he has no evidence for his position. <br />
Thank you Dr. Renihan. I appreciate that you have taken the time to exegete the text of Colossians 2:16-17. I'm sure that Wells and Zaspel appreciate it as well. You did a fantastic job. I'll rest easy at night knowing that I am not obliged to observe any days which come to me from the Old Testament. But it does make me wonder why you still contend that there is one particular Old Testament command that must be followed, namely the Fourth commandment, albeit you do change the day from the last to the first of the week. But where do you get the authority to do such a thing? Did the Apostles teach that the fourth commandment changed from the last day to the first day? Obviously not, for if they had, Paul would have mentioned it here in Colossians 2. So where do you get the authority to resurrect a commandment that you yourself claim the Apostle has abolished? <br />
<span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0">
Thank you for your time Dr. Renihan. </span><span data-offset-key="a5tu-0-0" style="color: blue;">
</span></div>
</div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-17074375583392623002016-07-20T15:57:00.001-07:002016-07-20T22:55:20.198-07:00How Reformed Baptists Err on Old Covenant Law WHAT ABOUT REFORMED BAPTIST COVENANT THEOLOGIANS?<br />
<br />
Last time, I proved that Presbyterian Covenant Theology is wrong on the Basis of one verse, Gal. 3:15. I told you that the following week, I would show the errors of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. That was four months ago. Welcome to the second "week." (Sometimes I get too busy) But without further ado, let's just jump right in shall we?<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 2 Proving Covenant Theology wrong with one verse<br />
<br />
When I cite Galatians 3:15 as proof that the entire Mosaic Code has passed away and become obsolete, the Reformed Baptists cheer. They couldn't agree more. In fact, seeing the Mosaic Covenant as a whole that has passed away entirely is the fundamental basis for the Reformed Baptist view.<br />
<br />
So, Galatians 3:15 really only destroys the Presbyterian Covenantal position. But in our day, many Baptists have failed to understand the historical and theological nature of CT and thus many Baptists are pretending that they can be both Baptist and Covenental at the same time. The modern day Reformed Baptist will side with the New Covenant theologian and agree with the entire argument from last *week (that the whole of the Mosaic Code has passed away). They will state that God's covenants are unchangeable and Christ came to completely fulfill and abolish the Old Mosaic Covenant.<br />
<br />
One of the most well regarded spokesmen for the Baptist form of Covenant Theology is Richard Barcellos. In his classic work, "In Defense of the Decalogue" a work purposed to debunk NCT, he argues that the whole Old Covenant is gone. In that wonderful work, he says:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiykcdqNVVAGr7ogN50jA8WW0PhEvl8Z6ARfhU5L6YQJKBqz6dNeMnEaFfDy6ITVKl7veFhPcItneqWgPLIVv-hxzuvzzB1LLJ0dN7cXaFpBjY2oOFamuVxANskN6miTl1ojZZVSFU2T6c/s1600/in+defense.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiykcdqNVVAGr7ogN50jA8WW0PhEvl8Z6ARfhU5L6YQJKBqz6dNeMnEaFfDy6ITVKl7veFhPcItneqWgPLIVv-hxzuvzzB1LLJ0dN7cXaFpBjY2oOFamuVxANskN6miTl1ojZZVSFU2T6c/s1600/in+defense.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
"Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as the Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo-Judaizing."<br />
<span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.08px;"><br /></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Clearly, Barcellos and other Reformed Baptist recognize that Paul's argument from Gal. 3:15 is air tight and not one jot or tittle of the law can still be in force upon Christians. However, Barcellos immediately contradicts himself when he suggests that the Decalogue continues to have "abiding moral validity under the New Covenant." In the eyes of Reformed Baptists, the law is both abolished, and has abiding moral validity at the same time.<br />
<br />
But this is THE Reformed Baptist Covenant position. The RB takes the law, proclaims that all of it has passed away, and then declares that the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) "doth <span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">for ever bind all... to the obedience thereof" with a "universal and perpetual obligation." </span><br />
<br />
The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, and men like Barcellos who subscribe to it, make a terrible mistake by returning to the law when Christ has set us free from it. What the Reformed Baptists do is almost schizophrenic. The 1689 states, "<span style="background-color: white;">neither does Christ in the Gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation [the 10 Commandments]." So the Baptist's declare that the ten commandments are "abolished" like Barcellos says above, and the obligation to keep them has been "strengthened." So they are both abolished and strengthened at the exact same time? It sounds strange but </span><span style="background-color: white;">I understand the reason for it. Let me explain.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Reformed Baptists believe that the Ten Commandments possessed two different characteristics when they were created. First, they were the summation of the Covenant that God made with Moses and the Israelites. Second, they were also God's moral, and timeless commands for the instruction of men. Thus, it makes sense to assert that once the Mosaic Covenant is fulfilled and gone, that that particular characteristic of the law would be "abolished" while the second characteristic (moral instruction) continues on. Here's a graphic I made to help see how they understand the Decalogue as both abolished and in force at the same time. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPWGYpvkt8V5TACOyaWE18HOgUOHWKMxxe475PEjKoca8Mr42pI_pgmJeg_cm8Hd9gyYYb5AbgTNZtpW7XgF_nhmp-g3TIihXnMba63s_Yr9PttAtcXTfhwzkX6OdEiTYIfkxBvgTbrpg/s1600/1689+way+of+viewing+the+decalogue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPWGYpvkt8V5TACOyaWE18HOgUOHWKMxxe475PEjKoca8Mr42pI_pgmJeg_cm8Hd9gyYYb5AbgTNZtpW7XgF_nhmp-g3TIihXnMba63s_Yr9PttAtcXTfhwzkX6OdEiTYIfkxBvgTbrpg/s400/1689+way+of+viewing+the+decalogue.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">In the Old Covenant dispensation, they had two purposes, first as a set of stipulations through which obedience would lead to reward, and second as a guide of morality. Since the Old Covenant is gone, so the promise of blessing for the obedient one is also gone (thankfully, the curses for the one who breaks a command is also gone. Praise God!) But since it also functioned as a guide for morality, they are also still in force. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Thus, they are both abolished in one respect and untouched in another. It makes sense. There is however a problem with this view, and that is that the view perverts the Christian life in regards to "Sabbath" observance. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />Because the view declares all of the Ten Commandments to be moral guide for Christian living, it must declare that the Sabbath command is moral; when it is clearly not. This perverts the Christian's practice and seeks to place burdens upon believers that God never places upon them. The problems with Sabbath practice are myriad and cannot be addressed in one blog post, or even ten; but at the end of the day the Christian is required to bind upon his back aspects of law that Christ has freed us from.<br /><br />Let's hear it straight from the 1689 London Baptist Confession.<br /><br />"The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship </span><span style="background-color: white;">and in the duties of necessity and mercy</span><span style="background-color: white;">." </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />Notice that as a believer, or even non-believer (since the command is universal) you are required to avoid employment on the first day of the week. You are required to avoid "words" about your employment on the first day of the week, and you are required to avoid "thoughts" about your employment on the first day of the week. So no talking or thinking about work on Sunday, thus saith the Lord, apparently. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">But we're not done yet. Notice that you cannot talk about, think about or do work on Sunday, but you also must avoid, words about recreation, and thoughts about recreation, and you certainly may not partake in recreation on Sunday. Instead, you must be "taken up the whole time in public and private worship" unless there is a duty of necessity or mercy. So no watching your team play football unless it's absolutely necessary, or if it's an act of mercy (which if your a Dallas Cowboys fan, it may be).<br />Flying a kite with your children on the Sabbath would be regarded as recreation unless you can justify it as an act of necessity or mercy. Any sort of recreation or entertainment is off limits, unless you can spin it to make it look like it's an "act of mercy or necessity." Thus, the claim that all ten commandments are of moral import obstructs a Christian's freedom in Christ and places burdens upon them in ways that God has never instructed, thus forbidding good and lawful things that God allows, simply because it's Sunday. The Reformed Baptist Catechism states:</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf9w0NAbrUi2bkgWnwXQLtU83SXQoGzwME1FZ-mCN-4B5-q4NoSLuKLzRoVRsKbsfPRSTVUki9mL8u6xXiOcDq6TFBeJcYTWMQuhCumYwPyWxVRQNtxWmFzBLKCZeXgZttVAQ1KejwrME/s1600/ben+keach+cat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf9w0NAbrUi2bkgWnwXQLtU83SXQoGzwME1FZ-mCN-4B5-q4NoSLuKLzRoVRsKbsfPRSTVUki9mL8u6xXiOcDq6TFBeJcYTWMQuhCumYwPyWxVRQNtxWmFzBLKCZeXgZttVAQ1KejwrME/s320/ben+keach+cat.jpg" width="244" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Q. 66. How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?<br />A. The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days...</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">So you see? There are things that you can do for recreation on every other day, like play a game of basketball, but on Sunday, it is "unlawful" according to the Reformed Baptist view.<br /><br />To summarize, the Reformed Baptist view is a bit complicated because they hold to a New Covenant view of the law in that they affirm that all of it has been abolished, but then they assume all ten commandments are of moral import and so they return to pick the Decalogue up out of the dust, brush it off, and bring it with them into the New Covenant; and in that error, they part company with the New Covenant theologian who wants to leave the Sabbath behind and cling to whom the Sabbath pointed, Jesus Christ. For the Sabbath was "a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Col. 2:16b </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Next *week, I'll address how the Reformed Baptist's theology is inconsistent when he calls the Sabbath commandment moral and I'll prove that it's a ceremonial law that is no longer binding. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
*note: The word "week" can be relative when you're too busy for your own good. It may be a month or two... or three or four.<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><sup style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><br /></sup></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><sup style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><br /></sup></span></div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-38530629689602031422016-04-26T00:24:00.002-07:002016-04-26T13:10:05.803-07:00Proving New Covenant Theology with Only One Bible VerseAs I've grown in my understanding of Scripture, I've come to realize that the Bible can only be rightly understood when it is viewed through the lenses of the covenants that God has established. As I've examined what Scripture says about itself and how it is to be understood, I've come to the conclusion that New Covenant Theology is the truest and most accurate way to view the covenants of God and Scripture as a whole. (Some have begun to call NCT by the name of Progressive Covenantalism but I prefer the more popular New Covenant Theology)<br />
<br />
Now NCT is a small group of men and women. When my previous pastor wanted to describe how small a group he belonged to he would say, " we could have our conference in a phone booth" and this certainly fits the NCT group. However, the NCT group is growing and I suppose it will continue to grow as more begin to realize the fatal flaw of classic Covenant Theology and are brave enough to call the Reformed confessions into question on some points.<br />
<br />
Because of the growth of NCT, more and more people are asking questions about what it is and seeking to understand if it really accords with Scripture. This article will seek to answer both of those questions.<br />
<br />
<b>WHAT IS NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY?</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfBjL6uBTmKM_qhhE1493l1OVisnfBtCdEndWB7q03BREWbMRlSAWXEnP7EtxT18FzK_bjRgchz9FQBlKmeVyEVbgEdK4Qq8N7kCXDtEhZlawpfO4IS7dJ6gY-AWD9OHlk8ymQLulF0IQ/s1600/new+covenant+theology.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfBjL6uBTmKM_qhhE1493l1OVisnfBtCdEndWB7q03BREWbMRlSAWXEnP7EtxT18FzK_bjRgchz9FQBlKmeVyEVbgEdK4Qq8N7kCXDtEhZlawpfO4IS7dJ6gY-AWD9OHlk8ymQLulF0IQ/s320/new+covenant+theology.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
New covenant theology is a theology that sees the Mosaic covenant and law as completely fulfilled, thus having no binding significance on Christians. In other words, NCT says that we are no longer under the 10 Commandments, but we are under the "Law of Christ." This sets NCT out as very distinct because both Baptist and Presbyterian forms of Covenant Theology state that we are in fact under the law of the 10 Commandments.<br />
<br />
Covenant Theology divides the laws of the Old Testament into 3 parts, the civil law, the ceremonial law, and the moral law. The Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, are described as being "the Moral law" and thus are binding upon all people at all times. New Covenant Theology denies this division and says that all the Old Covenant laws are fulfilled and gone. If one is gone, the rest go with it, if one is still binding then they all are still binding. This is what NCT teaches because this is simply what Scripture says. Thus, the law can't be divided, one must take it all, or leave it all. New Covenant Theology doesn't want to take it all because the law is a heavy weight that is a "ministry of death" (2 Cor. 3) so we choose to leave it all behind because we have "been released from the law." (Romans 7)<br />
<br />
That's New Covenant Theology in a nutshell.<br />
<br />
<b>CAN NCT BE PROVEN FROM SCRIPTURE?</b><br />
<br />
Yes. In fact, it can be proven true by only one verse, Galatians 3:15. Now to be clear, just because it<br />
can be proven in one verse does not mean that there is only one verse which affirms it, but rather, it's so plain that it needs only one verse to verify it. In Galatians 3 Paul is answering arguments that the Mosaic Covenant caused the Abrahamic Covenant to change. Paul wants to assure his readers that the Abrahamic Covenant has not been changed by the Mosaic covenant, and he does this by attempting to prove that it is impossible for one of God's covenants to change. So in verse 15 of chapter 3, Paul writes, <b>"to give a human example brothers, even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified." </b><br />
<br />
At first glance, Galatians 3:15 may seem like an insignificant passage but it actually destroys any form of Covenant theology that would seek to divide some of the OT law claiming that some of it has been abolished and some of it continues on fully in force.<br />
<br />
Paul is arguing in classic Hebrew form knows as "Kal Va'chomer" which is to say, "if the lesser is true, then how much more-so is the greater true?" Jesus did this often as well, remember when he asked his disciples <b>"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask?" </b><br />
<br />
Notice the progression of logic, if the lesser and weaker is able to do such feats, how much more so is the greater and stronger able to do them? This is exactly what Paul is doing. In Galatians 3 he is attempting to prove that the Abrahamic Covenant was not changed or annulled or altered in any way and he does this by arguing that God's covenants can't ever be altered, period. He argues in the classic Hebrew "Kal Va'chomer" style, the lesser to the greater. If a human covenant (the lesser) is unchangeable once it has been established, then how much more so is one of God's covenants (the greater) unchangeable? He just proved that the Abrahamic covenant was not altered or changed by way of Kal Va'chomer.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizj5GJmQi6LN8j-yOzpWjykG4vsy5xVRBwCsEg8PX43mCZHSGvcaweo2JiCIR87GPywr1C-LVcxgIjq8QZgBTlmtaP60b1kjCLzfnJPtB5j_b_3UhgkS2uGmX1hy3DAgNYMlQzKBg3gNc/s1600/mortgagte.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizj5GJmQi6LN8j-yOzpWjykG4vsy5xVRBwCsEg8PX43mCZHSGvcaweo2JiCIR87GPywr1C-LVcxgIjq8QZgBTlmtaP60b1kjCLzfnJPtB5j_b_3UhgkS2uGmX1hy3DAgNYMlQzKBg3gNc/s320/mortgagte.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Let's consider what he's saying here. Imagine for a second that you sign a mortgage on a house. The interest rate is agreed upon, the details of loan amount, monthly payments, penalties, late payment fees, causes for repossession of property, etc. etc. Once you and all other parties sign on the line, you cannot decide that you want to change a part of the agreement. It is impossible to wake up the next morning and decide that you want to annul some of the requirements but keep others; "even with a man made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified." Now if you wish to pay off the mortgage by entering into another mortgage agreement, then you can refinance by taking out another loan with the new details that you desire and paying off the old one. But once you pay off the old one, it is fulfilled and is no longer in force, not one single letter of it. This is what Christ did essentially. He paid off the Old Covenant and established a New Covenant.<br />
<br />
The Covenant theologian must answer the question, "how is it that some Old Covenant laws have been annulled and some have not?" Paul explicitly says that this is impossible with a man made covenant and is even moreso impossible with a Divine covenant. The CT is essentially telling Paul that he is wrong, that parts of God's covenants <i>can </i>be annulled or added to even after they have been ratified. But this is wrong. God's covenants are unchangeable and unalterable once they have been ratified." (Especially since the Old Covenant was ratified with blood Ex. 24). <br />
<br />
How can one argue that parts of the Mosaic covenant are annulled, (it's now acceptable to sow two different seeds in one field) that some are altered, (the Sabbath day has changed from a 7th day required observance to a 1st day required observance) and that some are still in effect and in force (the other 9 commandments)? This tears Paul's argument to the ground and spits on it. If CT is true, then Galatians 3:15 is not. Paul's erred when he suggested that God's covenants were unchangeable. This is of course the crux of the matter. Either Paul was wrong and God's covenants can be changed and altered even after they are ratified, or the Covenant Theologian is wrong. There is just no way out of it for the Covenant Theologian, he must be right, or Paul must be right, but they cannot both be right. Either God's covenants can be altered or they can't be.<br />
<br />
I throw my lot in with Paul. I believe that the only way to alter one dot of the Mosaic Covenant is if someone comes along and fulfills it completely (pays off the mortgage). Otherwise, all agreements are still in effect and unchangeable. But isn't this exactly what Jesus said, "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." God's covenants are unchangeable until it's fulfilled, just like man made covenants. And if a man made covenant can't be altered or changed after it's been ratified, then how much more the case with a God made covenant?!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>COMING NEXT WEEK</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3WfUrQnWMdOuwxli4iSr9OOBpDzAgfGb7ma8c9LvaoRDP73hdntGFggVKQYG-VpRuFYjPN8pHOwEdX43bB3_Zxs1cxHEsfPskHg9tDGdKBmD9-2pZpOac4JUt6-fDCfod6oQTTImDYeE/s1600/lbc+1689.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3WfUrQnWMdOuwxli4iSr9OOBpDzAgfGb7ma8c9LvaoRDP73hdntGFggVKQYG-VpRuFYjPN8pHOwEdX43bB3_Zxs1cxHEsfPskHg9tDGdKBmD9-2pZpOac4JUt6-fDCfod6oQTTImDYeE/s1600/lbc+1689.jpg" /></a></div>
Next week, we'll look at how Reformed Baptists approach the covenants and establish their own brand of Covenant Theology. We will examine how they err in identifying our relationship to the law of Moses, how they too fail to grasp the splendid newness of the New Covenant; and how they mistakenly adopt a contradictory hybrid of a Baptist view and a Presbyterian view of Covenant Theology.<br />
<br />
<br />
Baptists agree that the whole Old Covenant has been abolished, so how do they explain their return to the 10 Commandments as the summation of all moral law for Christians? The 1689 Confession clearly teaches this, but does Scripture?<br />
<br />
Christo et Ecclesiae<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-12866600570158725722015-12-22T14:51:00.000-08:002015-12-22T18:57:38.905-08:00Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves? A Response to John PiperJohn Piper recently released an article <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves" target="_blank">here</a> entitled, "Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?" wherein he argues, using 9 points, that it is against the tenor of the New Testament for a Christian to use force against his foes.<br />
