A Powerful Lesson From ER

What About Israel?

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon
and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The Lord of hosts is His name):

If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the Lord, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever.”

If heaven above can be measured,
and the foundation of the
earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed
of Israel
for all that they have done,
says the Lord.

Jeremiah 31:33-37

These verses were given to Israel by the prophet Jeremiah shortly before the Chaldean's overthrew Jerusalem, capturing king Zedekiah and his sons, and utterly pillaging the city.

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that God has not forsaken His people Israel forever, but through all their judgment and scattering, they would still one day be brought back to their land.

Many Christian theologians over the past centuries have tried to teach a doctrine whereby God was finished with Israel forever and had instead replaced them with the Church. In doing so they have tried to make the prophecies towards Israel fit with the Kingdom of heaven and the Church age of today. No doubt this has been responsible for much of Christendom's anti-semitic attitude. Jews have been labeled Christ killers, and slurred with other horrific epithets.

God is saving for Himself a remnant of national Israel who will one day be fully restored to Him and thereby fulfill the prophecies of Jeremiah and others who have spoken of Israel's future to come. How then should we as Christians respond to the Jewish race? I believe they are in as much need of a Saviour today as we the gentiles are and therefore we must be willing to pray for them and preach the gospel of Christ to them. In the kingdom of heaven there is only one category of constituent; those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ and are walking in the robes of Christ's righteousness.

The Authority of Theologians

When it comes to the matter of authority, there are as many opinions as there are people. In fact in the world we live in, absolute authority is often despised and scorned. We have been led to believe that as the general public we have the ability to choose our leaders and decide what laws we will make and adhere to. But when we begin to discuss Biblical authority and the role of leadership in the Church we soon realize that God has given specific instructions on how we are to relate to Him and and His Body, the Church.

First of all let me emphasize clearly that when we use the word Church we are primarily referring to the spiritual union of God with His called out ones, who have been washed and cleansed by the blood of Jesus, and are now indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. All persons that have been born again by the living and abiding word of God are members of the body of Christ which is His bride. The basis for this membership is a spiritual union with Christ. That being said, there is obviously a physical and earthly aspect to the Church. When God's people gather together to worship, pray, and fellowship, we define this as the Church getting together. We do not “go to church”, “meet at a church”, or “join a church”. Rather we meet with the Church and as the Church. Our corporate gatherings are the gatherings of the Church.

What The Church Is Not

Contrary to much of our popular terminology today, the Church is not a building. Neither is it a denomination, nor an institutionalized collection of localities or assemblies. Christ has one body, and members worldwide belong to that one body, His Church. In this aspect the word catholic (universal) is accurate. The expression of Christ's body is that of the local Church, or local assembly of God's people.

Now the question I want to ask you is this. How does the Church today determine who has authority to define doctrine, practice, and teaching? Is there a basis for hierarchal authority in the Church outside of a locality? What are the limits of the elders authority?

The answer seems fairly clear from scripture. Elders (pastors and teachers) have the charge over their local assembly and beyond that do not carry much authority. As an apostle Paul wrote to many churches with authority, but few in the Church today would admit to any apostolic ministry or office still in existence.

So how do we decide what a Church will belief, teach, and practice. From what I have seen many Christians choose to follow their favorite theologians over the elders and pastors of their local church. Do these theologians really have any grounds for the authority they presume? Of course many of them have been pastors and teachers in their respective churches and from those ministries have brought forth many writings that edify, encourage, and exhort the larger body of Christ. Still, do these theologians at large have the right to dictate doctrine for us today?

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you". Heb 13:17

From this verse we see the importance of understanding who it is we must submit to. Who is it that has the rule over us in the Church? I submit to you that there is no authority in the Church above the local rule of the elders, and this only in accordance with the truth of God's Word and the Spirit of God.

Similar but Not?

I have been asked to do a post on "how Catholics are the same as Protestants". While I agree there are similarities when you take the generic meaning of protestant into account, my premise is that the differences between the true child of God and Catholicism are so large as to mitigate any attempts at unity or cohesion.

