Thunder Sounds

A Letter to the Protestant Church, Part II

2013-06-19T09:03:00.000-04:00

The Protestant Church is struck, in my opinion, with an overreactive fear of works. I have no issue with the namesake's protestation against depending on works for status, position, or merit with God--works certainly cannot save us or keep us saved. That is not the same, however, as acknowledging that what we do does matter to God, especially since the scriptures, Old and New Testaments, confirm that it does! Since the Reformation the Protestant Church, in its disproportional fear of works, has offered a confusing, befuddled notion of what in the scriptures is the clearly communicated expectation of godly works.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus himself said judgment is correlated to works. James did in fact say that faith without works is dead. That Christ reiterates the concept in the Apocalypse by relating deadness to unfinished or incomplete works should be no surprise to anyone. The truth is that there is a consistent emphasis in the New Testament on the works Christians do, and even the need for those to comport with the confession that Christ is the Lord.

Let there be no misunderstanding, we are saved by grace through faith; however, saving faith must be actual faith in order to save. Actual faith that Christ is the Lord motivates change in a person and inspires the one believing to do the works that God has prepared for them. It's not that anyone can be perfect in the sense that their works are nothing but good or that they are above being tempted to walk in their former works. Yet, if anyone has true faith, and any time at all to live in such, his or her life will evidence God-inspired works which demonstrate the reality of his or her faith in Christ.

Being a Protestant should never entail protesting that one is alive despite the lack of any current works which demonstrate it. To have the name of life but the reality of death is a sham seen through entirely by Jesus Christ. If we are able, that is not incapacitated, it is perfectly fine for a Christian to look at his or her actions and wonder to themselves if they truly believe that Jesus is Lord (God certainly does). A person who truly believes is never undone by such an examination, even if they realize they have works to repent of and sins to confess.

Christ's works may be finished, but ours go on--not to gain salvation, but merely because we are truly saved.

A Letter to the Protestant Church, Part I

2013-06-14T08:19:00.005-04:00

Zombies seem to be popular these days with just about everyone, but they don't hold much fascination with Jesus, at least as far as we can tell from his Letter to the Church at Sardis. There, Jesus excoriates the believers in that town for having the appearance of life but the reality of deadness. In other words, they were zombie Christians. Before their condition leads to their full and final expiration, he calls on the zombie Christians of Sardis to wake up, shake off the slumber of their hypnotic trance, and save what can be saved before all is lost.

Jesus' beef with the zombie Christians of Sardis is not founded upon mere conjecture. He's seen them in action, he's witnessed what they have done. They had a name, or reputation, for being a vibrant community of Christians, alive in God, but their actions did not measure up to their hype. It's not that they did nothing, they at least made a feint in following through with the works of God, but they stopped short and took a nap before they had pressed through to true fruitfulness (completeness) in God.

What the actual nature of their shortcomings was Jesus did not say. Conjecture and personal application is left to us; in my case, it reminds me of the Parable of the Sower. Rocky soil or weedy soil has the start of something good in reaction to the gospel, an appearance of life, but whatever the initially promising impact may have been, it is not followed through on with dedication and focus. What began to grow withers or remains fruitless (incomplete) as a result.

I look at this and wonder if Jesus could have been writing to the Protestant Church. The promise of a return to the Word and the reformation of what had become mere superstition, idolatry and commercialism certainly gave the name of life to the Protestant Church. However, given her history and current state of affairs, what would Jesus say of her works? Protestants have fallen asleep in the light while whatever spiritual life and light they may have had has ebbed away. The promise of greatness for that body is all but past, now it would be sufficient if she just woke up, came to her senses, and bolstered what remained.

The Shroud of Turin

2013-06-08T11:47:00.000-04:00

Earlier this year, just in time for Easter, the news came out that the Shroud of Turin may be authentic after all. It has been claimed to be a forgery by knowledgeable people since it's been in the West (~1390 CE). And it's been claimed to be authentic by relic apologists and the faithful just as long. In 1998 what was apparently a slam-dunk scientific examination proved it was a forgery.

But now, supposedly better testing techniques, better controlled for contamination have yielded results that make the Shroud possibly contemporaneous with Christ. Different dating technique, no fibrous contamination, and viola, what was not so, now may be so. To tell you the truth, I could care less. Nothing about my belief in Christ rests on the Shroud. I do admit, however, that it would be cool if it did turn out to be possibly authentic...