<br />
I would like to thank Dr. Piper for his insights, his concern for the peaceful thrust of the New Testament, and for bringing this topic into the spotlight.<br />
<br />
I myself have been very concerned with an attitude that I see in my own Christian circles (Reformed) concerning a preoccupation with, and overemphasis upon guns. Perhaps this is the attitude that Dr. Piper was intending to react against, an attitude which I myself have come close to writing against several times. I hope this was Dr. Piper's intention. However, since he has fired the first shots in this debate (pun totally intended), I feel that it would be most beneficial to respond to his article since I believe he has missed the mark.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY6acvUT-nIA9YAC_kEjD9H4VtGyxpBxaawKcbIdjrsuJMULxXLmuNcayWR5qSBQw6PDCgt4blEwPzj4qu1milVPelGeeVPTWLVnDkCKvLXdayjo3COSWd5eGrVsUZc98yonZhr9hvxTs/s1600/gun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY6acvUT-nIA9YAC_kEjD9H4VtGyxpBxaawKcbIdjrsuJMULxXLmuNcayWR5qSBQw6PDCgt4blEwPzj4qu1milVPelGeeVPTWLVnDkCKvLXdayjo3COSWd5eGrVsUZc98yonZhr9hvxTs/s320/gun.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Below I will outline Dr. Piper's nine points and give a brief response to each one.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
1. The apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and instead to return good for evil. And then he said that God gave the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world.</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I agree completely with his first point here. God has called us to refrain from avenging ourselves and he has left the power of the sword and gun in the hands of the governing officials. However, I believe that Dr. Piper has missed a very important aspect of his first point. Namely that the government has both the right and the responsibility to protect those under its care. In order to do this, the governing authorities hire men and women to carry guns and partake in lawful and orderly enforcement of the law. Some law enforcement officers have more authority and some less, and they all have differing responsibilities. In fact, some of those law enforcement officers are civilians, like you and me. This is why it is still legal to make a citizen's arrest and carry a gun and help the government to protect the safety of those living within its borders. For all intents and purposes, the state is employing citizens as volunteers to keep the innocent safe from evil men. So if the governing authority passes their "sword" to police officers, FBI agents, security guards, and civilians in order to protect others, then each party is simply an extension of the governing authority which has a God-given right to use "the sword." This is not un-Christian as Piper supposes, but it is very Christian to lock arms with the side of justice and righteousness in whichever way the governing authority permits. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
2. The apostle Peter teaches us that Christians will often find themselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.</h2>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Again, I cannot help agree with Dr. Piper here, especially since he simply quotes Scripture. But in this argument he seems to mix up defense of the innocent with the persecution that comes from "doing good" as believer in Christ. If my response to his first point is correct, then it makes sense that an armed civilian may serve the government in the same way as an armed police officer, as the state permits. I don't know anyone who thinks that they should be able to use his firearm in order to respond to persecution. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
3. Jesus promised that violent hostility will come; and the whole tenor of his counsel was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not with armed defense.</h2>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here Piper quotes Luke 21</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Light', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 17px; line-height: 27.2px;">They will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Again, as in point two, Piper fails to differentiate between persecution and an intruder who intends to harm the innocent. If a person is "delivering you up to the synagogues and prisions" and bringing you before the "kings and governors" they are seeking to act within the law, not break it. They are supposing that YOU dear Christian are the law breaker who deserves the sword. They are bringing you to justice. So let me say this clearly, if you are arrested for the cause of Christ, don't fight back. But this still has nothing to do with whether or not a Christian should carry a weapon or not. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
4. Jesus set the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian cause with the sword.</h2>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Piper is correct; the Christian cause is not to be advanced by the sword, or gun, but by the power of the preaching of the gospel which is sharper then any two edged sword, and more powerful than any AR-15, but I have yet to meet anyone who suggests that we should advance the kingdom by the tip of a bullet. I likewise affirm that this world is not my home, I'm amillennial and thus I am patiently waiting for Christ to make all things right in the world to come and thus I have no desire to try to establish any type of Christian government, or Christian power. I therefore agree with Piper perhaps more than most on this point. This world is not my home, I'm waiting for the next. But does this mean that I cannot partake in this world? Should I not buy a home in order to show unbelievers that my hope is not in this world? Should I only lease my car? Or can I be a fully functioning member of my society as I await the coming of our Lord and Savior? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just because this world is not my home does not mean that I cannot or should not care for it and its inhabitants. One of the ways that I do this is by carrying a weapon in order to preserve and protect those who are sojourning with me, and even those who are sojourning to the lake of fire. Again, if my point one is correct, then carrying is a righteous way to partake in this fleeting world. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
5. Jesus strikes the note that the dominant (not the only) way Christians will show the supreme value of our treasure in heaven is by being so freed from the love of this world and so satisfied with the hope of glory that we are able to love our enemies and not return evil for evil, even as we expect to be wronged in this world.</h2>
</div>
<div>
Does Dr. Piper expect police officers to abide by this principle? Or is it acceptable to use force when needed? Again, as in point four, I don't have to allow evil men to trample over me in order to show that my supreme treasure is heaven. Perhaps by obeying my Lord's command to "love my neighbor" I show that my supreme treasure is heaven? Perhaps I love my neighbor by being ready to protect her?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
6. The early church, as we see her in Acts, expected and endured persecution without armed resistance, but rather with joyful suffering, prayer, and the word of God.</h2>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This point has already been covered. We should endure persecution. We should embrace suffering. But Jesus has already described our persecution in terms of "being delivered over to judges." If a Christian is arrested for being a Christian and for preaching the gospel, then he or she should go peacefully just like our Lord, for this will be our "opportunity to bear witness." </div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
7. When Jesus told the apostles to buy a sword, he was not telling them to use it to escape the very thing he promised they should endure to the death.</h2>
</div>
<div>
Here Piper seeks to establish that when Jesus tells his disciples to take a sword with them in Luke 22, that He was not encouraging them to think in terms of literal swords, but He was simply using the sword as a symbol of preparation. I agree with Piper's interpretation of this passage. He seeks to show that this passage doesn't refute his previous 5 points. I agree. That particular passage does not refute his first five points, but I don't think that passage is necessary to refute them. Obviously, I believe that I have thus refuted all of them up until this point, otherwise I wouldn't still be typing. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
8. A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”</h2>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In all of the discussions that I have had on passivity vs. self defense have boiled down to this question. Can I protect my family? Piper responds to this question by giving seven sub-points. Some of them are valid and need to be thoughtfully considered. The overall thrust of the seven points is to communicate that each situation demands wisdom. He says in his fourth sub-point,<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Light', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 17px; line-height: 27.2px;">I realize that even to call the police when threatened — which, in general, it seems right to do in view of </span><a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Rom 13.1–4" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%2013.1%E2%80%934" style="background-color: white; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Light', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 27.2px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Romans 13:1–4</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Light', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 17px; line-height: 27.2px;"> — may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one’s heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here, he acknowledges that calling the police is an acceptable action to take in particular situations. However, he wants us to do what is Christian instead of what is acceptable. He wants to make sure that if we call the police, it's because of a need for the police and not because we want to get our neighbor in trouble. I second this point and commend him for making it. However, this point does acknowledge that sometimes calling the police <i>is</i> the Christian thing to do. Each situation needs to be examined appropriately, not in the light of what is socially acceptable, but what by what is Christologically right. </div>
<div>
<br />
I would give this same advice to anyone who carries a firearm. If a man breaks into your home, you have the legal right to kill him; but just because you have the legal right to kill someone does not mean that you should. Every situation needs to be examined appropriately, not in the light of what is legal, but in the light of what is Christologically right. </div>
<div>
<br />
Should you shoot your wife's attacker? Maybe. Maybe not. Each situation requires godly wisdom. Every police officer must make those same decisions every day. But again, a police officer may kill a man because he has the legal right to do so, but a Christian should operate from a heavenly perspective and disregard his rights in order to do what <i>is</i> right. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Regular', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.26667em; font-stretch: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.26316em; margin: 0px 0px 26.6px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
9. Even though the Lord ordains for us to use ordinary means of providing for life (work to earn; plant and harvest; take food, drink, sleep, and medicine; save for future needs; provide governments with police and military forces for society), nevertheless, the unique calling of the church is to live in such reliance on heavenly protection and heavenly reward that the world will ask about our <span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 21.5334px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">hope</span> (1 Peter 3:15), not about the ingenuity of our armed defenses.</h2>
</div>
<div>
Perhaps Piper is again confusing persecution of the church with "ordinary means of providing for life." If an intruder enters my church with a gun and begins killing off my sheep, I will not hesitate to protect them and put an end to the intruder. The government has given me this privilege to help them govern and protect the innocent whom God has entrusted them to protect. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here's a crude chart that I made to explain the order of authority. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeh8e_d3uF2sjpJqmFa8xwzntayE8ivdtuDXyraWosRwzzPEmmXDT-O_5sq3JBYR98rF1RybI_ro9eo5pLRh-ZaDvAEDik1t1TlhhiyMup6Xh4a0_sRG-oYAZOXw-C1ewfcKTn07YyPnI/s1600/authority.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeh8e_d3uF2sjpJqmFa8xwzntayE8ivdtuDXyraWosRwzzPEmmXDT-O_5sq3JBYR98rF1RybI_ro9eo5pLRh-ZaDvAEDik1t1TlhhiyMup6Xh4a0_sRG-oYAZOXw-C1ewfcKTn07YyPnI/s400/authority.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Notice that the church is not given any authority to take life. But also notice that Christians are sometimes police officers and have need to do so. Some Christians are soldiers and have need to do so. Come Christians are civilians and may find themselves in a situation where they need to do so. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I can remember a former pastor of mine who recounted the time when he was stopped in traffic right in front of his friend's stolen car. He got out and walked back to the stolen car in order to confront the thief. When the thief was confronted he put his foot on the gas hopping over the curb and onto the next roadway. My former pastor was thrown onto the hood and his life was in danger. He was able to safely jump down and escape before the car was traveling at too high a rate of speed. He ended the story by saying, "I'm thankful that I did not have my weapon on me at that time. I may have used it, and done so unnecessarily." That has always stuck with me. I carry a weapon, but I do so with great fear and trembling. No Christian who carries should ever <i>want </i>to use it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think that Piper has missed the mark on this one, and I encourage wise men to carry a weapon and to do so carefully, Christologically, and only use it when needed, and never use it to fight off persecution for the faith. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #3a3c3f; font-family: 'Adelle W02 Light', Adelle, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 17px; line-height: 27.2px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-89738358505733654082015-09-08T13:19:00.005-07:002015-09-08T13:51:14.532-07:00WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT- FROM WHENCE COME YOUR "RIGHTS"? <br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Where do your rights come from? </span></h2>
I've been reading a lot lately about Kim Davis, the Rowan county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex who practice homosexuality. What I've been hearing from the leftist writers has been a lot of nonsense claiming that "God's law is not the law of the land" or "the Bible is not the law of the land." So, to those who say, "God's law is not the law of the land," we need to talk.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-oKsKn7QhDTRqokATZSHCJ1TXePHU__ONnNNWZOygZxh5e2P91qBRtUblkOALz-Zb16hJArLAvwz1MT1WQIRtwhqxFaEkIcouxppvzw_DofLosNxPyNkvfJX-bbWSDRfeLoIHXPAE2sc/s1600/we+the+people.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-oKsKn7QhDTRqokATZSHCJ1TXePHU__ONnNNWZOygZxh5e2P91qBRtUblkOALz-Zb16hJArLAvwz1MT1WQIRtwhqxFaEkIcouxppvzw_DofLosNxPyNkvfJX-bbWSDRfeLoIHXPAE2sc/s320/we+the+people.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
You see, the most foundational principle upon which our Republic is founded, is human rights. Every human has a fundamental and unalienable "right" to live how he or she chooses to live.<br />
<br />
"But where do these rights come from? Who gets to decided what these rights are?" you may ask. <br />
<br />
I'm glad you asked.<br />
<br />
According to the founders of our Republic, these fundamental human rights come from God. Let me quote them for you.<br />
<br />
<i>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men" </i><br />
<br />
Did you hear that? The founders of our nation believed that it was the governments job to ensure that men are free to practice their "certain inalienable rights" that God has given them. That's why government exists. <br />
<br />
But this is where things get uncomfortable, because once we see why government exists, we have to ask the question, "what rights are unalienable?" And in order to answer that question, you have to identify "what Creator?" <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You see, if it's Allah, the Muslim creator, then there are a certain set of rights that each person has. In the case of Islam, men have far more rights than women. So do you wish to identify Allah as the "Creator" that issues men and women their inalienable rights? </div>
<div>
<br />
In the case of Judaism, you would have a completely different set of rights that would be given to us as "certain unalienable rights." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvxwK7p036FSbLP5JUsrzGolu2zuqpjDvBLdKSF50m3wLdckRKBfGQpw1wzobmaYHjk1jdLrAiSsradEuKg_iu4VnRaPIl09MrURNodNNNJWxKbAKvVBgT9LEpx0Zml-hv_9Wv2tEGik8/s1600/rights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvxwK7p036FSbLP5JUsrzGolu2zuqpjDvBLdKSF50m3wLdckRKBfGQpw1wzobmaYHjk1jdLrAiSsradEuKg_iu4VnRaPIl09MrURNodNNNJWxKbAKvVBgT9LEpx0Zml-hv_9Wv2tEGik8/s320/rights.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
If Jesus Christ is the "Creator" who "endows men with certain unalienable rights" then we have yet another, differing, set of rights.<br />
<br />
Do you see how quickly this got uncomfortable? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So here's what we know for sure. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. The founders of this great nation proclaimed that it was the governments job to put into place protections for all men so that everyone could enjoy their rights. (<i>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men")</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. The rights which men possess cannot be taken from them without perverting a law which is higher than even the most powerful king who would wish to take them. (<i>all men are created equal, [and given] certain unalienable Rights)</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
3. The most powerful man on earth cannot change what those rights are because they were given to all men by their Creator. (<i>all men... are endowed <b>by their Creator</b> with certain unalienable rights.</i>)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
4. That leaves us to determine what Creator our founding fathers had in mind. Was is the Muslim "creator" or the Jewish "creator" or the Christian Creator, or some other "creator"? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMaXEIc4V2-LBaEk6jWaBQdykMgx76o8bVt2arR56DMOTeRY-gEZp_6kUu8yDoebSMYhPys425qIWSODnJ7AuTtuyYSTfkOicxAvc__tWVNIY21igrx7grLsYgI9X3yYsN1HTb_BGBVVI/s1600/world+in+hands.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMaXEIc4V2-LBaEk6jWaBQdykMgx76o8bVt2arR56DMOTeRY-gEZp_6kUu8yDoebSMYhPys425qIWSODnJ7AuTtuyYSTfkOicxAvc__tWVNIY21igrx7grLsYgI9X3yYsN1HTb_BGBVVI/s320/world+in+hands.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
This is the question that you <b>must</b> answer. If the Supreme court wants to suggest that homosexual couples have the "unalienable right" to marry one another, then they have to make a case that that right was given to them by the Creator. What Creator is it? Who is it that holds the whole world in His hands? I hope that you can see the dilemma. If there is no God, then the rights given to men are only those that the most powerful man gives them. But, if there is a God, and that God does give men unalienable rights, then no matter who is in power, he cannot remove those rights from the people. So where do those rights come from?<br />
<br />
<br />
I'll be awaiting your answer. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*Note: Some might wonder why I make a difference between the Jewish God and the Christian God. The reason that I do so is because the Jews worship a god similar to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but over the years they have come to construct a version of that God who has become so errant, that this god can no longer be said to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In fact, the God of their fathers, came to them in the flesh and their rejected him and refused to worship Him, choosing to worship instead a god which was a graven image, which they formed and carved in the furnace of their own minds. This is why the Jews need the gospel to be preached to them. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-67735762736891787542015-09-07T19:40:00.003-07:002015-09-07T19:40:27.057-07:00The Error of Dispensational Theology<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Most Christians are Dispensational and don't know it... and it's a gross error. </span></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/f0m4riXnA_U/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f0m4riXnA_U?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<h2>
<br /></h2>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-40809422238229194542015-09-07T19:36:00.001-07:002015-09-07T19:36:17.708-07:00Baptist Vs. Presbyterian Covenant Theology<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Baptist Covenant Theology</span></h2>