Anyways here are some of the similarities I see between Protestants and Catholics.

- Both groups rely heavily on extra Biblical authority and interpretation.
- Both groups have persecuted opposers.
- Both groups have created un-Biblical levels of hierarchy and authority.
- Both groups have made heads of state the leaders of their institutions.
- Both groups deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for sins on the cross.

Ok, those are just a few. What are your thoughts? Now don't be shy, but please remember to be civil.

Cultural Reformation

It seems one of the big thoughts amongst the Christian community today is that of affecting change in society. Everything from recycling and environmentalism to combating human traffickers and drug pushers has taken center stage.

But truth be told, America's efforts at creating a brave new world in other countries has left its own nation in social shambles. If one is honest, they will have to admit that rather that making progress against the evils of society, the church has consistently lost ground and influence for more than four decades now.

Rather than acknowledging this fact, churches and para-church organizations have doubled their efforts to appear hip, cool, and ultra relevant. They have made environmentalism, climate change, gay rights, and many other social issues the mandate of their ministry. No where is this more evident than in the mainline liberal denominations. All these endeavors are done in the name of love and for the unity and peace of civilization. But at what cost?

The sacrifice of truth is a huge price to pay in order to remain influential. This is precisely what has happened in much of today's Christianity. The humanistic notions of "tolerance", "diversity", and "relativism" have replaced the Biblical truths of inerrancy, justice, and divine authority. And rather than getting the change they have envisioned, we are seeing the opposite; eroding family values, lack of respect for authority, massive public immorality, decreased protection of the innocent by immoral laws, decreased fear of God and judgment, and many other similar things.

What is the remedy? Is it theology? Is it more education? Is it greater governmental regulations and control?

No!

The answers lies between the dusty covers of the Bible most Americans own. The truth of God's word is as relevant and effective in today's culture as the day it was penned under the inspiration of a divine and omniscient God. The gospel is the answer to our questions and problems today!

Nothing more and nothing less. To the degree we preach the truth and hold high the banner of Christ, to that degree we will see actual change; both temporal and eternal.

What are you compromising today for the sake of “unity” and “peace”? Is there something you need to repent of and come back to the Word of God as your sole authority and guide?

Are You in The Word?

The more I read in the blogosphere the more I am convinced that we as God's people are neglecting a profoundly simple practice. Let me explain.

I have come to realize that all of us are guided in our lives by something called presuppositions. We understand things to be a certain way and therefore act accordingly. What is more striking however is that many of our presuppositions have little to do with the Word of God directly and are more often than not filtered through either the writings or teachings of a pastor, theologian, or doctrinal statement.

It seems we are not placing ample weight on the pure word of God alone. Why do I say that?

Well first of all, many times our responses to a theological question contain philosophical tones that do not align with Biblical texts. We like to juxtapose Biblical clichés with our notions and the lines become blurred.

I have found that many have not arrived at their conclusions solely based on scriptural study but have been "guided" to their answers from the influence of mentors and peers. This is probably most unavoidable as Bobby Grow likes to reiterate.

That being the case, are we willing to re-evaluate our positions when confronted with substantial Biblical proof that we may be incomplete in our answer? Are we open to correction? Do we have a teachable spirit?

I appreciate Daniel's posts over at Doulogos because he is a man that demonstrates this principle often and most humbly. Further, he is faithful to give detailed explanations of his views with excellent scriptural support allowing me to see how he arrived at his conclusions. While I have not always agreed with him 100%, his method of analysis allows me to understand why he believes what he does and causes me to better evaluate my own positions.

How much time do you spend in God's word seeking not only answers to your questions, but more importantly the person of Christ. I will confess that I fall short in this area.

A New Addition

Two weeks ago my wife and I welcomed a new son into our family. His name is Bradley Daniel and he was a nice weight of 8lbs. 6ozs.

So as you can guess this makes us quite busy now. I am still hoping to keep this blog alive and kicking. It seems I am becoming more controversial in my comments and posts lately. Am I really that far from mainstream in my thinking? What do you guys think?

What topics should I engage in future posts?