Jesus burial clothes were part of the Gospel account of the resurrection story. I can't imagine Mary, Mary, Peter or John leaving the empty cloth in the empty tomb.

Is There A Person God Cannot Save?

2013-06-01T10:12:00.001-04:00

Is there a person that God cannot save? I suppose it depends on what one means by "save". In any given perilous situation (e.g. my car going off a cliff) the answer would have to be "no", God could save anyone in any situation. If what is meant by use of the term is to be preserved alive after the final judgment of sin, then the answer is "yes", and resoundingly so. That being said, I still must confess that scripture convinces me that if God could save everyone from judgment, he would.

"‘...As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked..." Ezekiel 33:11 NASB

It is quite clear from scripture that there is a place of eternal judgment and that it will be populated with unsaved sinners as well as the demon horde. Eternal confinement to a lake that burns with fire seems harsh, minimally--not at all the kind of thing one might anticipate someone styled "Savior" doing. I think it would be natural to think that God would have done something about that, if he could have.

He did.

"...I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,who gave Himself as a ransom for all..." 1 Timothy 2:1-6 NASB

It seems to me, what God could do to save all humanity from judgment he did do. If all humanity does not end up saved, the fault will not lie with God, but with man. He has provided a substitutionary sacrifice for sin that effectively meets the demand that both man and God see for justice, and effectively reconciles the broken relationship between God and man the sinner. All that is left is for man to no longer want to be a sinner.

Now that is not something that can be imposed. It can be coaxed, an invitation can be made, and a supernatural effort to convince the sinner of his perilous status can be undertaken. But to write over the will of the person in order to make it happen would only serve to cause the sinner to cease being a man. The result could not be said to be a man being saved, but would represent a man being transformed into something other than a man, something less than the image of God.

Man was made in the image of God, to do as he pleased. A man could not be said to be a man on those terms if someone else's pleasure were substituted (especially unwillingly) for his own. To be a man is to have independent will. Unfortunately, it is also to have the possibility of withstanding every effort of God to turn that will to the obedience of faith.

Is there a person God cannot save? Yes, the one who won't repent and believe the gospel.

What Is Sin?

2013-05-21T17:22:00.000-04:00

A good definition of sin is helpful in dealing with just about any issue involving God and man. Unfortunately, the Bible is not as straightforward as one might think in providing one. At one point, sin is described as breaking the law; at another, sin is said to have been in the world even when there was no law. If nothing else, that certainly tells us sin is more than breaking a rule.

Therefore, the mere concept of lawbreaking is insufficient for defining sin, since sin does not need to reference a command in order to exist or be described. In light of that, let me suggest, as I have before, that sin is nothing more than the exertion of will contrary to the will of God. A command from God would certainly invoke such a definition, but then too would any awareness of what God's will was, whether it came through conscience, conviction or comprehension. Really, will exerted presumptiously, without regard to God, could invoke a charge of sin, even if done in complete ignorance of God's will.

Now, the Bible does say that sin is not imputed, or reckoned against one's record, where there is no law. There must be some distinction that God maintains between knowingly transgressing and ignorantly transgressing his will. Yet, as is clearly stated in the Word, death has spread to all humankind because all humans sin, even though many have had not so much as an inkling of the law. So, even if sin is not reckoned to one's account apart from the law, it still leads without exception to the penalty for sin which is death.

A child reaching for a flame, may have had no reason to believe mom or dad did not want her to do such a thing, but may nonetheless be greeted with a quick smack on the fingers as she tries to do so. She won't be punished further as she might have been had she known better, but she did receive a penalty regardless! Discovering that something is against God's will after the fact doesn't alter that it was against his will before. In other words, sin does not require the offense to be an overtly realized transgression on the part of the offender in order to be sin.

If one knows God's will, or if one merely suspects what may be God's will, or if one is completely oblivious to God's will concerning any willful exertion, that one sins by taking a course contrary to God's whether in word, deed, or thought. Of course, if all occurs according to God's will (as in determinism), it follows that there is and could be no sin. Since it is scripturally clear that sin does exist, it is also quite clear that stuff happens that God did not will. Sin is stuff that is not "his".

Therefore, sin is an unfortunate consequence of freewill. Without freewill sin would not and could not occur, but then neither would love nor the image of God exist.

Is Evil Necessary for Good to Exist?