Most people don't know that Reformed Baptists hold to a different view of the covenants than do the Traditional Reformed (Westminster). Here we see how the Baptists have always viewed the covenants since the Reformation.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7zziy57fVY/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O7zziy57fVY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-73733987288916593522015-09-03T16:06:00.000-07:002015-09-03T16:55:59.784-07:00Kim Davis is not a Theonomist<h2>
Kim Davis and Theonomy</h2>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOw1rzEp5s-seINvlwDiykakapEQA0_Y-gLS0E_wIOM9kCe8f_lvSCZeuauvEv0VowLxnQoBXvBTAmk1WjzJQmVrduNeF2yP2RXeZFta4HV6N14y6y6cS4HBnBeM6zIYeufnQvM0qycy4/s1600/kim+davis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOw1rzEp5s-seINvlwDiykakapEQA0_Y-gLS0E_wIOM9kCe8f_lvSCZeuauvEv0VowLxnQoBXvBTAmk1WjzJQmVrduNeF2yP2RXeZFta4HV6N14y6y6cS4HBnBeM6zIYeufnQvM0qycy4/s200/kim+davis.jpg" width="200" /></a><b>Kim Davis</b>: The Rowen County clerk from Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5HGjIFqBGek57yD-oqN-Ipso3-y2RcS-HGvrO88vIrjyN4Xc3rINhmSH3BgnnCxhH3x4c4ylwvMD_J_4Z3Dq6xeLyycxH0h7zqRAxum73oyh2abjeaJYxAf_cunUy-HahEili7XdayaU/s1600/stoning.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5HGjIFqBGek57yD-oqN-Ipso3-y2RcS-HGvrO88vIrjyN4Xc3rINhmSH3BgnnCxhH3x4c4ylwvMD_J_4Z3Dq6xeLyycxH0h7zqRAxum73oyh2abjeaJYxAf_cunUy-HahEili7XdayaU/s200/stoning.jpg" width="200" /></a><b>Theonomy:</b> The belief that the Mosaic civil laws of the Old Testament are binding upon all rulers of all nations, most especially the Mosaic death penalties. (with the very high likely hood that one day, they WILL become the laws of the world).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I begin, let me set the stage so that we are clear on what exactly I'm arguing in this installment. There are several different views regarding the relationship between the Bible and the Government.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
View 1: The Christian is a citizen of heaven, therefore he/she should not trouble him/herself with political issues. This view must be rejected without question. Only the very fringe fall into this category.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrPRujOBF7q3JcGk1RBYs8uiD6xTuCvR4e9cGnfQuCd1o5gyJdK4RzZ4_m77MxTkG3Sc7M63U_CFVUxEMazJB2B1FPIKDplOUEuUXKfU1wW8aaxjpXtqk8rsjFx28ORn4S0aDLP_r4ryw/s1600/pat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrPRujOBF7q3JcGk1RBYs8uiD6xTuCvR4e9cGnfQuCd1o5gyJdK4RzZ4_m77MxTkG3Sc7M63U_CFVUxEMazJB2B1FPIKDplOUEuUXKfU1wW8aaxjpXtqk8rsjFx28ORn4S0aDLP_r4ryw/s200/pat.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
View 2: The Christian should be about the work of instituting a Christian government with Christian laws. "Let's make American a Christian nation again" and this will be done through the Church rising up and taking back control. The laws of the land will be those that 'we as Christians' think are most beneficial. This view is closer to the Biblical position, but it still falls short because this group usually holds to "Dispensational Theology" and therefore does not identify the law of God very well. Pat Robertson would fall into this category.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
View 3: The Christian should seek to serve God and rule according to his law. Each Christian is to rule by the moral law of God wherever it is to be found in the pages of Scripture and we will know which laws are moral because "our conscience will tell us." Although, we do not enforce the first four of the Ten Commandments, only commandments 6-10. Most Christians fall into this category.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0j8SQfFqlk2TIhOXeVU1YPOAMaOjDEfOKtuvYA7Ohah_PicQb-K60uoE8QZ0jnjIHUkiydU1mulpPLXyivWYZOYRWGZEgZCmaVGBMLVXlGhRWf_qNOTV5sd4XKBP2RxCD1JmSizv95hU/s1600/greg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0j8SQfFqlk2TIhOXeVU1YPOAMaOjDEfOKtuvYA7Ohah_PicQb-K60uoE8QZ0jnjIHUkiydU1mulpPLXyivWYZOYRWGZEgZCmaVGBMLVXlGhRWf_qNOTV5sd4XKBP2RxCD1JmSizv95hU/s200/greg.jpg" width="200" /></a>View 4: Theonomy: The Christian needs to work to institute the Mosaic Old Testament law as the law of the land, thus, the first amendment to the constitution needs to be abolished and the law of God reign supreme. This view also falls short because it does not recognize the temporal nature of many of the laws that God gave to Israel. Including the first four commandments requiring the keeping of a Sabbath, not worshiping any other God, etc. etc. A handful of Reformed Presbyterians fall into this category.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
View 5: The Christian should be involved in politics and should obey God in everything, but the law of Moses was not a law given so that nations like the US could copy it. The law that the Christian should govern by is the law of Christ revealed in both the Old and New Testaments. The Law of Christ thus is NOT an exact replica of the Old Testament civil law, but is far greater. (For in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.) I would fall into this category.<br />
<br />
But in this particular post I will only address Theonomy since many Theonomists have been suggesting that what Kim Davis is doing is supportive of their theology. However, I'm certain that Kim Davis is not a Theonomist, and I'm certain that she does not support Theonomic theology.<br />
In short, I'm not sure to what view Kim Davis holds to, but I do know that she is not a Theonomist.<br />
<br />
How can I say this? After all, I've never met her, never talked to her, have no idea what church she attends, and I freely confess that I know nothing about her theology. But I know that she's not a Theonomist because she has been married 4 times, divorced three times, and was made pregnant during her first marriage by the man who later became her third husband. Thus, according the Old Testament civil law, Kim Davis should have been put to death long ago, long before she became a believer. The only reason that Kim Davis lives to profess and serve Jesus Christ is because the laws of Moses are NOT in effect. <br />
<br />
Of course many Theonomists are praising her stand against a corrupt government, as am I. However, the difference between Theonomists and I is that I can praise her with a clear conscience while they say that she should have been justly executed long ago. The only reason that she's alive is because the Theonomists have NOT gotten their way. <br />
<br />
One of the most well known and consistent Theonomists was Greg Bahnsen who passed away and the early age of 47 in 1995. In one of his most complete and enduring works on Theonomy he writes,<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
"All
those who committed capital crimes (as defined in God's law) had to be executed
or else the magistrate would have been sinfully judging against the victim and
in favor of the offender; this is the
sign of a wicked judgement. Hence, the ruler was prohibited from respecting
persons or showing mercy to criminals. When God says homosexuality (for
instance) warrants capital punishment, then that is what social justice
demands; that is how heinous with respect to social relations the crime is in
God's judgement. Those who are put to death according to the law of God are
described in Deut. 21:22 as ones who have 'committed a sin worthy of death.'
The God-given authority of the law is established in the penalties incurred by
its violators. Hebrews 2:2 declares that the word of the law is unalterable.
Such is the logic of ethics. If some action is ethically good or right, then
the change of time will not per se alter the rightness of that action... the
converted criminal who was crucified at Christ's side recognized tha the
received just retribution for his crime under the sanctity of justice; he
asserted, 'we die justly, for we receive the due reward for our deeds."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
And he continues,<br />
<br />
"With
Respect to social affairs the Lord looks with so much scorn upon these crimes
that He commands the state to execute those who commit them. Christians do well
at this point to adjust their attitudes so as to coincide with those of their
heavenly father. Remember the seriousness of
the penal law. Not even refuge sought by the altar could protect those
who were guilty of capital crimes (ex. 21:14; cf. 1 Kings 2:28, 34); not even
cherished friends or relatives are exempt from the death penalty when they have
violated God’s law (Deut. 13:6-9)… it is not without significance that
the major problems facing society today are listed among those things which god
adjudges to be things worthy of capital punishment.” (Theonomy In
Christian Ethics).<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
Does Kim Davis deserve to die? According to the law of Moses, yes she does. But the law which was administered under that priesthood has changed. As the word of God says, "Where there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law as well." (Hebrews 7:12) Praise God that we have a new high priest and a new law, for we all deserve to die for "the law brings wrath" (Romans 4:15). But praise God, because women like her and men like me are allowed to live, even though we deserve to die. And we live because we have died to the law. As it is written:<br />
<br />
"Do you not know brother, for I am speaking to those who know the law- that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is release from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.<br />
<br />
Likewise my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another law, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God... now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code."<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you Jesus for freeing me from the law of sin and death. I know that Kim Davis thanks you too.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-92198863896519760342015-01-08T16:17:00.000-08:002015-01-15T12:38:53.805-08:00TO THOSE WHO HAVE LEFT THE CHURCH<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h2>
<br />QUITTING <strike>CHURCH </strike> JESUS</h2>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4A4YbnEk9tg4mZd0CLKWakaS13-5qYG_dfsDe-bpb-8Ti-bAaPVLsZwFB_5fQNVfZgpNe-AqJJPud1kQfJ8yir5w0YTFnWiWXdDajJz5kO_fJEfVkAxtladZilawBPArnuLF5oqRdDx4/s1600/quit-church-538x218.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4A4YbnEk9tg4mZd0CLKWakaS13-5qYG_dfsDe-bpb-8Ti-bAaPVLsZwFB_5fQNVfZgpNe-AqJJPud1kQfJ8yir5w0YTFnWiWXdDajJz5kO_fJEfVkAxtladZilawBPArnuLF5oqRdDx4/s1600/quit-church-538x218.png" height="129" width="320" /></a></div>
There has been an exodus from the church in our day. Many have left "organized religion" and gone to "have their own private relationship with God." The problem with this line of thinking is that it reveals the fact that the one leaving the church doesn't know or understand God at all. They don't know who he is. He is not a God of the independents, but he is God of the dependents. He is not coming for his multiple brides, but his one bride, the church. God doesn't have anything to do with those who are not part of his church. He doesn't hear prayers of those who are not part of the church, and he doesn't receive worship of those who are not part of the church.<br />
<br />
<b>Apart from the church, God won't hear your prayers</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLwJ9ZWb2nPiYsyX7zFhhKtDR8DM32M1hNzLJGljGQHiCzFHgZNRFE5pRChCljYWClj87d7aZN51kWQAq9R_frIeiyhhj78Pw3QUJntBe5t2G8qPR9j3TYj1jiRimk_Coyef-iZ3mjRKg/s1600/Obama-Prayer.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLwJ9ZWb2nPiYsyX7zFhhKtDR8DM32M1hNzLJGljGQHiCzFHgZNRFE5pRChCljYWClj87d7aZN51kWQAq9R_frIeiyhhj78Pw3QUJntBe5t2G8qPR9j3TYj1jiRimk_Coyef-iZ3mjRKg/s1600/Obama-Prayer.jpeg" height="190" width="320" /></a></div>
Many think that they can pray on their own apart from the fellowship of the church, but prayers offered to God outside of the fellowship of his church are prayers that God ignores. In Psalm 66:18, the Holy Spirit leads the psalmist to write, "if I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened to the voice of my prayer." Clearly, God does not listen to those who harbor iniquity in their heart. Of course one may object, saying, "just because I leave church doesn't mean that I have iniquity in my heart." But this objection reveals a great misunderstanding of Jesus and his commandments. First, Jesus commands that we are to love one another, adding, "by this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." When one separates himself from the church, he automatically is unable to obey this commandment. It is impossible to love someone and refuse to be around them at the same time. Imagine a husband who says he loves his wife, but refuses to come home to be with her. That would not be love, in fact, it would reveal a great lack of love.<br />
<br />
In addition to refusing to obey Christ's command to love, the one who leaves the church also refuses to obey many other of Christ's commandments; such as, serve one another, honor one another above yourself , carry one another's burdens, speak to one another in hymns, songs, and spiritual songs , admonish one another , encourage one another , live in harmony <i>with </i>one another, use your gift to serve those in the church, show hospitality to one another, and many many more. In fact, if we understand Scripture rightly, it is impossible to keep any of God's commandments while living apart from the church. In fact, God even commands believers to submit themselves to a pastor. In Hebrews 13:17, the Holy Spirit leads the author to write a commandment to God's people instructing them to "submit to your pastors and obey them, for they are keeping watch over your soul." How can anyone obey this command of God's if they are not in a church submitting themselves to the loving care of a pastor? In all these things, the one who leaves the church lives in disobedience to the commandments of God. The simple reality is that you cannot be a follower of Jesus without actually following him. Refusing to obey these commands of Christ is to cherish iniquity in the heart, and the cherishing of iniquity in the heart leads to God turning a deaf ear to the prayers that are offered to Him. You simply cannot have your own personal relationship with God on your own.<br />
<br />
(John 13:12-17) (Romans 12:10) (Gal. 6:2) (Ephesians 5:19) (Col. 3:16) (1 Thessalonians 4:18) (1 Peter 3:8) (1 Peter 4:9) (1 Peter 4:10)<br />
<br />
<b>But I can worship God apart from the church!</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxx2O21d5vZYW4IeKvAtOFNxEJxb15LZkuGaNeU_eydCm9g3cO7ZmAZRGHDwk4WrHSC0sUrX1SDR-TgaNtYyJKfeQScH21f95kTrVu8oPciFAUH0C24Jf8f0aX0163SuzuiRyDT-zkRFk/s1600/worship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxx2O21d5vZYW4IeKvAtOFNxEJxb15LZkuGaNeU_eydCm9g3cO7ZmAZRGHDwk4WrHSC0sUrX1SDR-TgaNtYyJKfeQScH21f95kTrVu8oPciFAUH0C24Jf8f0aX0163SuzuiRyDT-zkRFk/s1600/worship.jpg" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>
The one who leaves the church will often argue that they can worship God on their own and that they don't need the church to worship. This too shows a lack of understanding of both God and his word. Many years ago, God sent the prophet Isaiah to the people of Israel and told him to deliver the message of God's hatred for their worship. God goes so far as to call their worship an abomination (Is. 1:13). The reason? God hated their worship because they offered perfectly good worship while at the same time living in sin. Because of their refusal to obey his commandments in their daily lives, God disdains the worship that they offer him. As we have seen, it is impossible to obey the commandments of God apart from the church, and thus apart from the church and a desire to obey God's commandments, God will not receive worship.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>As you do unto the Church, you do unto Christ</b><br />
Jesus said, "as you do unto my brothers (Christians) you do unto me" and thus Jesus credits people with feeding Him, because they fed a hungry Christian. Jesus credits people for clothing Him because they gave clothes to a suffering Christian, and Jesus credits people for visiting him in prison because they visited Christians. Conversely, Jesus says, that those who didn't visit Christians, did not visit him. "Then I will say to those on my left, 'depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' They they will answer, 'when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you? Then I will answer them saying, ' as you did not do it to one of these my brothers, you did not do it to me." What you do to the church you do to Jesus. If you feed the church, you feed Jesus. If you love the church, you love Jesus. If you leave the church, you leave Jesus.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc4YhV68npe6YBkTYbQo5XaPJ-UIXg9NejsFpB5-KIT5owujMRHle1V3S_iksSfPceaoIjXheQJgFHR3Evf6l-dHrXMhrWlxbnxpxuRv5Jes5Jyq16O-tor3WBUlJGVVwwi3AFy0WuDDg/s1600/bride.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc4YhV68npe6YBkTYbQo5XaPJ-UIXg9NejsFpB5-KIT5owujMRHle1V3S_iksSfPceaoIjXheQJgFHR3Evf6l-dHrXMhrWlxbnxpxuRv5Jes5Jyq16O-tor3WBUlJGVVwwi3AFy0WuDDg/s1600/bride.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This concept can be seen clearly when Saul is persecuting the church and on his way to Damascus to arrest and kill more of the members of the church, Jesus appears to him on the road and says, "Why do you persecute me?" Jesus didn't say, "Why are you persecuting my church?" He said, "why are you persecuting ME?" In Jesus' eyes, whatever you do to the church, you do to him. There is absolutely no difference between a man and his bride whom he loves. If you slap my wife, you slap me. If you offend my wife, you offend me. If you turn your back on my wife, you turn your back on me. Don't expect to turn your back on my wife and for me to continue to be your friend. This is how Jesus views his bride. If you leave her, you leave him.<br />
<br />
<b>If you don't want to go to church, you don't want to go to heaven</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrpsyj1NdxUTmR1jz28FXYrhlqaKT2ypTE3HpE1qxl-7tfk4pv_jgVrbjqApzLn2rHc9MCqnuojsnDMPsKOvzihyphenhyphentM0t7Kv3MQqttKZ-Oze-zKptsFe0xqOMc-k8TclJfI4QKCyjUIlI/s1600/Coffee+Mug+-+Far+Side+-+Wish+Id+Brought+a+Magazine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrpsyj1NdxUTmR1jz28FXYrhlqaKT2ypTE3HpE1qxl-7tfk4pv_jgVrbjqApzLn2rHc9MCqnuojsnDMPsKOvzihyphenhyphentM0t7Kv3MQqttKZ-Oze-zKptsFe0xqOMc-k8TclJfI4QKCyjUIlI/s1600/Coffee+Mug+-+Far+Side+-+Wish+Id+Brought+a+Magazine.jpg" height="290" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
One of the works of God at the point of salvation is to instill a love for his church in the hearts of those that are saved. This love translates into a desire to fulfill the "one another" commands listed above. This is not to say that anyone keeps these commands perfectly, but there is at the very least a strong desire to keep them. After all, this is the mark of being a disciple "your love for one another." But sometimes those who have strayed from church still expect entrance into heaven, because they have their own "personal relationship" with God. But think about it. What will you find in heaven? You will find all of the people of God dwelling together with one another and with God, engaged in worship of God. But why would those who don't want to be around the people of God, want to go to heaven where all of the people of God are? Why would those who don't like the corporate worship of God want to go to a place where the corporate worship of God is the primary activity? Why would one who doesn't want to engage in the "one another" commands of Scripture want to go to a place where everyone will be practicing all these commands in perfection? Why would someone who prefers to stay away from the people of God want to spend all eternity forced to be with them, 24/7, for all eternity?<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
As we have seen, it is impossible for anyone to keep the commands of God outside of the context of belonging to a church. Since those outside of the church cannot keep God's commands, God does not hear their prayers, nor receive their worship. In addition to this, Jesus says that as you do unto the church you do unto him, so those who turn on the people of God, turn on Jesus himself. Thus, it is impossible, in the highest sense of the word, to have your own personal relationship with God. Lastly, we see that this is a matter of the heart. When God saves an individual he causes that individual to love him, and to love the church. Scripture makes it plain that in order to love God one must love the church, for if you do not love those you can see, then you cannot love him who you cannot see. (1 Jn. 4:20) This is why there is no salvation outside of the church.<br />
<br />
Therefore, if you are in the position of not wanting to attend church and you don't like to be around the followers of Jesus, then ask Jesus to change your heart so that you would love him, and love his people and don't stop asking him to do so until he does it. He is in the business of changing hearts. Let him change yours.<br />
<br />
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-25546538229055388022014-12-23T14:26:00.001-08:002014-12-23T15:13:22.689-08:00HOW MANY ATHEISTS DOES IT TAKE TO WRITE TEN COMMANDMENTS? <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">As I was scrolling
through my news-feed yesterday, I came across an interesting article which
listed the newly revealed "atheist 10 commandments." As a pastor and
devoted Christian I opened the article with the excitement of a child on
Christmas morning opening his presents. And, it was wonderful. Like that
Christmas morning that I awoke to find a new bicycle standing next to the tree,
I was overjoyed. I could not believe that contemporary atheists would give such
a wonderful gift to Christianity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Here's how it all came about.