If you would like to see a picture of the feller drop me a comment and I will send you an email.

Was it Vain?

I was reading in Isaiah this morning and came to this verse:

"For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is no other."

Isaiah 45:18

The phrase that stood out to me was "who did not create it in vain". What exactly does that mean? Well at first glance it seems like obviously God had a purpose in creating the earth, and the verse goes on to say the purpose is inhabitation. Case closed right. But why use the word vain? Was there a deeper explanation?

I checked up the Hebrew word for vain - tohuw (tohoo). This word literally means a waste or desolation as in the sense of destruction. So God did not create the earth to be a waste land. Ok fine, he created it for the purpose of being inhabited.

However, what is really interesting is that this same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 1:2.

"The earth was without form (tohuw), and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Here another word is also used to describe the earth; void. The Hebrew for void is Bohuw (bohoo) which carries the meaning of either vacuous or an undistinguishable ruin. So to paraphrase Gen 1:2, the earth was a desolate wasteland and beyond recognition.

So my question is; If God did not create the earth this way, how did it end up like this in the second verse of the Bible? Was there something that occurred after verse one?

A Republic

There is a common misconception today that America is a great democracy. This is really only a half truth. Democracy itself is only a small part of the picture in the overall fabric of how government functions.

More accurately, America is a functioning Republic in danger of becoming a democracy. Why do I say that? Precisely because if you understand the process of how a democracy works you begin to realize it is not a static condition. Rather democracy is a transitional stage between two other forms of government.

Self governance is in fact the most difficult of systems to maintain. Man is by his selfish and fearful nature given to seeking protection and ease. The result of this is an exchange of freedom and finances for security and provisions.

The danger of a purely democratic system is that it ultimately reduces to mob rule; 50 +1 % = majority.

The American Constitution was written to ensure that certain inalienable rights were granted to each of it's citizens. These rights were in fact stated to be given by God and therefore not subject to the whim of a fickle electorate. Furthermore, the signers of this constitution stated that this form of government would only work if the people themselves were of moral and upright character. It would be wholly unsuitable to any other.

When Benjamin Frankin emerged from the signing of the constitution he was asked by a lady, "what have you given us?". His reply was, "A Republic, if you can keep it".

As I mentioned earlier a democracy is simply a transititional stage between two forms of government. If we simply resort to becoming "democratic" in our laws and actions rather than realizing that there are certain laws given by God and not subject to man's alteration we can maintain the equilibrium.

However, the end of all runaway democracies is an oligarchy; rule by a few. Be careful you are not exchanging your freedom and privacy for your security.

Our Sovereign God

It seems the sovereignty of God is used to explain much of what happens in the world today. I do not doubt that God is sovereign. Being sovereign denotes having ultimate power and authority. Rulers of empires were said to be sovereign and indeed they do represent a picture of God's infinite worth as the true King of kings and Lord of lords.

So my question for you today is this: If God is truly sovereign why do so many godly men disagree on so many issues? Why are there so many differing views from the leading theologians and scholars of our day and history?

Fair Tax?

Does that sound like an oxymoron? Maybe not, after all don't we all need to pay taxes in order to keep our societies functioning properly? What do you make of the new Fair Tax iniative and would it be a practical plan to deal with the current loopholes used by predominantly wealthy individuals and corporations?

Fair Tax

And The Nomination Is...

After much deliberation and thought, Faith Classics has chosen to throw its support and endorsement behind presidential contender Mike Huckabee.

How Do You Study Scripture?

How we arrive at a theological conclusion can be the most amusing and intriguing study. I have noticed that there are several well used and typical ways in which folks will come to a conclusion on Biblical matters.

So I am going to give you what I think are some of the most common methods currently in use. These would be ways in which the laymen and theologian (serious Biblical scholar) arrive at an answer to the Bible's most challenging subjects.

1. Pastor Said So it Must be True

Their motto would be, "Pastor said it so that settles it". This is probably the most common reason given by those who are the laziest of Bible readers. Rather than give any effort to become a Berean they simply take whatever the pastors says as gospel truth. Of course this is also one reason there is so much church shopping today.