2013-05-15T14:58:00.001-04:00

I have said that only God can handle being God-like. What I meant by that was that only God can act freely (i.e. God-like) while acting in agreement with his own will in every instance. If that was not the case he would be a contradiction, and that can never be the case. It's not that he actually has to weigh his choices before acting, his very acts are the expression of his will, it's just that God is neither conflicted nor tempted in acting.

Any other agent acting freely, autonomously, is bound to transgress God's will at some point. Though that agent is made in God's likeness, since that agent is not God, that agent cannot independently replicate God's will. God did not, indeed could not, make himself in creating such agents, he merely created something that had a power of will analogous to his own (i.e. they do as they please). To be able to replicate God's will precisely an agent would have to be God.

If that is so, it means that given the decision to create independent, freewill creatures, sin (or evil) would be inevitable. Generally, if something is inevitable it can be said to have the quality of being necessary. If sin (or evil) is necessary to the creation of God's image, that would be sufficient to establish that evil was necessary, at least for the particular good of making creatures in the image of God. Furthermore, if that is the case, sin and evil would have been authored, knowingly, purposely, by God upon the decision to create.

That is not case, however, because the inevitability in question is not the result of a decree from God concerning the agent's will (as in determinism). Instead, the inevitability arises from the agent's distinction from God in identity. The agent sins because he can will like God but isn't God. Therefore, God is not the author of such sin, the free agent is--even though God could foresee such sin and did author the freewill that made it possible.

I have already established that the freedom of will entailed in the image of God was good per se. So, if inevitability does not translate into necessity and the authorship of sin (evil), it cannot lead to the conclusion that evil was necessary for that good to exist. If, in fact, there was a way to unite the identity of God with the identity of the agent, freewill would not necessitate transgression at all, as is ultimately demonstrated by Jesus, the Son of Man.

However, I am forced to conclude that if such unity was not possible, indeed, if it was not God's purpose in creating man in God's image, freewill with it's inevitable failure to sin would have been immoral, even though God was not the author of the sin. If that unity were not possible, the only conceivable end in creating free agents would be to destroy them in judgment. That may be judiciously righteous, but there is no way it could be beneficial to the creature. Redemption had to be baked into the cake at creation, or the cake was baked with evil intent.

Hopefully, it is becoming clear to you, dear reader, that this is all resolved in faith, that is in trusting submission to God. The Bible tells us that Jesus, himself God in the flesh, learned obedience, while in his earthly frame, by the things he suffered. It may not be possible to learn submission in any other way. Even Adam and Eve had their opportunity to learn obedience via this route as they fell to sin, although their test of suffering (self-denial) was meager at best.

It takes freewill in order to express this faith. Paradoxically, that same freewill inevitably leads to sin (and evil). Faith, it seems, is the counterweight to willfulness within the human soul. I think it's safe to say that if faith could have beaten willfulness to the punch, evil would never have existed (at least theoretically).

When a free agent, coaxed by the Spirit of God, voluntarily yields, or submits, to the place of God (Lord) and to the will of God, that one becomes open for God to share his Spirit (person) with. When God's Spirit is fully engaged in such an agent, God's identity is united with the identity of that agent, and the exercise of freewill becomes harmonized with the will of God. That will be the joy of eternity for God and redeemed man.

For the joy set before him, Christ endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2

The Problem of Physical Evil

2013-05-10T20:14:00.000-04:00

Why does an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God allow evil such latitude in our age? That God will judge such in a time to come, and cause it to cease thereafter forever is an answer, but it seems a marginal one at best to those living through this age. And to be honest, eternal judgment in the Lake of Fire for the evil done temporally seems only to exacerbate the problem, fighting evil with evil for all intents and purposes. Natural evil--catastrophes, pestilence, genetic abnormalities--seems capricious and only adds to the miserable mystery.

Physical evil certainly is a vexing problem. It rains (too much or too little) on the just and the unjust, earthquakes do not shake merely the morally shaky, tornadoes have been known to sweep through Bible-believing churches while the congregation was in the midst of worship and prayer, and pestilence, mutations and snakes strike apart from any discernment protocol. God may have pulled the plug on this creation because of sin, and let it slowly spiral down the drain, but on the surface, for those twisting in the vortex, it doesn't seem very just or loving. Who can make sense of it?