Imagine if you wanted a new code of basic law “What if, instead of
climbing Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments from God, Moses had turned
to the Israelites and asked: Hey, what do you guys think we should do?"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9sXtag_t-htp8CusizLzW2tCWqCOu_LMmSrWFvoblKZ6MDl2TuLwI1GacNP1zTiuwat1w4fXfoCy3q-guT6pqY0MrjMdPASik_jvlb1aqXfbG8ll6dmeotN0NzDJvmh1X3kGzb4fr_uo/s1600/atheist+mind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9sXtag_t-htp8CusizLzW2tCWqCOu_LMmSrWFvoblKZ6MDl2TuLwI1GacNP1zTiuwat1w4fXfoCy3q-guT6pqY0MrjMdPASik_jvlb1aqXfbG8ll6dmeotN0NzDJvmh1X3kGzb4fr_uo/s1600/atheist+mind.jpg" height="320" width="212" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">And that's what
happened. Lex Bayer, the co-author of the new book, <i>Atheist mind,
Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century</i> decided to crowd-source a new list of commandments,
intended to be superior to the 10 that Moses received from God on Mount Sinai.
So, after almost 3,000 atheists from 18 countries put their collective
knowledge of morality together, they developed one of the most contradictory
and senseless documents ever made. As I continued to read through the
commandments, I had to double check a few times to make sure I was not reading
the satire website "The Onion." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">To begin, the list of
ten commandments are called, "The Non-Commandments." I'm not
quite sure what to make of the name "non-commandments," especially
when each one is an imperative. Are they showing their cards by saying that
these commandments are not really commandments but simply suggestions? By
making a list of ten suggestions, they reveal a simple truth, without God there
is no truth, only suggestions. Which means these atheists can't even declare that
certain things are right and certain things are wrong, just suggestions from
someone who doesn't know whether it's a good suggestion or not. Just a
suggestion that they <i>think</i> is good and right, but are not really sure. After all, how else can you get away with calling an
imperative a "non-commandment." But, let's pretend that this
inconvenient contradiction did not exist and let's look at these commandments.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Here are the “Ten
Non-Commandments”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with
new evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">The first commandment
all by itself destroys atheism. Merriam-Webster defines atheism as, "the
doctrine that there is no deity." However, if an atheist decided to
"be open minded" he would have to consider the fact that the
existence of a deity might be a possibility." Especially in the
light of the scientific evidence which shows that before the big bang, there
was no energy in existence to cause the bang, there was no space in which the
bang could go bang, and there was no matter in existence to go bang. In other
words, to be truly open minded would lead an atheist from the dogmatism of
"there is no deity" to the open minded position of "a deity may
exist." This would mean his is no longer an atheist but an agnostic.
So if an atheist wants to obey the first commandment, he has to abandon the atheist position for that of agnostic. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not
to believe what you wish to be true.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Is it more likely to be
true that Jesus' disciples preached the resurrection of Jesus even to their
death when they knew it to be a lie? Or is it more likely that they preached
the resurrection of Jesus even to the point of a pain-filled death because it
was a real event? Now careful, don't just believe what you want to be
true, believe what is most likely to be true. Why would dozens of
dozens of men die for something that they knew was staged? It is therefore most
likely that it was not staged and was a real event. After all, if we're
going to be consistent and keep the first commandment we have to keep this open
as an possibility. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding
the natural world.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">I'm not sure why
atheists believe this to be true. After all, the scientific method has not yet
proven that the scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the
natural world. (Besides, is that even a commandment, or is that just a dogmatic
truth claim on something that has not yet been proven? Yeah, it's the latter.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">4. Every person has the right to control of their body.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOWiMIE1BgqyKgfr_G_c7GLKRu3ZCMajJTvTn42qW1I2xkfcHuw04lBYW6-P8IEa4O7XUhvkDnpuY8mpq-vIZgEInhQ4NFFO2vp-3F8Clf4vy6VE2gwA_DWBIbHNgv2C464Qo_Bjt_DbI/s1600/prolife.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOWiMIE1BgqyKgfr_G_c7GLKRu3ZCMajJTvTn42qW1I2xkfcHuw04lBYW6-P8IEa4O7XUhvkDnpuY8mpq-vIZgEInhQ4NFFO2vp-3F8Clf4vy6VE2gwA_DWBIbHNgv2C464Qo_Bjt_DbI/s1600/prolife.jpg" height="121" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">This is a perplexing
commandment. Does this mean that we can no longer execute criminals? Does
this mean that we can no longer force them to put their hands behind their back
and place restraints on them? Does this mean that pregnant women do not have
the right to harm or kill the body that is living inside of them? It looks like
atheists might be changing their stance on abortion. According to this
commandment, all abortion should be illegal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">What also becomes
apparent by this commandment is that the United States needs to apologize to
Osama Bin Laden's family for killing him since they took away his right to
control his own body. It also means that we need to immediately release
prisoners and schoolchildren who's bodies are being forced into acting certain
ways, (sitting down, staying quiet, being forced to walk in a line at certain
times, and being forced to go certain places). Why don't <i>they</i> have the right to control their own bodies? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">I suppose that atheists
will argue that this commandment does not apply to children and criminals but
what about adults who wish to smoke crack or drive drunk or cheat on their
spouse? This should be perfectly acceptable as long as they don't hurt
anyone else's body. Essentially, things are wrong only if someone else
actually gets hurt. So feel free to smoke crack, speed, and run red
lights, drive drunk, and cheat on your spouse. It's your life and your body.
None of those things are wrong. You can do whatever you want as long as you
don't hurt anyone. Go ahead, there's nothing wrong with cheating on your spouse
as long as they don't find out. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a
full and meaningful life.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">How do you define good person?
Every atheist has a different opinion of good than every other atheist.
Who's opinion do we go by?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">And of course
commandment 4 is only true if there really is no god. But if there is a
god, then it's wholly untrue, because a person who rejects the idea of God when
there is a God, is by definition a bad person. But of course, if we wish to
obey the first commandment, we have to allow for the possibility that a god
does exist, and when we do that, the atheist has to concede that he's not sure
if number four is true or not. It's just a guess. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and
recognize that you must take responsibility for them.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Why should I be mindful
of the consequences of my actions? What if I don't want to be mindful of
them? Is that wrong? I still can't figure out why they want to
force their beliefs down my throat. Stop forcing your idea of morality on me!
Let me live my own life and believe what I want!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can
reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Again, why should I do
this? I thought everyone had control over their own body? How can they now say
that I need to obey them by thinking certain thoughts? It's my brain thank you
very much and besides, I like commandment three better, so I'm going to obey
that one instead of this one. You don't deserve to have control over my
thoughts. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including
future generations.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">What? "consider
future generations"? Are they suggesting that we need to consider those
who are not yet born? Are the unborn even persons? For the longest time,
atheists have suggested that the unborn are not persons. I guess atheists
have changed their view. I can't wait for the flood of atheist voices to join
the pro-life movement. Way to go atheists, way to go! Come join the fight
against abortion! Let's stand up for those future generations who have not been
born yet. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">9. There is no one right way to live.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Oh, wait, what?
So, I guess we've been wasting our time reading these commandments. Never
mind everyone, let's go home, there's nothing to see here. What had started as
a good idea to give humanity the right way to think, act, and view the world
has failed because there is no right way. Again, it seems that this is all just
suggestions. None of them are necessarily right. So don't waste your time even
reading them. They are just some guy's guess which is after all, just as good
as your own. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Isn't this whole list of
ten commandments supposed to be the atheists idea of the right way to live?
Again, I can't tell if they are saying that commandments 1 through 9 are
true, or if they just think that they might possibly true, maybe. After all, if
commandments 1-8 and 10 are true, then we have to do away with 9. If there is
no right way to live, then these commandments couldn't possibly be suggesting
to be anything more than someone's guess of what might be the best
way to live. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVyuYZuxMjVAj5N5m9WoZxrMgLMO5Ffw6EtUj7HvD_yDOyl-WrzOjOp20A2I9nVndVFaS6Te2gz2lgXwx_jRl92avKhwwcKk3eV66QGXlN4pR94d1WPmhJJFihv-WGxGA9fFq7ABGJ-I8/s1600/unclear.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVyuYZuxMjVAj5N5m9WoZxrMgLMO5Ffw6EtUj7HvD_yDOyl-WrzOjOp20A2I9nVndVFaS6Te2gz2lgXwx_jRl92avKhwwcKk3eV66QGXlN4pR94d1WPmhJJFihv-WGxGA9fFq7ABGJ-I8/s1600/unclear.jpg" height="166" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Why? Are you
suggesting that leaving the world a better place is the right way to live?
Didn't commandment 9 just tell me that there was no one right way to
live? So obviously they couldn't be contradicting themselves in the very
next commandment could they? Is commandment 10 the right way to live, or
is there no right way to live? I'm confused. I wish they wouldn't
contradict themselves so much, it makes it really difficult to keep up. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">So there you have it.
Thousands of the most brilliant atheists minds have just offered you a
list of non-commandments for you to not-obey. Or do they want you to obey
them? I can't tell. If they want you to obey them, then I assume that
they think that this is the best way to live, but it can't be since there is no
one right way to live. So at best these are just suggestions which you should
not believe since they have not yet been proven by the scientific method. So at
the end of the day, if you want to obey these commandments, it will require you
to ignore these commandments. So, let's just skip to the chase, go ahead and
just get straight to ignoring them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 18px;">So how many atheists does it take to write ten commandments? Almost 3,000, and they're not even commandments, and they're not even coherent. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-87715130654502207432014-09-29T07:37:00.001-07:002014-09-29T07:37:26.348-07:00How can Evolution and Religion co-exist? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjzlp_ezQ149WjmrbOolS4RdvxlFjE4ITMcvoR0hDv1T1Bty5JJd_FNye4NmAgzocqlKDIrHhBSeie_8cnqMk6ACROSIHqzEAw_IuDEbvDCl-LysHif_r8UVNzChGybOanz_zC7nZZHpU/s1600/new+york+times.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjzlp_ezQ149WjmrbOolS4RdvxlFjE4ITMcvoR0hDv1T1Bty5JJd_FNye4NmAgzocqlKDIrHhBSeie_8cnqMk6ACROSIHqzEAw_IuDEbvDCl-LysHif_r8UVNzChGybOanz_zC7nZZHpU/s1600/new+york+times.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
A few days ago, the NY Times ran an opinion piece by David P. Barash, a professor of Biology, which was titled "God, Darwin, and My Biology Class." The professor speaks about his now common practice of giving his class, "the talk." He says, <i>"It isn’t, as you might expect, [a talk] about sex, but about evolution and religion, and how they get along. More to the point, how they don’t." </i><br />
<br />
He begins by saying that Evolutionary Science and Religion are diametrically opposed to one another and the only way to be a religious Scientist is to be guilty of <i>"misrepresenting both science and religion."</i> On Barash's first point I wholeheartedly agree. Religion says that there was a creator who designed the universe to be the way that it is, Evolutionary Science says that there was no creator and the universe with all things in it simply took their shape randomly. Everything, according to Evolutionary Science, says Barash, is random. So from the very starting point, Religion (a belief in a Creator) and Evolutionary Science immediately begin contradicting each other. He notes that there are some notable scientists like Stephen J. Gould who hold that the two spheres don't overlap and each can be true, but Barash correctly points out that both Religion and Evolutionary Science contradict eachother and therefore cannot both be true. I agree Dr. Barash, I agree.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrRSsM2s54jcT9oRvz2VOTxzXRaAFsWfYi5OnFzKKKGrQSDrlItowsG1ZzSCj5EElbVpQQArJDxfknGNc5TvpPoCsvzfXuJLwurZhH2pAN4K5MLaUavbqnuHqHNw1DgAgiahzqkATcPAk/s1600/probability.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrRSsM2s54jcT9oRvz2VOTxzXRaAFsWfYi5OnFzKKKGrQSDrlItowsG1ZzSCj5EElbVpQQArJDxfknGNc5TvpPoCsvzfXuJLwurZhH2pAN4K5MLaUavbqnuHqHNw1DgAgiahzqkATcPAk/s1600/probability.jpg" height="234" width="320" /></a></div>
Dr. Barash continues by mentioning his three points of "the talk" which, in his mind, destroy the theological argument for a Creator. Point number one of the talk sets out to defeat <i>"what modern creationists call the argument from complexity."</i> This is the argument that suggests an object as complex as a watch doesn't just appear out of randomness, but needs a designer to put the intricate design together and make it all work. Dr. Barash totally destroys this religious argument by saying, <i>"however, we have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness."</i> It seems to me that Dr. Barash could benefit from some classes in logic and reasoning. Notice that he says that "extraordinary levels of non-randomness" are created by (1) random variation and (2) natural selection. This is a miraculous thing indeed. Can you believe that random variation and random natural selection have come together to create extraordinary non-randomness? I can't either. Randomness plus randomness does not equal extraordinary non-randomness. The entire idea is completely illogical. Not surprisingly, Dr. Barash does not offer any examples or evidence of observed randomness creating extraordinary non-randomness.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE_4v3nyEwlWtPoua9Q0hSbL-ycC3xq_ursMUKKvvMN0iLxe5Ebgw3qJ6IrzxRffqK8XID8kFfXoi97J3YT-DFz8-w_kckmNRGP-QskIi2zeq4zLZ8r9LF6KFzlIi3OCpSMtqK8ltihQs/s1600/wolves.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE_4v3nyEwlWtPoua9Q0hSbL-ycC3xq_ursMUKKvvMN0iLxe5Ebgw3qJ6IrzxRffqK8XID8kFfXoi97J3YT-DFz8-w_kckmNRGP-QskIi2zeq4zLZ8r9LF6KFzlIi3OCpSMtqK8ltihQs/s1600/wolves.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
Barash' second goal is to show how Evolutionary Science has destroyed <i>"the illusion of centrality."</i> In other words, because of evolution, we now know that humans are simply another animal in a long line of evolving organisms. We are not <i>"a chip off the old Divine block"</i> as he puts it. Instead, says Barash, <i>"we are perfectly good animals, natural as can be and indistinguishable from the rest of the living world at the level of structure as well as physiological mechanism."</i> Of course in the animal kingdom, it is survival of the fittest. If two wolf packs are living in the same area and the more powerful decides that they want control over the land, they simply take it. The losing wolf pack does not report them to the wolf-police, or take them to wolf-court. Even humans realize that this is not immoral behavior and so we don't seek to punish the wolves in any way. We know that they are simply animals and this is how the animal kingdom works, it is survival of the fittest. Why then do we say that it is wrong for one people group to steal land from another people group? If we are <i>"perfectly good animals"</i> as Dr. Barash states, why then do we prosecute people for acting like... animals? Animals practice incest and it's not wrong, but for some reason it's wrong for humans. Why? Animals kill one another over food, yet that behavior is considered wrong for humans. Why? It is acceptable for humans to own animals and to keep them in cages and confined by fences and to force them to work for us, but it's wrong to own another human. Why? When I could not longer care for my dog, I took him to the vet and had him put down, but I can't do this with my son. Why? If humans are "perfectly good animals" as Dr. Barash wishes to suggest, then he has to explain why perfectly good animal behavior is not acceptable behavior for humans. But, just a cursory look at humanity will tell you that we are NOT animals.<br />
<br />
Barash then concludes by positing the idea that this evil world is evidence against a good God. He says, <i>"living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator."</i> There are so many things wrong with that statement, it is hard for me to know where to begin. For some reason, Dr. Barash thinks that evil in this world is an evidence against a good Creator. But within 5 minutes of reading the Bible, one finds that the Creator has cursed this world and everything in it, so evil in the world actually accords with the Bible's version of a Creator. Secondly, contrary to his assertion of there being <i>"no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator,"</i> there are many indications of a benevolent, controlling Creator. Thirdly, it is impossible for an "amoral" process to create morality. If an "amoral process" has in fact produced advancement in organisms as Barash would have us believe, then it stands to reason that human morality is stifling the advancement of our species. For example, why do we build hospitals go on humanitarian trips to offer aid to those who are suffering? How can our species advance if we keep allowing the weak and sick to reproduce? Our morality is preventing the weak and sick from dying off and thus our race is not making the great advancements that it could be, through this wonderful "amoral process!" Morality therefore, under Barash's view, is simply an evolutionary deformity, a sickness in itself. He would have us believe that moral behavior is actually immoral. Isn't it immoral to hold back the advancement of an entire race? Isn't it immoral to oppose the very force that has governed the production of all living organisms? Of course he would never say such a thing, but there is no other conclusion once you assert that advancement and improvement owes its existence to an "amoral process." (I won't even mention that he began his statement by suggesting that this "amoral process" was actually evil and that the existence of this evil was therefore according to his reasoning evidence against the existence of a good God. Apparently, the process is both amoral and evil. That's a neat trick.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_5eqxAR3R3exkOj9MnroyJWuLk8yHz0W0qJDBqJ1rsVY6THPed9bs2rnGXqXy4KULgFWyYZbFZQsal6JGe0rB_wWnsfFrRvDkNSSPChoGbDb7SjnBieM2sdUI5of81KUrDzPt6xzCEHw/s1600/right+wrong.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_5eqxAR3R3exkOj9MnroyJWuLk8yHz0W0qJDBqJ1rsVY6THPed9bs2rnGXqXy4KULgFWyYZbFZQsal6JGe0rB_wWnsfFrRvDkNSSPChoGbDb7SjnBieM2sdUI5of81KUrDzPt6xzCEHw/s1600/right+wrong.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
He concludes his talk by telling his students that they <i>"don’t have to discard their religion in order to inform themselves about biology."</i> He simply wants them to know that <i>"if they insist on retaining and respecting both, they will have to undertake some challenging mental gymnastic routines. And while I respect their beliefs, the entire point of The Talk is to make clear that, at least for this biologist, it is no longer acceptable for science to be the one doing those routines." </i><br />
<br />
In other words, if students want to believe in both religion and evolution, they have to start with the assumption that Barash's claims are true, and then they have to figure out how to make their beliefs fit with his version of truth. He apparently will no longer seek to defend his incoherent and dangerous ideas, it's our responsibility to accept them as true and then do some "challenging mental gymnastic routines" to make our views conform to the "truth" of his.<br />
<br />
Well played Barash, well played.Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-79984487449545530932014-09-05T12:53:00.003-07:002014-09-05T12:53:44.012-07:00Does the Bible teach that all Israel will be saved? <h2>