2. The Historical Approach

Another way to arrive at answers to Biblical questions is to take the theologians from history and lump them into groups. The largest group must be right so therefore their conclusions are adopted. Another name for this approach is called the traditional view.

3. My Favorite Expositor View

This approach is similar to #1 except that the pastor of preference is usually found on television or the radio. There can be a number of favorites and they usually teach similar things. You will find an advocate of this view constantly referring to their hero by saying, "This is what so and so believes and teaches", or "I believe what ______ believes".

4. God Spoke to Me

This is probably the most dangerous method of Biblical interpretation because it relies on an emotional feeling rather than scriptural fact. This excuse has been used to rationalize everything from murder and divorce to church splits and cultist heresy. Adherents to this view typically place extreme emphasis upon the spoken and written teaching of a man or woman while using the Bible to justify their behavior.

5. Square Peg in Round Hole

This view sees the reader attempt to make the Bible agree with his or her presuppositions and established beliefs. Often they will go to great lengths to stretch the meaning of certain passages or read into a text a totally different interpretation. This is probably the most common method of Biblical interpretation and many unknowingly are guilty. We could also label this as the Blind Spot Doctrine or as some like to say, legalism.

6. Intellectual Rationalism

Man is a clever creature and it seems the more learning we accumulate the less we esteem the inspired word of God. Proverbs tells us that knowledge can puff up, and pride prohibits us from looking at the Bible in a humble and honest way. This view attempts to make scripture fit with science and rationalism rather than the reverse. Wisdom is using knowledge in its God intended role to properly interpret and apply scripture. God's Word will always agree with true empirical science. This view also attempts to reduce God to a formula. They like to say if A + B = C, then D must be____. This attempt at making logic trump faith reduces doctrine and theology to an intellectual pursuit and is primarily the reason so many seminaries have gone liberal.

7. I Studied the Bible and This is What I Saw

This last method is where we should all start. Simply reading and praying are crucial to our receiving of revelation from God. God is light and as we abide in His presence He grants us insights into His character and person.

There are obviously problems that can arise from using this method only. Even the apostle Paul after 14 years of personal study wanted to make sure his doctrine and beliefs were correct. He went to Jerusalem to seek out the fellowship of the top apostles but found that they added nothing to what He had already received. Furthermore he had to rebuke them on occasion for their return to law keeping.

I have seen many sincere readers begin their search in God's word but end up adopting method #3 - the favorite expositor. There is a lot of pressure to fit into a group and be affirmed by man. This often leads to us compromising our convictions for the sake of acceptance. Those who are extreme in their use of method #3 ultimately become parrots. They can speak wonderful truths and doctrines but do not have the reality of actually experiencing it for themselves. Their knowledge is second hand and this becomes evident in the dryness of their words and actions.

Summary

There is nothing wrong with confirming what we believe by checking with wise teachers, pastors, theologians, etc. In fact we should be doing that to make sure we are not holding some strange heretical view. However, be careful that you do not quench the Spirit by putting man's teaching above God's inspired and operative Word. Become like the Bereans who examine the scriptures daily to see if these things be so.

Alright, your turn. Do you have another method of interpretation that I missed? Do you agree? Disagree? How do you study the Bible and arrive at answers to the tough questions?

Repentance - not turning from your sins

If the title leaves you intrigued I encourage you to read the article Terry Rayburn has written over at Grace for Life. I think he did an excellent job of explaining Repentance and it's ramifications.

Let me know what you thought...

New Link

I would like to introduce a friend who has recently starting blogging. Matt McClay is a graphic designer and writer with ideas that simply ooze out of his cranium. His take on life is fresh and unique (part of being a creative I guess).

Anyways please stop by and leave him a welcoming comment.

http://mattmcclay.blogspot.com/

A Powerful Testimony

Is this not a picture of NT forgiveness? Read the article.

A New Religion

I couldn't say it much better myself. Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party explains this week why secularism is more than the absence of religion.