What needs to remembered in such considerations is that, according to God's standard, it's not the other guy who is evil, it's us--all of us, every single one that has ever come into existence. By God's reckoning, any opposition to his will is evil, even merely eating a piece of fruit he did not want us to. We think we are innocent (so long as we have not overtly harmed another creature), but that is just not the way God sees it. The truth is that humans do as they please, they do without regard to God, they do in opposition to God, and thus they demonstrate that they are, in fact, evil.

That humans have what opportunity they do have to live in a dying world is an accommodation of the magnanimous grace of God. "Wait just a minute," you might be thinking, "we didn't ask to be born at all, let alone the way we are where we are." How is allowing some of us to be particularly evil, while letting all of us live in an environment consistently evil, grace? Well, I think that it demonstrates that God has not written off the human race.

Everything could have ended with the failure of the prototype (Adam and Eve). God could have wiped out everything at The Fall, and been justifiably done with it. Starting over again would not have been an option, because in granting a creature freewill, the same evil to which the prototype succumbed would have been in play for any built like them (in the image of God, that is). The truth is, only God can handle being like God: those that are merely like God, but not God, must live submitted to God in love and faith.

So, though God cannot allow evil to stand and so pulled the plug on this universe, in his love for what was made good, he patiently continues what seems to us the slow, inexorable unfolding of judgment, which is physical evil, because there is a possibility of redemption. Evil creatures, which rebelled in the darkness of ignorance, can be illumined and change their mind and heart about going their own way. If they can truly take to heart the necessity of submission to and agreement with God, he can recast and reset them in a new universe untainted by the fall of the originals.

And there's still a bit more I'd like to talk about...

Evil and Freewill, Concurrence & Moral Sufficiency

2013-04-30T01:13:00.004-04:00

There could be no evil whatsoever apart from the capacity of something in creation to oppose God. That opposition would have to be something initiated independently of God; that is, it could not be decreed or impelled by God. Something nominally opposed to God but actually decreed by him could only have the appearance of evil--in actuality, it would be the very will of God. There can be no evil, therefore, apart from freewill, and since there is evil in this world, this world is one which free will exists.

Yet, even though freewill is expressed in a way that is not determined by God (or it wouldn't be free), it is allowed by him and it's exercise sustained by him. It reflects his will for the way things should be, and without such concurrence, it wouldn't be. If that is so, how can the same difficulties which determinism suffers from in regard to the problem of evil not ultimately be true for freewill as well? If God, the omniscient and omnipotent, proceeds despite evil he could foresee or does not stop what is proceeding against his will, there would seem to be a problem with evil after all.

I don't think that is so two reasons. First, God is good, and making something in his image just could not be evil by any stretch of the imagination. Even among human beings, we consider it good to have a son or daughter, even though we know they will do things that are bad. The beauty of being made in God's image is an amazing thing, human beings are amazing creatures. That God would want to make us in his image, able to will as he does and love as he does, is a remarkable demonstration of benevolent grace and something that properly could only be said to be very good.

Second, evil isn't being allowed. It's only the perspective of the current regimen of time that makes it seems so. Death and entropy themselves are arguments against evil being allowed, revealing that God has pulled the plug on this fallen realm of fallen beings. Within our bubble of time we may think evil is allowed and that it's been going on forever, but from God's timeless perspective evil is being dealt with virtually immediately. In this realm's wake, after it's been flash-burned in a cosmic reboot, evil will be something not likely to be even vaguely remembered.

So evil exists because God made creatures in his image which had the power to will, freely, as he does. That was not an evil thing to do, only good, because God is only good, and so too would be those creatures made like him at the time of their creation. Only creatures made with this god-like capacity would be able to experience the full spectrum of God's goodness relationally. God is inherently good, and inherently relational (e.g. the Trinity), and so creating creatures who will as God wills, and love as God loves could be nothing but good.

Since evil can be so evil, however, one has to wonder if doing the good of creating such creatures was a sufficient moral cause for the omniscient God to create them. I think that it was, but that it will not demonstrate itself to be so in time, where those creatures continue in evil even as God does the good he can in regard to them. Only in eternity when freewill creatures have embraced that they have been made in his image, have submitted themselves to be in that image, and choose to abide in it in agreement with God, will those creatures be like Christ and live eternally free but in perfect harmony with God. That situation will be as good as good can possibly get!