<b>Has God Promised to Save all Israel? A Look at Romans 9-11</b></h2>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<b>ROMANS 1-8</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPigIrPEgHz_lyI9kv5n5rsQM_Tt1PNjZSCFsLvyHsBSGp6_kmfUf4o50nHBEQvdwAzbEh-gIE-hPb0nOSjDQXlM6T8qx9xCe5I3QSQTUj2jd2A8djrkrfgQj4Owd7Qp-ZS83V7Fn9sCA/s1600/book+of+romans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPigIrPEgHz_lyI9kv5n5rsQM_Tt1PNjZSCFsLvyHsBSGp6_kmfUf4o50nHBEQvdwAzbEh-gIE-hPb0nOSjDQXlM6T8qx9xCe5I3QSQTUj2jd2A8djrkrfgQj4Owd7Qp-ZS83V7Fn9sCA/s1600/book+of+romans.jpg" /></a></div>
As we begin our look at Romans 9, we must keep in mind that it is preceded by 8 other chapters. So we begin our examination of Paul's argument nine chapters in to a 15 chapter argument.<br />
In chapter 1 Paul declares that salvation is not by works but it is by faith<br />
In chapter 2 he shows that both Jews and Gentiles are as guilty as sin and so neither can be saved by their own efforts.<br />
In chapter 3 he argues that both Jews and Gentiles are condemned and lost and that salvation can only come by faith and so the Jew has no advantage over the Gentile in terms of salvation.<br />
In chapter 4 he shows that even Abraham was saved the exact same way, through faith and not by works of the law.<br />
In chapter 5 he shows that all mankind is guilty because of the sin of our father Adam and shows that Jesus is a second Adam who can make righteous the offspring of Adam, both Jew and Gentile. <br />
In chapter 6 he argues that all those who have faith in Jesus Christ should kill their fleshly desires and live according to the Spirit of God.<br />
In chapter 7 he shows that the law of Moses has been set aside because the only thing that law was able to do was to condemn all as sinners and lawbreakers. It no power to help men live righteously.<br />
In chapter 8 he argues that it is no longer those who have the law (Israel) who are sons of God but those who believe are the sons of God saying, <strong>"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."</strong> and again, <strong>"but you (those who believe in Christ) have received the Spirit of adoption as sons."</strong> And so Paul makes a sharp distinction between unbelievers and believers. Believers are the adopted people of God and those who do not believe are not the people of God.<br />
<br />
So far, Paul's argument is flowing nicely, every Jew who has the law is condemned and cut off from God and those who do not have the law are condemned and cut off from God. At the same time, those who have faith in Christ are children of God. However, once Paul gets to this point, he anticipates a question from those who will be reading. Perhaps he had heard the question before, or perhaps he had asked the question himself at some point. Why are the Jews not saved? Thus, he begins chapter 9 with this question in mind.<br />
<br />
<b>CHAPTER 9</b><br />
<br />
He begins.<br />
<br />
"<b>For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." (9:3-5)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Paul begins with by lamenting the fact that the Israelites have been cut off from God. He himself is a Jew and he wishes that they would be saved. He honors the Jews by confessing that they are the ones who were originally adopted by God. They were the ones who witnessed all of God's glorious works. They were the recipients of the covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic). The Jews are the ones who descended from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's 12 sons. And to cap it all off, it was through this bloodline that Jesus, the Messiah himself, had come. What a privileged people! What glorious things they had witnessed and brought into this world. This is a special people. But contrary to these magnificent things, Paul confesses that they are not saved. They are cut off from God. <br />
<br />
This is quite the contradiction. They are the blessed people of God whom God had promised to save, and yet here they are, cut off from God, unsaved, lost, and condemned. It is in this contradiction that Paul anticipates the next objection from his readers.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<em>If God had chosen the Jews for the purposes of saving them, how can it be that they are not saved? Doesn't this mean that God's word has failed?</em><br />
In the Old Testament, God had promised to save all of Israel. Through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord had promised <strong>"In the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> <em>all</em> the offspring of Israel </strong><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-45-25"><strong>shall be justified and shall glory.”</strong> (Is. 45:45) The first century Jews read these old testament prophesies they took them too literally. They assumed that when God said that he would save <strong>"all the offspring of Israel"</strong> that God was speaking about Jacob's physical descendants. Therefore, it looked to them as if the word of God had failed. </span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-45-25"></span></span><br />
This objection makes a lot of sense. It does seem like God's promise to save the Jews was either a lie, or perhaps God was just unable to bring them to salvation. It must be one or the other. And so Paul knows that his readers will ask, "has the word of God failed?" Interestingly, many Christians today interpret the Scriptures in the same flawed manner that the first century believers did. But as we continue through Paul's answer to the above objection we will clearly see that, according to Paul's understanding, God never intended to save the physical descendants of Abraham, but instead the Spiritual descendants of Abraham.<br />
<br />
Paul begins answering this question in verse 6a he says, "<b>But it is not as though the word of God has failed.</b>" So Paul confesses that God's promise to save "all the offspring of Israel" still stands.<br />
Paul knows that the protest is coming, "how can the promise to save all the offspring of Israel be true when all the offspring of Israel are not saved?" <br />
<br />
In the eyes of the readers, the word of God <i>has</i> failed because God did not save "<em>all</em> the offspring of Israel." Paul then shows his readers that the word of God has failed IF they make the mistake of identifying all those descended from Abraham as "the offspring of Israel" and he goes on to explain that when God promised to save the offspring of Israel, he was not promising to save all those who descended from Abraham, but he was only promising to save those who were "children of the promise," both Jews and Gentiles. So Paul says, <strong>"</strong><b>But it is not as though the word of God has failed. </b><strong>For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and <i>not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring</i>, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."</strong><br />
<b><br /></b>
<strong><em>all</em> the offspring of Israel </strong><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-45-25"><strong>shall be justified" </strong>he says that <strong>"all the offspring of Israel" </strong>does not refer to physical Jews, but to spiritual Jews, or what he calls <strong>"the children of the promise." </strong></span></span>Paul's final and summary statement regarding this understanding is verse 8, <strong>"This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." </strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpVUpc9LIADJMYWMttalC_-m2iNc2acoZGefLh3eGL0wt-vqAWiEgZWOnl_mTtkBJGcm-JzOaFSkU2nFTr01v6_JhK1U8j8G35d859SQVqIB2GjJNB8s3V_LW-_owdKy5PT8cpSQiiW_Q/s1600/children+of+promise+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpVUpc9LIADJMYWMttalC_-m2iNc2acoZGefLh3eGL0wt-vqAWiEgZWOnl_mTtkBJGcm-JzOaFSkU2nFTr01v6_JhK1U8j8G35d859SQVqIB2GjJNB8s3V_LW-_owdKy5PT8cpSQiiW_Q/s1600/children+of+promise+1.jpg" /></a></strong></div>
Typically we read prophecy about Israel and we think that it refers to Jews, but Paul says here that Israel as mentioned in the Old Testament does not necessarily refer to <em>all</em> of the offspring of Abraham, nor does it refer to <em>only</em> the offspring of Abraham.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Clearly, in Paul's mind, those who are descended from Abraham are not Israelites, at least not all of them. He makes a sharp distinction between "the children of the flesh" and "the children of promise." The children of the flesh are all those who are descended from Abraham which would be ethnic Israel. The children of the promise would be those who are descended from Abraham by faith, both Jews and Gentiles. So when Paul reads the prophet Isaiah and sees God say "<br />
<br />
And so Paul immediately brings correction to the way that his first century Jews were understanding the promise to save "all the children of Israel." Paul says, "when you see the promise of God to save Israel, don't think of it in terms of physical descendants, but think of it in terms of spiritual descendants, those who have faith."<br />
<b><br /></b>
As he continues this line of argument he gives a few examples to back up this statement. He points to Jacob and Essau and declares that both are descended from Abraham (children of the flesh) and yet only one of them did God ever intend to save, <b>"so that God’s purpose of election might continue ." </b>He then goes on to argue that the offspring of Abraham does not refer to those descended from Abraham, but instead, it refers to a mix of Jews and Gentiles saying:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>"not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles. As indeed he says in Hosea, </b><b>“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ </b><b>and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ” </b><br />
<b>“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ </b><b>there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ” </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
And so we see Paul again emphasizing that the people of God are not all who are descended from Israel but instead, those whom <b>"he has prepared before hand for his glory" </b>a mix of both Jew and Gentile. And so Paul's argument has been very clear so far. He basically says, "Yes I know that the Scriptures say that the promise of God was to save all the offspring of Israel, but you have to understand what God means when he says, all the offspring of Israel. He does not mean what you think he means. Israel means Jews and Gentiles of faith. Not physical descendants. It does not mean ethnic Israel. It does not refer to a nation, but it is a spiritual nation of the true sons of Abraham, made up of both Jews and Gentiles."<br />
<br />
So up to this point, Paul has been arguing that the people of God are not the people of ethnic Israel, <b>"for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." </b>He then goes to prove to his readers that "all the offspring of Israel" never referred to the ethnic nation of Israel and he quotes Isaiah to prove his point,<strong> "And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved." </strong>So Paul's point is, "don't think that 'all the offspring of Israel' means ethnic Israel. God never intended to save all of them." <br />
<b><br /></b>
And Paul concludes chapter 9 by announcing, "<b>What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone."</b><br />
<br />
And so the thrust of Paul's argument in chapter 9 is thus:<br />
<br />
I know that you have read the promise of God to save all the descendants of Israel but <strong>"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring,...This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring...in order for God to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory... not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles. As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ and though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved." </strong><br />
<br />
<br />
So by following Paul's argument, Paul states in the clearest language possible, God never intended to save national ethnic Israel, he only intended to save a remnant of them. And so, when one thinks of Israel, they should not think of those who are descended from Abraham, but they should think of both Jews and Gentiles as "the children of the promise," as the true Israel. And in this way, Paul shuts down anyone who would attempt to argue that the word of God had failed. The word of God has not failed, Paul says, because God never promised to save ethnic Israel, Israel is much more significant term than anyone had realized. <br />
<br />
It is likely that Paul took his understanding of Israel from Jesus himself who said that those who are descended from Abraham and yet don't have faith are not Abraham's children. (John 8:31-39)<br />
Please note, that if Paul had any idea that national ethnic Israel was going to turn to God as a nation sometime in the future, then his answer to the question would have been much different.<br />
<br />
If Paul were speaking about the future, the question would have been asked, "does this meant that the word of God has failed?" and the answer would have come, "Certainly not, at some future point in time God will cause national ethnic Israel to return to him and so all the offspring of Israel will be saved and God will have kept his word." If Paul knew of a future ingathering of Israel, he most certainly would have said that, and he most certainly would NOT have said, "The word of God has not failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring." Obviously, Paul does not see a time in the future when there will be a national ethnic turning of Israel to God because national ethnic Israel is a special "people of God." Paul clearly says that the offspring of Israel is a select few,<b> "not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."</b> In Paul's (and Jesus') theology, Israel is not an ethnicity, it is a spiritual People of faith. Paul has just spent an entire chapter showing that when God uses the word "Israel" in the OT he is not referring to an ethnic people but a spiritual people who have faith in Jesus. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>CHAPTER 10</b><br />
As Paul begins chapter 10, he announces that his prayer for them (ethnic Jews) is that they might be saved and then he goes on to explain that they are not saved because, <b>"they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness."</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>"there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him." </b>Again notice this repeating pattern of the people of God being identified as a mix of "Jew and Greek" as opposed to the modern idea that the people of God are ethnic Jews descended from Abraham. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi75_YUbloVfSMVFOBonQ8CFIio1ycSkiwdLjBMI-sqDvigHHKRPVDVM6qtgh64fTfT0yBNlkJdJrjAJ3zlTrts4k-5uYQJCtA-mdbaRxhft827GwPK7gBCsUoLWTzOtaYE3Sl3HnbtlUI/s1600/no+partialitty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi75_YUbloVfSMVFOBonQ8CFIio1ycSkiwdLjBMI-sqDvigHHKRPVDVM6qtgh64fTfT0yBNlkJdJrjAJ3zlTrts4k-5uYQJCtA-mdbaRxhft827GwPK7gBCsUoLWTzOtaYE3Sl3HnbtlUI/s1600/no+partialitty.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
Then in verses 5-10 he proceeds to make an argument that salvation is by faith and is not by the keeping of the law of Moses. He then goes on to proclaim that because salvation is by faith and not by the law of Moses, <br />
<br />
If the promise of salvation which was made to "the offspring of Israel" in the Old Testament pertained to ethnic Israel, then there would certainly be a distinction between Jew and Greek. The Jews would be recipients of promises to which the Greeks would not have access, and there would be distinction between the two. But, because the laws and promises are for a "spiritual Israel" made up of Jews and Gentiles, there is now <strong>"no distinction between Jew and Greek." </strong>As Paul says elsewhere<strong>, "For <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28804A" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28804A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>all the promises of God are yes and Amen in him (Jesus)." </strong>So all the Old Testament promises do not pertain to ethnic Jews, but they pertain to Jesus and all who are in him. Again, this is why Paul redefines "all the offspring of Israel" to mean all those (Jews and Gentiles) of faith. <br />
<br />
Paul then goes on to explain that in order to call on him they have to first believe, and in order to believe they must hear, and in order to hear one must preach, and in order to preach, one must be sent. And so Paul emphasizes the need for the sending of preachers who preach the gospel of salvation by faith because <b>"faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."</b><br />
<br />
In verse 18 Paul turns his direct attention back to the Jews. In anticipation that someone might object to his argument thus far, Paul decides to cut off the possible objection before it starts. Paul anticipates someone saying that perhaps he is wrong and the Jews ARE the special people of God and they just aren't saved because they have not heard the gospel. So in anticipation of this argument Paul says, <strong>"But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” </strong>In other words, they <em>have </em>heard that gospel and they have rejected it, so we can't blame their rejection of God on ignorance of the gospel.<br />
<br />
He then anticipates another objection. He thinks that someone will say, "OK Paul, perhaps they have heard the gospel, but maybe they aren't saved simply because they have not understood it. So perhaps they ARE still the people of God and just aren't saved yet because they don't understand the gospel." <br />
<br />
He responds to this objection in verse 19 saying, "<strong>But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” </strong>And so, for Paul, the Jews have both heard and have understood the message. The fault for their lost state lies right at their own feet. <br />
<b><br /></b>
So the next question that Paul is anticipating is, "OK Paul, if they have heard the gospel and they understand the gospel, then why are they not saved?" Paul answers this by quoting Isaiah, <b>"But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”</b><br />
<br />
Paul declares, Israel has heard the gospel. Israel has understood the gospel. Israel's problem is that they are a <b>"disobedient and contrary people"</b> who were <b>"ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness." </b><br />
<br />
So in chapter 9 Paul says, 'don't think that everyone descended from Abraham is a son of Abraham. Instead, think of the sons of Abraham (the children of promise) as those Jews and Gentiles who exercise faith in the work of Jesus the Messiah.' And in chapter 10 he says that the reason the physical descendants of Abraham are not the people of God is because they refuse to submit to God's righteousness by faith." And that is why the physical Israelites are not the people of God. <br />
<br />
With all of this talk about ethnic Israel not being the real people of Israel, Paul now anticipates another question from his readers. He knows that someone is going to ask, "does this mean that God has rejected the Jewish people altogether so that now He only cares about the Gentiles?" And so in chapter 11, he picks up with this question in mind.<br />
<br />
<b>CHAPTER 11</b><br />
Paul begins chapter 11 saying, <b>"I ask, then, has God rejected his people? " </b><br />
<br />
It is important for us to re-orient our thinking at this point. When Paul asks the question, "has God rejected his people?" he is not asking "is there a future time when God will save all of Israel?" (Remember that Paul just spent chapters 9 and 10 showing that God only intended to save a remnant within Israel) Oftentimes we allow this question to throw off our trajectory and we end up misunderstanding what Paul is saying in the rest of the chapter. Often we read, "has God rejected his people?" in a future sense, even though Paul is speaking in the present tense. In other words, even though the question is, "has God <em>(presently)</em> rejected his people," what we end up hearing is "does God intend to save ethnic Israel at a <em>future</em> date?" We have to fix this error. Paul is not asking the question in the future tense but in the present tense. In other words, Paul is asking, "has God turned to the Gentiles in such a way so that he has presently and completely given up on saving Jews?" <br />
<br />
And the answer is an emphatic <b>"by no means!" </b>Paul forcefully declares that God would NEVER stop saving the Jews. What is Paul's proof that God has not given up on saving Jews? He continues, <strong>"For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin." </strong>Paul's answer to the question and his proof of the answer, himself, is one reason that we know that Paul's question is not in reference to the future. It simply has nothing to do with what God will or won't do in regards to Israel, but it is a question of the present day. Has God rejected the Jews presently? "By no means!" Is God so angry at the Jews that He has completely cut them off only to have the gospel preached to the Gentiles? By no means! Paul forcefully says that God has not cut off Israel but is now and will forever continue saving them. Of course it may seem like God has quit on the Jews. After all, Paul is the one who said, <strong>"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles." </strong>(Acts 13:46) But Paul wants his readers to know that just because he has turned from the Jews, and just because he has been making an argument against them and their unbelief, that God has not, and never will, stop saving Jews. <span class="p"><br /></span><br />