BC MLAs, rewriting the School Act in 1986, mandated that public education should be Secular. Why? Apparently they didn’t understand that Secularism is a religion—arguably one of the most bigoted of all faiths, exceeded in virulence only by Taliban/Wahabbi Islam. These share with Secularism the goal of extirpating every other religion—the radical Islamists by roadside and suicide bombs, the militant Secularists by legislation and substituting indoctrination for education.

So far, militant Secularists seem to be having even more success than militant Muslims, at least in the West; however, both are re-shaping our world—for the worse.

BC’s legislative blunder didn’t really take effect until two decades later, when a Provincial Supreme Court judge decreed that—according to the statute written in 1986—moral preferences of parents cannot be considered by the local school board when choosing textbooks for students, if those preferences were influenced by the parents’ faith.

It didn’t matter which religion—Sikh, Christian, Muslim, Jewish—all were beyond the pale... except, of course, Secularism—that was mandated by law!

These three factors define Secularism as a religion:
• Secularism has a world-view: it is Naturalism, which declares that there is nothing beyond what can be seen and measured. According to Secularism and Naturalism (like Buddhism) there is no God; or if there is, He/she/it is irrelevant to humanity—we have “outgrown” any consideration of the spiritual dimension of life, they say.
• Secularism has a Scripture: Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection; or the survival of the most-favoured races. This has recently been supplemented by a spate of demonstrably un-scientific books written by radical anti-God “scientists” and science writers, like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin.
• Secularism has a priesthood: university professors train public-school teachers in a philosophy rooted in Naturalism, and teach them to be “change agents” in the classroom, working to overturn custom and tradition.

And now, Secularism has its own temples: the publicly-funded schools where our children are systematically indoctrinated in the dogmas of Canada’s new ‘official religion’. How ironic that so many “believing Christians”—MPs, MPPs, MNAs and MLAs, mis-educated in the tax-funded ‘public’ education system so that they don’t understand the difference between ‘non-sectarian’ and ‘secular’—now have a primary role in dedicating and supporting these temples!

You can find more information about the CHP on their website.

Oh Christmas Tree

Having been raised in a christian family that did not place much emphasis on Christmas or its observance I would like to ask a question to those of you who do.

Why on earth do you place a tree in your living room each winter? What possible purpose does it serve in "celebrating" the birth of Christ? I am really perplexed about this.

Is there a scriptural mandate I am missing, or is this simply a cultural thing?

Answer This Question

Supposed you are asked to explain the following question; "Are Mormons Christians?". For the sake of this question let's say that all brands of "faith" are included in the scope of this topic.

How would you answer? What would you say is the defining point that makes one a Christian. You have one sentence of reasonable length and 30 seconds to respond to the person asking this question, which will be seen by millions of television viewers.

The End is Near

Always at the forefront of every tragedy is the question, why? Why did this happen? Why did God allow it? etc...

Just a cursory glance at the media coming out of Hollywood and the entertainment industry today will give you the impression that we love death and violence as a culture. However what I have noticed more often now are the apocalyptic style movies, the ones that portray the destruction of America by some rogue alien or entity.

This really is a sign of the ultimate stage of reprobation; that of self destruction. Just as most rampage shooters end their own lives, so too, our society is being presented with cataclysmic scenarios of mass anarchy and chaos.

It struck me that this is really the end of all selfish pursuits; the ultimate selfish act is to commit suicide. Now the progression to this stage is littered with the things we would call accomplishments and goals, that being the accumulation of riches and prestige. While these are not bad in and of themselves, they should never be the real goal and focus of our work.

So how does this apply to the church today? We have a society imploding around us because they have given themselves wholeheartedly to the pursuit of pleasure, money, and fame. What are we telling them with the modern gospel? Come to Christ and He will give you all you want; happiness, fame, fortune, and lots of wonderful riches. Instead they get the promised persecution, mockery, and trials.

Let's stop spreading half truths and instead begin to give them the truth that will set them free. This begins with sharing some very important facts, that being the righteous judgement of God against all sin. Until a person trembles before the holiness of God, they will never flee to Christ for mercy.