That will result in unspeakable joy for God and those creatures so abiding in it, and I think it is more than a sufficient moral cause for allowing the potential of evil in making those creatures in the first place. Does that provide a sufficient moral cause for allowing evil in the meantime, or for having to contain it endlessly, idly, incapably in the age to come? Since God is good and omnipotent, could he not have accomplished his aims some other way without allowing evil? Probably not, but since God is good, I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless.

Of course that won't stop me from saying a bit more on the subject...

The Problem of Evil

2013-04-26T13:43:00.002-04:00

Supposedly, Christianity has a problem explaining the existence of evil in the world given the existence of God, who is good. I don't see the problem at all, so let me do my best to explain why. Primarily, I think the bulk of the problem arises from not understanding what good and evil are. So, let me start there.

God is good, Jesus said uniquely so. God is good, and nothing but good, the very essence of what good is. Evil, on the other hand, is not a thing so much as it is a description. At best, it is understood negatively, by what it isn't. Simply put, evil is that which is not good, much in the same way that darkness can be defined as the absence of light. Light is the something, darkness is the privation of it. Evil is a privation of God, an incidence of something God is not in, so to speak.

In being good, then, God can have no part of himself that is not good, or not God, or else he would be a contradiction. In the creation account in Genesis, the word translated "good" has the general sense of beneficial, so I think we can say by extension that good is that which comports usefully with the beneficial purpose of God. Since God can have nothing in him or about him which is set at cross purposes against himself without being a contradiction, good is that which is in accord with the purpose and will of God and evil is that which which is opposed to God.

As a consequence of this nature, it is possible for a thing to be both good and evil at the same time. A thing meant to thwart God most definitely comes from an evil intention on the part of the would-be thwarter, but in God's providence it may actually further his agenda of good. With that in mind, one might surmise that things which seem to us to be detrimental to life, to which our guts recoil, and which we see as nothing but evil are actually not evil from God's point of view. God intends such things for good or such are not from God who is only good.

And yet everything which exists, exists, ultimately, as a result of God's doing. Why would one who is only good, allow the existence of that which appears so obviously non-beneficial, so outrightly evil? Even if that could be written off as merely a momentary or passing appearance (to us) which served a larger good (from God's perspective), that wouldn't make those moments of evil less evil. So to me, such an explanation seems disingenuous.

What I mean is that evil is evil, even if just for an instant. If God is, then all instants are his, so why any evil whatsoever? God would not be the god who is good if there are flashes of evil in him, bits of momentary lapse where his "other side" is displayed, even if that is not his general character. No, it seems to me the existence of any evil whatsoever does not comport with the existence of an almighty god that is good; and yet, it is my unshakeable belief that the Sovereign Lord does exist and is nothing but good, and that evil exists here and now.

How can that be so? It must be that a good that God did, that was only good, must have given rise to evil. Having given rise to evil that which was made good by God, but which had become evil, has been allowed to remain so for the good that God continues to do in regard to it. So, present reality consists of the good that God, who is only good, continues to do while that which was created good, but is no longer so, continues to express it's evil.

Since evil, by definition, is that which is against God, that good that God did which became evil must have been able to act in a way that opposed God. The only way that would be possible would be for that something which God made good, but which became evil, to have had the ability to act freely, uncompelled, without necessity, as does God. Since God is good, there could be nothing evil about making something commensurate with God, but in doing so, the possibility of opposition, and therefore evil, would be intrinsic to that act.

What should begin to be clear from this discussion so far is that there could be no evil in a world in which God's will was the only one that determined things. If God determines everything that is and occurs, then evil could not possibly exist. For evil to exist within a deterministic framework, God himself would have to be evil. Since God is clearly not evil, and yet there is evil in this world, this world cannot be a deterministic one.

And there is more to delve into...

2

The Parable of Creation

2013-04-24T11:10:00.000-04:00

And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
Matthew 13:10-16 NASB

par·a·ble [par-uh-buhl]: a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

Origin: 1275–1325; Middle English parabil < Late Latin parabola comparison, parable, word < Greek parabolḗ comparison, equivalent to para- side by side + bolḗ a throwing

Synonyms: allegory, homily, apologue.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

When Jesus explained to his disciples the reason he taught in parables, he was not giving them instructions to follow in order to achieve effective pedagogy. Just the opposite, in fact: parables, as used by Jesus, were meant to be equivocal in order to give an out to those not willing to learn. Some would consider that deceptive, I consider that brilliant, and far more to the point--effective to the purpose Jesus was aiming to achieve.