<br />
Again notice that if Paul thought that ethnic Jews were going to turn to God at some future date, he would have not pointed to his own salvation as evidence that God had not rejected the Jews. Instead, he would have pointed forward and said, "God has not rejected his people because he's going to save the whole nation of them before he returns in glory." But Paul doesn't point his readers to the future, in fact, if he had, he would have just invalidated the last two chapters that he had written. He spent chapter 9 and 10 showing that God never intended to save all the nation of Israel because he had always intended that <b>"only a remnant of them shall be saved" </b>and the reason is because<b> "not all those descended from Abraham are sons of Abraham." </b>Therefore, when he wants to show that God has not completely abandoned the Jewish people, he does not point to some future influx of Israel into God's kingdom, but he points at himself in the present to show that God will never stop saving Jews. And therefore we can be certain that, "<strong>God has not rejected</strong><em> (in this present age)</em><strong> his people whom he foreknew." </strong>If you need proof, just look at Paul himself.<br />
<br />
Paul knows that his readers are thinking that this is not enough evidence. After all, Paul is just one man out of a whole nation, and one man doesn't prove that the whole nation is abandoned. The argument that Paul is expecting is this, "It sounds like you have been saying (in chapter 9) that God has rejected them, and you are only one man, and one man is not proof enough." The first century believers mistakenly believed that in order for God to be faithful to the Jews that God would have to save a great majority. yea, even the entire nation of them (strangely we have the same misunderstanding today). So in their mind, when Paul points to himself as proof of God's faithfulness, it is not enough to prove to them that God has not completely rejected the Jews. So Paul points them back to Elijah, "<b>Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”</b><br />
<br />
This is significant. Paul wants them to know that God, has always kept, and still keeps a remnant within ethnic Israel that are his people even if they can't be seen. Paul wants his readers to see that it has ALWAYS been this way. God has never saved all, or even a majority of the physical descendants of Abraham, but He has always been faithful to save a remnant of them in every age. And if God is always faithful to save a remnant of them in every age, and he's saving a remnant of them still today, then we have proof positive that God has not rejected his people. But Paul is expecting a retort from his readers, "Sure Paul, we can buy into that argument. We can agree that there was a remnant in Elijah's day, but what about now, are you saying that there is a remnant still around today?" And so he continues the argument.<br />
<br />
<b>"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. </b><br />
<br />
So Paul unmistakably declares that there is a remnant even now (at the time he wrote) and it has NOTHING to do with the fact that they are descended from Abraham. He does not say, "at the present time there is a remnant, chosen because of relation to Abraham", instead he says, "chosen by grace." It has everything to do with grace, not DNA.<br />
<br />
So now Paul anticipates a new question, "OK Paul, if God is only going to save a remnant of Jews, what about the rest of the Jews?" And he answers in verse 7, <b>"What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect (remnant) obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> “God gave them a spirit of stupor, </b><br />
<b> eyes that would not see </b><br />
<b> and ears that would not hear, </b><br />
<b> down to this very day.” </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> And David says, </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> “Let their table become a snare and a trap, </b><br />
<b> a stumbling block and a retribution for them; </b><br />
<b> let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, </b><br />
<b> and bend their backs forever.” </b><br />
<br />
Notice again that Paul says that God is faithful to his people by saving a remnant of them, but the rest of them were hardened. Note well the end of verse 10, God darkens their eyes "forever." Paul does not see a national turning of Israel to God at the end of the age. He does not quote a text from the Old Testament that says, "let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see and bend their backs until right before the very end, and then right before the end, let their eyes be opened so that the whole nation can see." Instead, the Scripture is clear, this rejection of Israel and the saving of the remnant within Israel is a condition that persists up to the very end, "<b> let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, </b><b>and bend their backs forever.” </b><br />
<br />
What Paul is arguing up to this point is the question, "has God turned away from the Jews completely only to focus solely on Gentiles?" and Paul's answer is "by no means." God will never stop saving Jews. I am a Jew that God has saved, and there is a whole remnant of Jews that God has saved, and will continue saving, and He will continue to save Jews right up to the very end of time.<br />
<br />
In verse 11, Paul wants to drive his point home and so he asks the exact same question in another way, he says, <b>"So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall?"</b><br />
In other words, "again I ask, has Israel been so unfaithful that God has totally turned away from them and just doesn't care about saving them at all anymore?" This is the exact same question that Paul asked in verse 1. Therefore, Paul's answer is exactly the same, <b>"by no means." </b><br />
<br />
Their rejection of the Messiah (the stumbling block) certainly had caused the Jews to stumble, but not in such a way that God had washed his hands of them and was done with saving Jews. Paul is saying that although they had stumbled over the stumbling block they had not completely fallen.<br />
<br />
Paul hears his audience saying, "Please explain this Paul. How can you say that they have rejected the Messiah and rejected the preaching of the gospel, and God has "<strong>let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bent their backs forever" </strong>and yet you say that they have not completely fallen?"<br />
<br />
Paul goes on to show that their rejection of the Messiah and of the gospel was actually planned by God so that salvation could be preached to the Gentiles. Then, Paul argues, that the salvation of the Gentiles was God's plan to save Jews. He says that as Gentiles come to faith and become adopted into all the blessings of Abraham, some Jews will become jealous and they themselves will return to the Messiah. Note closely as we continue, that Paul is not saying that "all Israel" will turn to the Messiah. He's making the case that <i>some</i> Gentiles will come to Christ and receive the inheritance promised to Abraham, and <i>some</i> Jews will become jealous and return to the Messiah. The fact that Paul is not speaking of all the nation of Israel will become apparent as we continue. But for now, Paul's point is to show a cyclical relationship. 1. Jews reject the Messiah and are cut off from God. 2. As a result Gentiles have the gospel preached to them, and they hear the gospel and are reconciled to God. 3. As a result the Jews (some) become jealous and return to God, because God has not cut them off completely, they have stumbled, but not fallen. God is still saving them by means of jealousy. <br />
<br />
And so in verse 11 he says, <b>"through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous." </b>1. Rejection 2. salvation for gentiles 3. Jews become jealous and return<br />
<b><br /></b>
He then continues in verse 12 "<b>Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"</b><br />
<br />
Now, because many Christians are conditioned to think that there is a secret date in the future when God will bring the nation of Israel back to himself, the term "full inclusion" is often understood as meaning, "full number of Jews" or "the entire nation of Israel." But the term full inclusion cannot be shown to have such a meaning. When Paul is speaking of the "full inclusion" of Jews he is speaking of the full number of the remnant that God has decided to save. Or to put it in the language that Paul used in verse 7, the fullness of "the elect." If we've been paying attention through chapters 9 and 10 we know that <strong>“Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved." </strong><br />
<br />
Another reason that we know that "full inclusion" does not mean the whole nation of Israel is because Paul uses the Greek word "pleroma" which means "the full number that belongs." If we try to say that "pleroma" means the full number of all the nation, we end up with problem farther down in Paul's argument. In verse 25 Paul uses the word "pleroma" again, except this time he uses it in reference to the Gentiles. So if "pleroma" means "all Israelites" in verse 12, then we have to confess that it should also mean "all Gentiles" in verse 25. This sort of interpretation would fit with the Postmillenial view but it simply does not fit within the context of the entire chapter. Clearly the term "pleroma" refers to the full number of elect in each group. One day, the fullness of the Gentiles and the fullness of the Jews will be saved, and on that day, all Israel (Jews and Gentiles) will be saved and God's promise to save "all the offspring of Abraham" will be fulfilled. What Paul sees is not a national turning of Israel to God, but he sees a continual saving of the remnant of Jews until the very end. <br />
<b><br /></b>
This is why Paul immediately follows this statement with <b>"Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save<i> some of them.</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Notice that Paul doesn't think that the preaching of the gospel and the salvation of the Gentiles is going to make the Jews jealous and thus one day lead to the salvation of <em>all</em> of them, but he says, <b>"some of them."</b> And in the following verses he begins to make the exact same point all over again, namely that the stumbling of Israel is all part of God's plan. He is hammering home the idea that the trespass of the Jews made salvation accessible for the Gentiles and the salvation of the Gentiles will make the Jews jealous and thus they(some of them) will come to salvation. And so he continues, <b>"For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? </b><br />
<strong></strong><br />
Most Bible interpreters recognize that when Paul says that the Jews' rejection of Jesus results in <strong>"the reconciliation the world"</strong> that he isn't speaking of the whole world, and yet these same interpreters will turn right around and suggest that when Paul speaks of the salvation of Israel, that Paul means "all of Israel." There is a lack of consistency here on the part of many interpreters. We cannot suggest Paul has contradicted himself. Up to this point he has made it clear that, not all Israel is Israel, only a remnant will be saved, and he hopes to stir them up to jealousy in order to "save some." If we turn back at this point and suggest that Paul is crafting an argument for the salvation of all of Israel, we have to explain this contradiction in Paul's writing. Suffice it to say that what Paul has been saying up to this point is that Israel has rejected God but God has not rejected Israel, or better said, He has not <em>wholly</em> abandoned them for the Gentiles. He will continue to save his remnant, never abandoning them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Paul then makes an argument as to why God would never cut them off completely even after having stumbled over the stumbling stone. Why won't God let them wholly fall? Because, <b>"If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches." </b>Here Paul makes it clear that the Jews are God's people. He respects them simply because of the forefathers whom he had chosen. God is faithful to a thousand generations, never turning away from them so as to reject them completely. Paul is saying that God would never turn his back on Israel so as to forget about them and go to solely to the Gentiles, and he does this simply for the sake of the forefathers. Again, we must be careful here, we would be mistaken if we understand Paul to be saying that God will one day in the future save all the ethnic nation of Israel. Paul is making the argument that they are precious in God's sight but he has not made the argument that God is going to save the nation sometime in the future. <br />
<br />
Paul has pointed us to the fact that because the root of Israel (the Forefathers) is holy, so God will never consider the Jews to be unworthy of salvation, simply for the sake of the "holy root." Often times, we read, "if the root is holy so are the branches" but Paul does not use the term "holy" in reference to salvation. In fact, in the very next verse he goes on to say that most of these "holy branches" in his day will not be saved. <br />
<br />
He says, <b>"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."</b><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV5gem_BdynyXtvj81aNzBn4VQ76zMpWBeXQ6xkUjo564A5yXQkARA_jvm3dokroTMUea_5oW9M78cgfKfNxKLiQn4GLbjqCD_WBB-o7MhL3KxMLJIjepwCxANBAtGaWhnjG6Yz766QI0/s1600/faith.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV5gem_BdynyXtvj81aNzBn4VQ76zMpWBeXQ6xkUjo564A5yXQkARA_jvm3dokroTMUea_5oW9M78cgfKfNxKLiQn4GLbjqCD_WBB-o7MhL3KxMLJIjepwCxANBAtGaWhnjG6Yz766QI0/s1600/faith.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
Again notice Paul's focus on the present tense. He is speaking to the Jews and Gentiles in his day. The Jews were cut off from God in his day, the Gentiles were grafted into the tree in his day. He has not yet attempted an argument which speaks of the future. His argument is not about how many Jews will be saved and he is not addressing what God plans to do with the Jews. It is quite the opposite in fact. Paul has placed both Jews and Gentiles on the exact same playing field and his point here seems clear. He tells the Gentiles, "don't get puffed up in pride" for God broke off the natural branches, but only because of unbelief, and grafted you in, but only because of belief. It has nothing to do with Jews being a different class in God's sight, and it has nothing to do with Gentiles being better than Jews, it has nothing to do with blood at all, it only has to do with faith. Paul's whole point in this paragraph actually works against the idea that God has a special plan to save the Jews in the future. He has, in very clear language, said that Jew means nothing and Gentile means nothing. Faith is the ultimate deciding factor. Paul's emphasis is the worthlessness of ancestry and the value of faith. <br />
<br />
As Paul finishes up the above point, he says something very interesting in verse 23. He says,<b> "And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again."</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
It may be helpful to us if we look at what Paul did <em>not</em> say. Notice that Paul did not say "and even they, they <b>will</b> not continue in unbelief, but God <b>will </b>graft them in again." Paul says, "<em><strong>if</strong> </em>they do not continue in unbelief" not "<em><strong>when</strong> </em>they turn from unbelief" and he says, "God <strong><em>is able</em></strong> to graft them in again" not "God <strong><em>will</em></strong> graft them in again one day." In other words, Paul doesn't know if there will come a day when they will nationally repent of their unbelief. This verse alone proves that Paul is not speaking of the future and seeking to show that Israel will be saved one day. <br />
<br />
It is interesting that so many Christians point to the eleventh chapter of Romans and say that Paul is teaching about the salvation of the Jewish nation in the future. If he were teaching such a thing, he would have said, "the day <em><strong>will come</strong></em> when they will not continue in unbelief and God<em> <strong>will</strong></em> graft them in again" but Paul has no idea whether this will happen or not, and so he says, "<em>if</em> they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again." And the only reason that Paul speaks of grafting in and being cut off in such detail is because his intention to emphasize the fact that ALL of this is an issue of FAITH and has nothing to do with bloodlines. Paul's point in these verses could not be more clear. You are grafted in because of faith, not because you are a Gentile. Likewise, Israel was removed because of a lack of faith, not because they were Jews. Hence, Paul's whole point is, "If you don't continue in faith, you too will be removed, and if they don't continue in unbelief, they too will be grafted back in." That is all that Paul is saying here. He is not saying anything about whether or not the nation of Israel will repent on a national scale someday. The fact that he uses the phrase "if they do not continue in unbelief" shows that Paul doesn't know what the future holds in terms of the percentage of the Jewish nation who will believe and if Paul is uncertain, we too should be uncertain. Only the most masterful Scriptural contortionist that can extrapolate certainty regarding the future salvation of Israel from a text where Paul confesses his uncertainty. We do injustice to the text in Romans 11 if we take Paul's argument about the high value of faith and the worthless nature ancestry and we make it an argument about the high value of ancestry. <br />
<br />
Paul ends this section by saying, <b>"For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree."</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
In other words, you as Gentiles have absolutely no reason to be puffed up with pride. God can graft a Jew into Christ a lot easier than he can graft a Gentile into Christ, so don't think that you're better than the Jews. Many understand Paul's words, "the natural branches" to refer to "all" of Israel, but this is to force meaning into Paul's text. Paul simply states that God has taken the Gentiles and grafted them into the olive tree and Paul states that the natural branches will be grafted back in much easier. We have no reason to believe that Paul thinks that the day will come when "all Gentile branches have been grafted in" and similarly, we have no reason to believe that Paul thinks that "all Jewish branches will be re-grafted one day." Nowhere does he say that they all will be grafted in. His point is that it is easier for a Jew to be grafted into the Messiah than it is for a Gentile. This is a statement of degree of ease, not a statement of degree of number. The problem with modern interpretation is that we read it as if it were a statement of degree of number. This is simply not the case, Paul is saying that it is easier for God to graft a Jew into the Messiah than it is to graft a Gentile. We cannot assume that Paul thinks that the day will come when "all Jews" will be grafted back in, especially in light of verse 23 which came right before where Paul states his uncertainty regarding the matter. <br />
<b><br /></b>
Paul then says,<b> " Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved"</b><br />
<strong></strong><br />
Here again, Paul does not want the Gentiles to think that the reason that they have accepted the gospel is because they are wiser than the Israelites, or better than the Israelites. Remember that Paul's just finished arguing for the useless nature of ancestry versus the high value of faith. So he wants the Gentiles to know that the reason that the Jews have reject the Messiah is because God has caused a partial hardening so that the gospel would go forth to the Gentiles. It has nothing to do with one people group begin better than another people group, but it is all God's work of grace. And so Paul concludes the answer to the original question, "if God promised to save 'll the offspring of Abraham' why are there so many unsaved Israelites?" Paul's final answer, after having explained that Israel does not mean physical offspring of Abraham but instead refers to the spiritual offspring of Abraham (Jews and Gentiles alike) he concludes that when all (pleroma) Gentiles come in all Israel will be saved.<br />
<br />
The phrase,<strong> "all Israel will be saved" </strong>has led many to conclude that Paul knew that there would come the day when "all Israel will be saved." However, to think that this is what Paul means would contradict all that Paul has said up to this point. To understand, "all Israel" as pertaining to national ethnic Israel runs in contradiction to both the immediate context of the very verse, the broader context of Romans 9-11, and even the broader context of Paul's teaching throughout all his epitsles.<br />
<br />
<strong>BROAD CONTEXT OF PAUL'S EPISTLES</strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqmHAaPYObatkSJuiKpc2kBXB8ciXG1o7I_YLo0WDzebmocsmPz7e2sf28PA796R1ecZcvCFjqLQ_wZsPEoCh87xoWT0oaHjSenUm4kKrU2DOR45wlJhMMAs0KlUgBisQ3_SIP1qFrrRY/s1600/one+new+man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqmHAaPYObatkSJuiKpc2kBXB8ciXG1o7I_YLo0WDzebmocsmPz7e2sf28PA796R1ecZcvCFjqLQ_wZsPEoCh87xoWT0oaHjSenUm4kKrU2DOR45wlJhMMAs0KlUgBisQ3_SIP1qFrrRY/s1600/one+new+man.jpg" height="160" width="320" /></a></div>
The idea that the name "Israel" no longer describes the Jewish nation is a consistent theme throughout all of Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jews and Gentiles of faith are the new Israel and the true descendants of Abraham. For example, in Galatians 3 Paul states, <strong>"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham."</strong> and again, <strong>"there is neither Jew nor Greek... for if you are Christ’s, then <em>you</em> are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise." </strong>And again in Ephesians 2 he says,<strong> "For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into <em>one </em>people" </strong>and again,<strong> "by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself<em> one new man</em> in place of the two." </strong>Clearly, Paul does not see a difference between Israel and non-Israel. He sees only one people of God, and one Israel saying that God created <strong>"one new man in the place of two." </strong>Also, in 1 Corinthians 12 he says, <strong>"we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks"</strong> Thus, clearly, we see that Paul's general understanding of the true sons of Abraham are not the blood descendants but are <strong>"those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." </strong>Paul completely redefines what "descendant of Abraham" means and declares that ethnic Israel is no longer the "heirs according to the promise." The heirs according to the promise, say Paul, is a mix of the remnant of the Jews and the number of the Gentiles that come to faith. So we cannot hear the phrase, "all Israel will be saved" and use a different definition for Israel that Paul himself uses. <br />
<br />
<strong>NEARER CONTEXT OF ROMANS 9-11</strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Remember that Paul has already redefined Israel for us back in chapter nine telling us that Israel is not the ethnic bloodline of Abraham, but is a spiritual bloodline of Abraham (Jews and Gentiles of faith) saying, <strong>"not all Israel is Israel, not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants." </strong>Then again in chapter 10 he repeats himself saying, <strong>"there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" </strong>because it's not about physical bloodlines, it's about faith. So again, Paul's definition of Israel is not the ethnic descendant of Abraham but the spiritual descendants of faith. To say that "Israel" means the physical descendants of Abraham is to overturn all that Paul has taught thus far. <br />
<br />
<strong>IMMEDIATE CONTEXT</strong><br />
The immediate context of the verse shows that Paul is not speaking of a future day when Israel will be saved. When Paul says, "<strong>a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved" </strong>our natural tendency is to hear Paul say, "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, <em><strong>and after this</strong></em> all Israel will be saved." But Paul is not speaking in the future tense. He is speaking in the present tense. If he were speaking in the future tense he would have said, "<strong><em>and after this</em></strong>, all Israel will be saved" but instead he is speaking about <strong><em>how</em></strong> all Israel will be saved not <em>when</em>. He says, "in this way" all Israel will be saved. The question then to ask is, "in what way?" In what way will Israel be saved? Paul says that when "the fullness of the gentiles comes in" all Israel will <em>have been</em> saved. Remember that in Paul's thinking, Gentiles of faith ARE Israel. This goes right back to the original question. In fact, this is Paul's final answer to the first question asked. <br />
<br />
Remember that the question is "has the word of God failed?" It certainly had looked like the word of God failed. After all, God had said, "In the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span><strong> <em>all</em></strong> the offspring of Israel <span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-45-25">shall” be saved. </span></span><br />
<br />
So Paul has been tasked with showing that God's promise to save all of Israel has not failed. <br />
He begins by saying that the promise to save the "all the offspring of Israel" was not made to the physical Israelites, for "Not all Israel is Israel." <br />
<br />
He then says that Israel is really a mix of Jews and Gentiles who have faith in Christ saying, " As indeed he says in Hosea<strong>,“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’</strong><br />
<strong>and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’"</strong> for this reason, Paul continues saying, <strong>"there is now no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him."</strong> <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5Sd3enEfs2zV-PGLORNZ70O4hRZJhuRcNSfZ5Ry0M_ZHDNHcOVxRraB88UA2ymM9Nb6WrvbWkKrRFb-uwbF2mDsiYbQxdBuAYjXQTKnWzH7WPev6v2Q_8u6ciXGcLkyiR8phqd7oe2Yc/s1600/one+new+man+diagram.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5Sd3enEfs2zV-PGLORNZ70O4hRZJhuRcNSfZ5Ry0M_ZHDNHcOVxRraB88UA2ymM9Nb6WrvbWkKrRFb-uwbF2mDsiYbQxdBuAYjXQTKnWzH7WPev6v2Q_8u6ciXGcLkyiR8phqd7oe2Yc/s1600/one+new+man+diagram.jpg" height="197" width="320" /></a></div>
So we clearly see Paul's line of reasoning. God has said, "all the offspring of Israel will be saved" and yet not all of the offspring of Israel is saved, so Paul defends God's word, saying "you don't understand what the phrase "offspring of Israel means" and so he continues showing that God was referring to his spiritual Israel and not the physical offspring. So, when the fullness of all the Gentiles comes in, then "<strong><em>In this way</em></strong>, all Israel will be saved" Again, it is an explanation of <em>"how"</em> they will be saved, not <em>"when." </em>And yet, every time someone gets to the phrase "and <strong>in this way</strong> all Israel will be saved" they force the words "<em><strong>after this</strong></em> all Israel will be saved" into the Scripture. But we must face the fact that Paul did not say, "after this" he said, "in this way." In other words, Paul says that Gentiles are a part of Israel and once the fullness (pleroma) of Gentiles comes in, then God will have saved all Israel. To suggest that Paul recognized a difference between Gentiles and Israel is to bring in a foreign understanding into the text. Clearly Paul is not speaking of two people groups and "when" ethnic Israel will be saved, but he is speaking of Jews and Gentiles as one people group whom he calls Israel. This is in keeping with Paul's writings throughout all his epistles. He is not speaking of "when" but "how" all Israel will be saved, and when the very last Gentile believer comes to faith, then we can rest assured that all Israel <em>has been</em> saved. God's promise to save all the offspring of Israel has not failed. <br />
<br />
If I could put Paul's argument in common American English, he is saying "You are correct. God did promise to save <strong>'all the offspring of Israel'</strong> and he's going to keep that promise, therefore His word has not failed, but you have to understand that the offspring of Israel is not the number of Abraham's physical offspring but is the complete number of Jews and Gentiles of faith and so when the full number of the Gentiles comes in, then you can be assured that<strong> "in this way, all Israel will [have been] saved." </strong><br />
<br />
Paul then continues, <strong>"as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” </strong>Here he quotes Isaiah Isaiah 59:20. To understand this fully, let's look at the exact text. <br />
<br />
<strong>“And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression,” declares the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>. “And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,” says the <span class="small-caps">Lord</span>, “from this time forth and forevermore.”</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
If you pay close attention to what God promised Isaiah, he promised that a Redeemer will come to "those in Jacob who turn from transgression." Note well that the promise is not to all those in Jacob as a whole, but it is made to a remnant within Jacob that will "turn from transgression." He goes on to promise the remnant that the word of promise will not depart from the mouth of the offspring, "from this time and forever more." Again, notice the present tense of what Paul (Isaiah) is saying. "From this time forevermore" salvation will come to you and your offspring. We have already seen that the promise is only to "those in Jacob who turn from transgression" and we have also seen that Paul has been trying to prove that the term "offspring" does not refer to ethnic Israel but instead refers to those of faith. So the promise of salvation is to those who "turn from transgression."<br />
<br />
Some may suggest that there still remains a turning of Israel to the Lord because never in history has there been a fulfillment of the promise to "your children and your children's children." It therefore seems logical to look forward to a golden age of the gospel when all Israel will turn to God and even the children, grandchildren, and proceeding generations turn to God as well. However, Peter seems to think that this golden age began in the first century. This is why we see Peter preaching the gospel to the Jews and saying, <strong>"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. <em>For the promise is for you and for your children </em>and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”</strong><br />
<br />
Now mark Peter's words, "the promise is for you and your children." Peter interprets Isaiah as if it is being fulfilled in his very day. Peter does not see it as something that will happen in the future. But this makes sense because Isaiah was not talking to Jacob as a whole but to "those in Jacob who turn from transgression" saying, "from this time forth and forever more." This is a present reality. So if the prophecy from Isaiah is true, and it is, and if Peter understands it correctly, and he does, then we should understand that God's promise is to save some Israelites from day one (Pentecost) and continue to save some until the last day. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJAnxzsSRB30jge6Tq_qexTlri5DQXC89g-KbXVKnZEqCZl4-3v5E7J0dsh1HIHSmEhbIAdV69ljFTXkiG6OTgaNzCAhqrZt2H9chFskS4UupBUpr0vbz8tLPVU0zxZYHGNEHvwFQlomw/s1600/now.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJAnxzsSRB30jge6Tq_qexTlri5DQXC89g-KbXVKnZEqCZl4-3v5E7J0dsh1HIHSmEhbIAdV69ljFTXkiG6OTgaNzCAhqrZt2H9chFskS4UupBUpr0vbz8tLPVU0zxZYHGNEHvwFQlomw/s1600/now.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
So we see that Paul's quoting of Isaiah fits right in line with what he has been arguing all along. Namely, that salvation will always be given to the Jews, a remnant of them, in every age, from now and forever. Hence, God has not rejected his people. The thrust of Paul's argument being in the present tense shows that he is not arguing that there is a future time when there will be a national turning of ethnic Israel, but that God has plans to keep a remnant in every age, just as He did throughout the Old Testament. This is why Paul has been speaking of<strong> "so too in the present time"</strong> as proof that God has not rejected his people, and the continual saving of the gentiles which makes some Jews jealous. This jealously which leads to salvation of the remnant in every age is proof that God has not rejected his people. And the fact that God will continue this pattern of saving Jews in every age is proof that God has never and will never reject his people. And when the fullness of the gentiles is added to the number of the remnant of the Jews, then God's promises stand and "all Israel will have been saved." <br />
<br />
And thus Paul concludes,<br />
<br />
<strong> "As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy."</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Paul acknowledges that they are enemies of the gospel, but he says, because of the forefathers, God will never completely abandon them. In fact, Paul says, He is saving them even now and He will continue saving them. We should understand Paul's conclusion as a present reality of salvation and not a future promise of redemption for Israel. If we try to impose a future salvation for Israel into Paul's argument, it just doesn't fit. <br />
Again, when Paul says that at one time the Gentiles were at one time disobedient but have now received mercy, we should not think that he is suggesting that all the Gentiles will receive mercy, nor should we think that there is golden age when almost all of the Gentiles will receive mercy at some point in the future. In fact, we see that Paul's argument continues to be in the present tense, he says that Gentiles have <em>now</em> received mercy. Paul is speaking of the salvation of both the Jews and the Gentiles in the present.<br />
<br />
When modern American readers of the Bible come to the phrase, "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" they automatically want to read this phrase as if Paul were suggesting a future act of God to save the nation. But to read it as a future promise of salvation is to rip the phrase out of its immediate context. Paul's evidence for the irrevocable nature of God's gifts and calling are not a promise of future salvation but instead that Israel "also <i>now </i>may receives mercy." It's tempting to read about the irrevocable gifts and calling of God in the future tense because, like Paul, we echo " I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart" for their salvation. I too <i>want</i> to imagine a day when a flood of souls come into the kingdom of God. Every Christian should want this. In fact, if anyone does not want this, he is most certainly not a Christian. But this is one of the great hurdles of Bible interpretation that must be overcome. We have to be able to separate what we <i>want</i> the Bible to say with what the Bible actually says. Look closely at the text at hand. When Paul says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable; is he seeking to prove it by pointing us to a future day of national salvation? Or, is he seeking to prove it by pointing us to the present day? If we're honest we have to admit that Paul is simply saying that, even though God has hardened them, and even though they are, even <b>now</b>, enemies of the gospel, God is, even <b>now</b>, continuing to show them grace, and even <b>now</b>, they are receiving mercy.<br />
<br />
Gentiles used to not be God's people, but God has shown them mercy. The Jews used to be God's people but now they are not God's people and they too are in need of mercy. Both groups live in alienation from the olive tree. Both groups are in need of mercy. Both groups are <i>now </i>receiving mercy.<br />
<br />
It is a strange construct that we put onto Paul's words in chapter 11 when we seek to prove that Paul is arguing that a future salvation of Israel as proof of God's faithfulness. Paul clearly is arguing for a present salvation as proof of his faithfulness to those who are "beloved for the sake of the forefathers." This is in keeping with the text of Isaiah that Paul had quoted earlier saying that salvation for Israel will be "<strong>from this time forth and forevermore</strong> " When did, "this time" begin? It began in the first century. Paul is clearly speaking of the present reality of God's love for Israel.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
If we read through chapter 11 we will see that Paul's entire argument is based in the present day. He is simply not making any claims about the future. As I noted earlier, Paul's only mention of the future is based on the conditional repentance of Israel saying "<span class="selected" original-title=""><em><b>if</b></em> they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted in." And again, instead of saying that God, "<b><i>will</i></b> graft them in again" he says, "God is able to graft them in again" if he so chooses. Paul is not claiming anything as certain in regards to the future of Israel. When we argue that Paul is speaking of a future salvation for Israel, we are placing words in Paul's mouth that are just not there. It simply does not fit with what Paul has written. Instead, his entire argument has been centered around God's continual love for the Jews as evidenced by the current and continual salvation of the remnant of Jews. So in his conclusion, Paul's reference to them is <strong>"they also may <em>now</em> receive mercy."</strong> </span></div>
<span class="selected" original-title=""></span><br />
<span class="selected" original-title="">Thus, the question of whether God has abandoned Israel or not, is proven, not in the future but in the present. So he concludes, </span><br />
<span class="selected" original-title=""></span><br />
<span class="selected" original-title=""><strong>"For God <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28226AK" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28226AK" title="See cross-reference AK">AK</a>)"></sup>has consigned all to disobedience, </strong>(present age)<strong> that he may have mercy on all</strong>.(present age)<br />
<br />
Paul is in awe of the fact that God took the natural branches and cut them off thus making them equal to all the other "wild branches" and thus setting all mankind on equal footing. Now, no one has an advantage over another. Those who were once the people of God are no longer the people of God and those who were once <em>not</em> a people of God can now be called the people of God. The wild branches were separated from the root since birth, the natural branches had an advantage because they were connected to the root from birth. But now being an Israelite by blood is of no advantage. Now they have been cut off and are in the same boat as the Gentiles. God has consigned all to disobedience, both Jews and Gentiles alike and the only hope of the Jew is the same as the hope of the Gentile, <b>"that God would have mercy."</b> And so Paul appropriately ends by saying, <br />
<strong></strong><br />
<span class="text Rom-11-33" id="en-ESV-28227"><strong><sup class="versenum"> </sup>Oh, the depth of the riches and <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28227AL" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28227AL" title="See cross-reference AL">AL</a>)"></sup>wisdom and knowledge of God! <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28227AM" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28227AM" title="See cross-reference AM">AM</a>)"></sup>How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!</strong></span><strong><span class="text Rom-11-34" id="en-ESV-28228"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>“For <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28228AN" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28228AN" title="See cross-reference AN">AN</a>)"></sup>who has known the mind of the Lord,</span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Rom-11-34">or <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28228AO" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28228AO" title="See cross-reference AO">AO</a>)"></sup>who has been his counselor?”</span></span><span class="text Rom-11-35" id="en-ESV-28229">“Or <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28229AP" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28229AP" title="See cross-reference AP">AP</a>)"></sup>who has given a gift to him </span><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Rom-11-35">that he might be repaid? </span></span></strong><span class="text Rom-11-36" id="en-ESV-28230"><strong>For <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28230AQ" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28230AQ" title="See cross-reference AQ">AQ</a>)"></sup>from him and through him and to him are all things. <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-28230AR" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-28230AR" title="See cross-reference AR">AR</a>)"></sup>To him be glory forever. Amen.</strong></span></span><br />
<span class="selected" original-title=""></span><br />
<div>
So, in Paul's estimation, salvation is all about grace, not ethnicity. It's all about mercy, not ethnicity. It's all about faith, and not ethnicity. This is clearly Paul's point. But he has been making this point while answering the question, "how then could God have promised to save "all the offspring of Israel and yet Israel at large remains in unbelief?" If Israel refers to Jews and Gentiles of faith, then God's promise makes sense and it stands as true and trustworthy. But, if the promise to save all the offspring of Israel refers to ethnic Israel, then God's word has failed. So if we read Isaiah 45:45 in a wooden and overly-literal way claiming that "Israel only refers to the physical offspring of Abraham," then we make the same mistake our first century brothers did, and we have to call into question God's truthfulness. But, if we define "Israel" the way that Paul shows us, in Romans 9-11, that it is those of faith who are the children of Abraham, then we see that God's word is true. <br />
<br />
So does God promise to save the physical nation of Israel? Not in Romans 9-11 he doesn't. So if anyone wants to make a case that God will save all physical Israel, they will have to look elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-75064697568564273422014-08-19T09:44:00.002-07:002016-10-24T21:22:08.951-07:00Do you support Israel or Jesus? (Part 2 of 3)<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">WHO IS ISRAEL? </span></b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj99E2Y-VQcvETa8iQGLEpNHxZQV3zjLpB4cUzxv_xOylrlizUgbbRysCnHB9VCTNJnk0l16HqiJkjW6hbW9wzASJ5Jbu2R5o0z0jFXlW5bKXCi_5FYliChiiCLG6zApXmhgBRyZ4X2jzU/s1600/jesus+and+pharisees.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj99E2Y-VQcvETa8iQGLEpNHxZQV3zjLpB4cUzxv_xOylrlizUgbbRysCnHB9VCTNJnk0l16HqiJkjW6hbW9wzASJ5Jbu2R5o0z0jFXlW5bKXCi_5FYliChiiCLG6zApXmhgBRyZ4X2jzU/s1600/jesus+and+pharisees.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">In the first century, Israel was mostly
made up of Pharisees and Sadducees, who by the way did not get along very well.