Two classes of audience would hear the parable and both would perceive it differently. The same words, the same syntax, the same context, and yet those in one part of the audience were meant to understand one thing, and those in the other part something else. This was not due to flaws in communication, nor glitches in reception, it was by design and it worked perfectly.

Jesus' use of parables was meant to filter out those with faith. Those listeners with the faith perspective Jesus desired, would hear the parable, and with some added elucidation, understand the divine truth contained therein. Those without the faith perspective Jesus desired would hear the parable and not see divine truth at all. Advertisers today attempt to do something similar in public media by using their craft to target a more specific audience within a broader one.

I see the creation as a parable spoken by God. One not communicated in words capable of being reduced to ink on a page, but one assembled in subatomic particles and fields and perceived as reality. Like the parables of Jesus, it is not produced so as to garner the same perception in one group that sees it as it does in another. Either group looks at the same phenomena, the same facts, sees the same interactions, and uses the same mathematical language to describe it, but they see a different underlying message.

For those with the faith perspective God desires, it's divine message is all too clear. For those without that perspective, they see no divine message at all. Someone might protest that that is deceptive. If it is (and I don't think that is the case), it is no more deceptive than Jesus teaching by parables. God knows what makes for everlasting life and is well within his rights to filter for that amongst the creatures he's made in his image. The problem involved is with the hearers and seers, not with the communicator.

And let's be clear here: this phenomenon is not a mere accident, the foibles of communication. There is an "otherwise" at play that people consciously act according to. There are consequences to seeing or hearing with a faith perspective, repercussions that are just too repulsive to abide in the judgment of some. And so they close their eyes, and stop their ears, and guard their hearts against the parable of creation.

The Seven Stars of the Apocalypse

2013-04-05T10:39:00.000-04:00

Who or what are the Seven Stars of the Apocalypse? The question has nothing to do with fame, but only with the meaning words. As used in the Apocalypse, the word star (aster) has a range of meaning that can literally refer to those astronomical bodies that shine in the sky at night, or to meteoric bodies that fall to the earth; or figuratively, it can refer to Christ himself (when combined with the descriptor, morning) or to angels. The antecedent of the figure of the Seven Stars, however, is plainly stated in the text as being seven angels; therefore, the seven stars are seven angels.

 That of course leads us to the question: what or who are the Seven Angels? The meaning of a word, once again, becomes paramount in finding an answer. The word translated in English bibles as angel can have varying meanings. In the OT, the Hebrew word translated angel (malak) can mean, rather innocuously, "messenger" or it can mean "angel" in the spiritual, heavenly sense. It is used about equally one way or the other, the context determining which meaning is used in translation.

In the NT, the Koine word translated angel (aggelo) has the same quality and specification in meaning as does "malak" in the Old. In the NT, however, context demands just about every occurrence of the word to be translated in the spiritual, heavenly sense. Perhaps that it why the English word, angel, which is borrowed, ultimately, from Greek, has as its primary meaning, "a heavenly, spirit being that serves God."

The use of the word angel in the Apocalypse is abundantly clear--over and over again it refers to spirit beings, the servants and messengers of God. Therefore, the Seven Stars are merely those angels tasked by Christ with attending to the Seven Churches to which he sends messages in chapters 2 and 3. Since the sevens here are representative of "the whole", one could justifiably infer that any locality with a body of believers would be likely to have such an angel attending them.

 Though I really should be stating the obvious here, two widespread interpretive errors make that not the case at all. One of those errors interprets the angels as the human bishops of churches (or some permutation of the same). The other interprets them as human prophetic spokesmen of their age (or some permutation of the same). Either error misses the mark by ignoring the consistent and therefore obvious use the word angel in the Revelation. So even though the angels in Anaheim are nothing but human, in the Apocalypse they're anything but.

22

My Theological Presuppositions

2013-03-27T12:55:00.001-04:00

Presuppositions are those predispositions, even prejudices, that we come to the examination of any new knowledge already possessing which affect our interpretation of that knowledge. In other words, we have some ideas about things which act as givens as we build understanding of new things. We can be unaware that we possess them and incognizant of how they color our understanding of things. We even have presuppositions about God, which affect our interpretation, acceptance or, God forbid, rejection of scripture.