The former was a group of religious anti-Christian extremists, the latter was
comprised mostly of liberal power brokers intent on making themselves richer. Today, Israel is mostly made up of
Orthodox Jews (think Pharisees) and Secular Humanists (think Sadducees, or as in the United States, Liberal democrats). Not much has changed since the first century. In the first century, both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were busy persecuting our brothers and sisters in Christ and now, they
continue to do the same. For the most part, Israel has not changed, they are
enemies of the gospel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>ISRAEL TODAY</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ6xDHZ3VQpH-wg8P9tJQLC7C0YuBcxsxQvS89IlaqRSWkZxEI7zJ6llxkI2ejn-VdQj94yI0JcWdyMsC7Th0ueNqR_5WNDmd3NL62VKCw89a7bPD-iUZlCz8fSeDKk9dAol0QMvpSAZU/s1600/Israeli-flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ6xDHZ3VQpH-wg8P9tJQLC7C0YuBcxsxQvS89IlaqRSWkZxEI7zJ6llxkI2ejn-VdQj94yI0JcWdyMsC7Th0ueNqR_5WNDmd3NL62VKCw89a7bPD-iUZlCz8fSeDKk9dAol0QMvpSAZU/s1600/Israeli-flag.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Imagine for a second if our president put
forth a bill that uses tax payer money to fully pay for all abortions for women
between the ages of 20 and 33. Imagine if our president passed a bill requiring that our nation recognize homosexual marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages (as long as the ceremony took
place elsewhere). Imagine if our nation passed a law making it illegal
for churches to hold Vacation Bible School, or to share the gospel with anyone
under 18 years of age. Would you give your money and moral support to that
president? There is a bit of hypocrisy in the Christian world. On one hand we
want to villainize our own president's war against Christian values but we give
unflinching support to Israel who wars against those same values. If we are to be consistently
on the side of Christ, then we should be on the side of the gospel. We should
give our support to our brothers and sisters in Christ who live in Israel and not to the Pharisees
and the Sadducees, who suppress and afflict Christians who live there.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Israel is just like the US. Israel is a
mix of Pharisees, Sadducees, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Catholics and
Agnostics. They are NOT a theocracy. They are NOT a people who live under the
covenant that God made with them. In fact, (and this is the key point) they could NOT live under that covenant even if they wanted to because it no longer exists. God has made the covenant with them obsolete and
has established a new covenant. This new covenant is not by the law but by
grace through faith. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><b>THE OLD COVENANT WITH ISRAEL</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Avmi0K91ehh7HiEFxsvYq6s3FkeG0YIS5-nrJK5O1q35-9jHB1b5fwrdZ4bxMIAW9l0uMJ69ReFtuKjiMF2KYBPrzHNvCb-DAeb02Q33ie_SBXJidzwgyZE9UCnmdkNfFI1yyXNRJOg/s1600/decalogue+hebrew.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Avmi0K91ehh7HiEFxsvYq6s3FkeG0YIS5-nrJK5O1q35-9jHB1b5fwrdZ4bxMIAW9l0uMJ69ReFtuKjiMF2KYBPrzHNvCb-DAeb02Q33ie_SBXJidzwgyZE9UCnmdkNfFI1yyXNRJOg/s1600/decalogue+hebrew.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">When God chose the Jewish people, he entered into a covenant with them. He established this covenant with laws and statutes that they were required to keep. For example, they were required to build a dwelling place for God and the Ark of the Covenant. They then had to sacrifice animals on the altar and offer grain offerings. They had to obey all of God's laws regarding how they dressed, what they ate, how they farmed the land, and literally hundreds of other requirements. The covenant God had entered into with them assured them that IF they kept all these commands, then God would be their God and they would be His people. God spoke to this to them saying, "IF you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples." (Exodus 19:5). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br />Those who are familiar with history know that they did not keep the covenant and were rejected by God. In fact, Jesus proclaims to them, "Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." So Jesus clearly recognizes that they have been abandoned by God and if they are to ever recover, they MUST accept Jesus as the Messiah, the only one who has kept the demands of the covenant perfectly. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><b>THE NEW COVENANT</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwZdnwFLJVVgHI9o4udFnUfUGIN7kovIWwWjnw9NnQdi6DhQTRpn2lpEBUsVPLtU_V7DyETxFgNAhbyVVrAj9TJ-jcKq8H_6rZssDcYSvIRSoFgJlUEMIABhTK_keF_J2LqVe_AhqcCrU/s1600/Cup-of-New-Covenant_Luke22.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwZdnwFLJVVgHI9o4udFnUfUGIN7kovIWwWjnw9NnQdi6DhQTRpn2lpEBUsVPLtU_V7DyETxFgNAhbyVVrAj9TJ-jcKq8H_6rZssDcYSvIRSoFgJlUEMIABhTK_keF_J2LqVe_AhqcCrU/s1600/Cup-of-New-Covenant_Luke22.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Since Jesus has fulfilled the demands of the Old Covenant, the Old Covenant is now removed, abolished, and fulfilled. Imagine for a moment that an athlete signs a one year contract with a team. He agrees to play in every game for one year in return for $10 million. However, if he does not play in every single game, he gets paid nothing. Now if the athlete plays in every game, he gets paid the $10 million and the contract is fulfilled. He can no longer make demands upon the team for more m</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">oney and the team can no longer make demands upon him to play in more games. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Likewise, when Jesus (who took Israel's place as the covenant keeper) met the demands of the covenant and received the reward of the covenant, the covenant was fulfilled. The people of the covenant are no longer able to make any claims on the covenant. All of the demands of the covenant, having been fulfilled, can no longer be in force. So the keeping of the law of sacrifices, burnt offerings, and all other commandments can no longer earn them the title "my treasured possession." Even if they were able to keep all of these laws (which they can't) God would still not make them his treasured possession because the Covenant has been abolished. The promises don't apply anymore. To put it in the language of the sports analogy, the year is over and every game has been played. If you want to earn more, you have to sign a new contract. Fortunately for both Jews and Gentiles, God has created a new contract. This time, it's not a contract just for the Jews, but he opened it up for all people groups. So in this way it is not like the old one. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The New Covenant is not like the old one in other ways as well. The New Covenant is not based upon a set of laws that the Jews must keep in order to be God's people. In other words, it is no longer, "if you keep these new laws, then you'll be my people." The New Covenant is a covenant of grace which is administered by God through faith in Jesus. So now instead of saying, "keep these laws and you will be my treasured possession" God says, "my son has kept the laws and HE is my treasured possession so trust in him." And so all who are in Jesus, are considered to be covenant keepers and can claim the promises of the new covenant. (The promises of the New Covenant are better promises than those of the Old Covenant too, but that's for a later discussion) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So the New Covenant is not one of laws, and Jews, and statues, and sacrifices, but it is one of faith. Not works, but faith. It is a covenant of faith in Jesus Christ as the only covenant keeper, as the only one who has peace with God. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWuU-QC9-H1PGCmwUBHPleJtNCUG5A4hflwLVW7t3ENU7mk61sYaFhc9S2B4ThAz8WNDMmOSL9eVL6mmK574WPU8pVnMWsorBJYolIkPgJrt4OVxFWlMFRHc5Y3dCiDXBZpKW3WVB5bE4/s1600/no+uturn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWuU-QC9-H1PGCmwUBHPleJtNCUG5A4hflwLVW7t3ENU7mk61sYaFhc9S2B4ThAz8WNDMmOSL9eVL6mmK574WPU8pVnMWsorBJYolIkPgJrt4OVxFWlMFRHc5Y3dCiDXBZpKW3WVB5bE4/s1600/no+uturn.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><b>NO GOING BACK</b></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Those who believe that Israel is still today God's chosen people fail to realize that there are only two ways that they can possibly again become God's "treasured possession."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">1. Keep all of the demands of the Old Covenant. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">2. Trust in the one who has fulfilled the Old Covenant, Jesus the Christ. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: medium;">If they choose the first they can never be God's treasured possession. If they choose the second, they have to admit that God has fulfilled the covenant he made with them and they must enter into God's favor by faith, just like everyone else. This means that only those Jews who exercise faith are God's treasured possession. Likewise, only those Gentiles who exercise faith are God's treasured possession. So treasured possession status is not an ethnic thing. Now, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. God's only treasured possession are those who have faith. Both Jew and Gentile are on equal footing and must come to God through the exact same door, Jesus Christ. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: medium;">If we are to believe that God intends to go back to an ethnic people group, the Jews, then we have to assert that treasured possession status is no longer by faith, but by faith plus ethnicity. However, that's not how God works. God does not favor one ethnicity over any other. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: medium;">The summation of the matter is this; God promised that the Jews would be his treasured possession IF they would keep the demands of the Old Covenant. They did not keep the demands of the Old Covenant. They thereby failed to be his treasured possession. The only way to regain that status as a special ethnicity is to go back and re-institute the Old Covenant. Re-instituting the Old Covenant would (for the Jew) render pointless all that Jesus has accomplished and there would be two doors for becoming God's treasured possession. Door one would be for the ethnic Jewish people who are God's treasured possession because they are obedient Jews and door two would be for the gentiles who trust in Jesus. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>CAN THEY BE BOTH?</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDTwUlcmAnbTQqZ_kpwvkO_Hy6pffRTH4kyCMz9xBChRE0GMDelSu8sgIR0IBzVADH0rDO8577Zu5oXUWj8MVRuOY8-sPyWv69izXPLxkbJx1pcILWdcTu9QruebmQFV7HZ7stXIeztgU/s1600/one+new+man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDTwUlcmAnbTQqZ_kpwvkO_Hy6pffRTH4kyCMz9xBChRE0GMDelSu8sgIR0IBzVADH0rDO8577Zu5oXUWj8MVRuOY8-sPyWv69izXPLxkbJx1pcILWdcTu9QruebmQFV7HZ7stXIeztgU/s1600/one+new+man.jpg" width="290" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;">Of course, some would still argue that the Jews still remain God's treasured possession and he intends to bring the whole nation of Israel to faith in Jesus. Thus, they would both be his treasured possession because they are Jews, AND he is going to bring them to faith in Jesus because they are Jews. This would uphold salvation by faith in Jesus and at the same time uphold the idea that the Jews are still God's special people. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: medium;">It is possible that a great majority of ethnic Jews will hear the gospel and come to faith in Jesus, but the question remains, will this happen simply because they are Jews? I don't think so. One of the major themes of the New Testament is that God does not show favor to one ethnicity over another but treats them all alike according to faith. So there is no room for God showing gospel favor to one ethnicity over another, even if that ethnicity is Jewish.<br /><br />Further, even if the Jews did come to faith in Christ, this faith does not give them rights to possess the land (again, that covenant has ended), for if being in Christ does grant a person right to possess the land, then I have just as much right to take land for myself in Israel. But being in Christ doesn't grant anyone possession of any physical land and that has to be true for both Jew and Gentile alike. If not, then we have to assume that the sacrifice of Christ earned extra wealth for the Jews that it did not earn for the Gentiles. This of course is heresy, and blasphemy. For God has made one new man out of the two, there is not partiality. There is no distinction, and further, the covenant that promised the land no longer exists. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>CONCLUSION</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">The church at large misses the above point however and they assume that God loves Christians and Jews and he's angry with gentile unbelievers. This is not the case at all. There are not three classes of people, Christian, Jew, and unbelieving Gentile but there are only two classes, believer and unbeliever. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglMZl2xKdFQtulzQUfAZqO8yFNmN5C1pbtlRFpiraNOKVvBdHMvFjZ6gFYy5oZWJ9BOWngGlX2mmAvEBUjA3YulYSCySsbRwODbEFbIBsMhpjJlo63PSNRTlQjQAQhpXvnXNBZKXgkc9U/s1600/christians-love-israel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglMZl2xKdFQtulzQUfAZqO8yFNmN5C1pbtlRFpiraNOKVvBdHMvFjZ6gFYy5oZWJ9BOWngGlX2mmAvEBUjA3YulYSCySsbRwODbEFbIBsMhpjJlo63PSNRTlQjQAQhpXvnXNBZKXgkc9U/s1600/christians-love-israel.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">American Christians NOT proclaiming the Gospel to Israel</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: medium;">The reason that I desire to correct this popular misconception is because when the church makes the mistake of thinking that God treasures Israel, the church fails to love them. Consider for example the fact that Christians around the world have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into Israel for the express purpose of supporting ethnic Jews and the state of Israel. Consider that there are Christian ministries, being supported by average Christians, that spend millions of dollars to help Jews move back to Israel. Millions of dollars are spent, thousands of hours of work, thousands of Christian laborers, all engaged in helping the Jews to <strike>hear the gospel of Jesus</strike> ...I mean to build for themselves an ethnic nation. Since Christians still believe the Jews to be God's people, they value the ethnic nation more than they do Jesus and His gospel. Some might argue that Christians don't value the nation over the gospel, but where you spend most of your money and your energy is absolute proof of what you value most. Sadly, Christians have come to value an ethnic bloodline more than they value the blood of Jesus Christ. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: medium;">Imagine for a moment if we didn't believe that the Jews held some special status in God's sight. Imagine if we thought that the Jews were going to end up in hell if they didn't hear and believe the gospel message of salvation through faith in Jesus. Imagine if we thought that they were just as helpless and as hopeless as every other ethnicity on the planet today. I think that if we believed that, we would stop using our money, ministers, energy, and resources to "help God" keep his promise to his people, and we would instead, spend all of our time and resources proclaiming the good news that God HAS kept his promises to them in the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and if they will repent of their sin and repent of their works righteousness and have faith in Jesus, they can become like the believing Gentiles, a true son of Abraham. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
*Next week, I will address one of the most misunderstood passages of Scripture which seemingly points to a future date when God will make a majority of the ethnic Jews come to faith in Jesus, Romans 9-11. Stay tuned. </div>
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2181137923635382192.post-89661134116292016162014-08-12T16:53:00.001-07:002014-08-12T16:53:04.075-07:00Robin Williams and the Broken PitcherSPECIAL POST<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjtEcxVH2nZw17-GkabnVTuJcCv9ykf4W3ld91J8YdL-y9q3z1BMoEax5OaYF3GrGNB_kuuLrOQnW0PmR49nvPqO8JZSq0bU3nrujD7e257T5BHb_5ZlWdsbzZkEiwA6EG3Z2-ygr1sRw/s1600/robin+williams.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjtEcxVH2nZw17-GkabnVTuJcCv9ykf4W3ld91J8YdL-y9q3z1BMoEax5OaYF3GrGNB_kuuLrOQnW0PmR49nvPqO8JZSq0bU3nrujD7e257T5BHb_5ZlWdsbzZkEiwA6EG3Z2-ygr1sRw/s1600/robin+williams.jpg" /></a></div>
A lot of people are talking about the suicide of Robin Williams. What has been glaringly absent from the discussion is Robin's worldview. Robin didn't have much use for the idea of God, other than a punch line for his jokes. During his battles with Cocaine and alcohol he said that the answer to life's problems was "mind over matter." He was a man who learned to cope with life by always being the comedian. Those who knew him said that he was "always in character." One of his closest friends, Jamie Masada, said. "I knew him 35 years, and I never knew him."<br />
<br />
Why did Robin choose to cope with life's trouble by being the clown? Why did he laugh and mock everything that he could? Why did he have more fame than most actors will ever achieve, more money than most will achieve and more depression than most will know? <br />
<br />
In Jeremiah 2:13, God says, "My people have committed two evils. First, they have forsaken me the fountain of living water, and second, they have made pitchers for themselves, broken pitchers that can hold no water." <br />
<br />
If only he would have seen that Jesus Christ is the fountain of living water and all other pursuits and possessions do not fulfill. They cannot. We were created BY Jesus Christ, FOR Jesus Christ. God has cursed this world and everything in it. Our bodies are cursed with sickness, disease, and pain, the creation is cursed with war between man and animal, man and man, man and weather. Weeds grow like... well, weeds while crops struggle to survive, and at the deepest point of the well of our hearts we remain cut off from the only source of water. If we pay attention we should clearly hear God telling us that something is wrong. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIYH0tzilRn6O7anEe9tH4CtPynZnnZBvyADifBp7sycX9i8URHgC6TnTzGVB8PwnkZH3Mu7Id14EbpnwjNJP05xU3iv9t0O12C32JynEJ4nKawB788jPFl58RgWvVaxW4pm__1QpCrt8/s1600/broken+pitcher.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIYH0tzilRn6O7anEe9tH4CtPynZnnZBvyADifBp7sycX9i8URHgC6TnTzGVB8PwnkZH3Mu7Id14EbpnwjNJP05xU3iv9t0O12C32JynEJ4nKawB788jPFl58RgWvVaxW4pm__1QpCrt8/s1600/broken+pitcher.jpg" /></a></div>
When God cursed our bodies, and the earth, and our relationships, he did us a favor. In doing so, he shouts to us, SOMETHING IS WRONG! But even with God shouting in our ears, we refuse to listen. We refuse to humble ourselves and confess that it is not just Adam's sin that is responsible for the chaos of this world, but our own. And so we go on, clapping our hands over our ears and telling ourselves that more money, or fame, or humor, or fun, or drugs, or alcohol will fix it all. Robin was blessed in that he was able to learn first hand that the oasis of money and fame was just a mirage. He knew that they were simply broken pitchers that can't quench the one who thirsts. Robin was also sinful and he never listened to the shouts of God that were constantly ringing in his ears telling him that something was, and is, wrong. He had everything that this world could offer and it was not enough, and so in the end, instead of humbling himself and going to drink from the fountain of Living Water, Jesus Christ, he took his own life. <br />
<br />Money couldn't fix him. Power couldn't fix him. Fame couldn't fix him. Drugs and alcohol couldn't fix him and he knew that. So where else do you go when you find that the world does not satisfy? You either live the rest of your life empty like the broken pitchers that you've been trying to drink from, or you turn to the fountain of life and live. Robin chose the former and couldn't bear being empty any longer. Robin William's death is sad and tragic, but it need not be pointless. We can learn from him. We can see his mistake and avoid it ourselves. We can humble ourselves and turn to the Fountain of Living Water, Jesus Christ. <br /><br />Let us learn from his mistake. Come to Jesus before it's too late. He is the only fountain of water, the only hope, and the one who will reverse all of the curses when he comes. So, look to him and find your hope in him. If you do so, he will show himself to you. <br />
Pastor Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12421322668429746416noreply@blogger.com0