I am no different than anyone else in this regard. My experiences and exposures, reactions to and ruminations upon life before the Bible was in the picture color the picture of God painted after I encountered him in the scriptures. For instance, I can remember, long before I was saved, walking down my street as a twelve year old on a sunny, breezy day, when something about the color and shape and way the leaves were fluttering on a maple tree struck me with the intense conviction that there had to be an intelligent, creator God. Prior to that, I didn't think there was one, but regardless, it was not the Bible that informed that new supposition.

That experience led me to reach out to God, to attempt the occasional talk with him, even though reading the Bible was the furthest thing from my mind. I would ask the "God out there" on those occasions about things, and I took the sudden inspirations that followed in my mind as responses from him. Sometimes, the inspirations came apart from any question on my part. I believed I was learning about God from God, even though I was fifteen before I understood who Jesus truly was (that's another story), and 19 before I started reading the Bible in any serious measure.

Sadly, it was actually some time from the moment I knew who Jesus was until I was willing to drop it all and follow him (a bit over 5 years). In my very first days of actually following Jesus, I had an encounter with him in my bedroom that left an impression on me that I'm still under. My experiences, before and after, have left me with with some presuppositions concerning God that (even though these convictions existed before I began to study the Bible) have proven serviceable in the time since when I've been studying the Bible.

Let me share some with you...

We can personally interact with God. God speaks to us today, not just to folks a long time ago in a culture far, far away.

Jesus Christ is the only visible God we will ever see--God in the flesh. The Father and Spirit are incorporeal and never will be discernible through the auspices of electromagnetic radiation (though they may choose to affect the visual realm). Jesus is the only means of knowing God and to know him is to know God.

The Bible is the infallible Word of God, preserved to us inerrant by God's oversight. It was inspired by God, not created by men. If we want to know with confidence what God wants to do in our lives, the Bible is the only place to look.

Freedom of will is the essential distinction between humanity and all other creatures. It is entailed in being made like unto God and is necessary to choice, purpose, and love. Eternity will not result in an abrogation of free will but in the harmonization of it with that of God.

Do you know what some of your presuppositions concerning God are? Have they proven serviceable or a hindrance in your journey with Christ?

Economic Nightmares

2013-03-25T14:29:00.000-04:00

There is no sustainable way to attain anything apart from being productive. Producing something is foundational to wealth and well-being. We do not live in a Star Trek world where replicators pop out whatever one wants when he or she wants it. Someone has to grow, someone has to refine, someone has to fashion everything we get. It's the only way that something can be gotten honestly (and even thievery requires effort).

In an economy where no one produces all they need on their own, what one produces has to find a need or want in what someone else doesn't produce so that exchange can fill the gaps. Markets and currency grease the wheels of this commerce. In an economy like this, reality is that if one isn't producing or hasn't produced sufficiently, that one has no means of attaining what they want or need. Without being productive, no one is in a position to have anything.

If folk live in a political environment where their needs and wants have been promised to them apart from and without regard to their productivity, it will only be a short time before that environment crashes. It is not sustainable, for wealth attained by someone other than the benefactor, and not added to by the benefactor's own production, will fritter away. Everything that people get is unbreakably tied to what they produce whether they understand the connection or not, or in fact, whether or not they are even aware of it.

When people want healthcare, or housing, or education, or any other host of things without acknowledging that they can only have such to the extent of the value they add to the mix of everyone's production, they are living in a dreamland that will eventually prove to be a disaster. Because that is so, what should be foremost on a compassionate political leader's agenda? Namely, promoting economic development that (actually) produces jobs at the broadest level possible. Once people are producing, there is room for a discussion about the distribution of the benefits of production to those that produce it, but the priority has to be getting people producing.

Throwing an evermore unsustainable stream of cash at providing benefits to non-productive people, especially while hindering economic development, can only lead to collapse or tyranny. If we keep sleeping on Main Street while that stream flows on, hoping that we'll stumble into the American Dream, I fear the only thing we'll fumble our way into is the nightmare on Elm Street.

Believers In Divine Healing Can Go to a Doctor

2013-03-13T14:08:00.000-04:00

With this we finish the series on the subject of divine healing.

Show Yourself to a Priest
In modern western society, the professional tasked with certifying the health of individuals who have been sick is the doctor. In ancient Hebrew society that was not the case, the priests performed that function. According to Moses, a person who was ill (with certain symptoms anyhow) needed to have a priest pronounce them clean before they could rejoin the commerce of normal life. That is why Jesus told some of the folks he healed to show themselves to a priest. It was the way to verify that healing had taken place in that society according to the Mosaic law.

I understand, anecdotally, that Kathryn Kuhlman followed that pattern in her ministry. If someone was on medication or in treatment, she told them to show themselves to the doctor and let him or her see the healing for his or herself. I applaud that approach. Afterall, we are not promoting pretend healings (ones that are present in words but not in body) any more than we foist pretend deliverances (ones where spirits are roped and bound but the folk haven't changed).

To those who are fellow charismatics, let's be honest: a healing either has occurred or it hasn't. Some may be delayed in appearing, but we were never tasked with making excuses for the inactivity of God by using wispy exercises in semantics if they haven't. If a healing hasn't occurred, we say it hasn't happened, YET! Having folks confess healings that haven't actually occurred is just plain lying and more worthy of rebuke than anything Jesus' disciples did.

Healing has also been turned into a carnival and a sleight-of-hand show by some. Whereas Jesus and the Apostles drew crowds when healing, they never resorted to revving them up nor manipulating them emotionally in order to "build faith". My point is this: nothing akin to what is often practiced today in the name of healing and deliverance was even remotely testified to in the Bible, and if not there then why here? Where are the demonstrable results, anyhow, for such antics when the dust settles after they're done?

When a healing occurs in someone who has had a prior diagnosis, we should want it verified so that all the glory can go to God. Jesus did. A physician may not be able to admit that God was the cause, but at least he or she can verify that what was, no longer is. The faithless will posit everything other than God as the reason, but at least they won’t be able to justifiably deny that something actually did occur.

Use Your Head, and That of Others
God has been known to provide food miraculously, without toil and sweat, sowing and reaping. Just because he has chosen to do that at times, doesn't mean he chooses to do that at all times. So a sensible believer sows and reaps, eats a balanced diet, and prays that God will bless the efforts. Generally, he does and we eat with thanksgiving.

God has been known to miraculously zap folk from one place to another or to allow them to pass through or over things they could not otherwise get by. Just because he has chosen to do that at times, doesn't mean he chooses to do that at all times. So a sensible believer flies or drives, walks into the depths only with scuba gear, and prays that God will grant traveling mercies. Generally, he does, and we thank God for reaching our destinations.

Should we be too good to use the fruit of sensible efforts, and demand nothing but the miraculous? Good diets, good habits, joy in God and peace with people go a long way toward providing our bodies with what they need to function well. Even though we have the earnest of the invigorating Spirit of God sustaining our dying flesh; a fatty diet, a taste for tobacco, or disdain toward a brother or sister will likely produce less than optimum health. So we do what makes sense and trust God to bless us.

Generally, we see the clear sensibility of using our understanding of how things work to aid our journey through life, and we do so with thanks to God. To that end, what's the difference between spraying bodies of water with a pesticide oil to rid the environment of a pesky infestation of gnats, and taking an antibiotic to deal with a bodily infection? Bugs in the wilderness versus bugs in us. Does faith in God’s provision of healing preclude using the knowledge of the physician? Before we exclude using the sensible, shouldn't we ask ourselves whether doing so is truly faith in God or just hubris in us?

The Bottom Line
The last thing believers want to do is displace their faith in God with faith in men and women in lab coats. It is an unspeakable joy to know that God is willing to exert his awesome power to address our mundane needs. He has purposely made effective blessing in the here and now (healing in this case) part of the atonement of Christ. Can we let the wonder of that sink in for a moment!

Does that mean that the blessings won by Christ can only come to us by way of the miraculous? I don't see that kind of sentiment anywhere taught in scripture. Trusting God is what we're asked to do by God. So, in the words of an old Keith Green song, which I think we can apply to the subject of divine healing well enough, "keep doing your best, and pray that it's blessed, and Jesus takes care of the rest."

We Can Limp Into Glory

2013-03-09T15:02:00.000-04:00

I think this proves true for the Spirit of God we receive through Christ, for our knowledge of God, even for our faith in God, and certainly for those bodily blessings made possible by Christ's death and resurrection. For now, we live in the realm of the partial awaiting the day of the complete. In this divine health is no exception to the rule! It has always been thus for the redeemed of God on fallen earth, it will be so until Christ returns.

Look at those who have gone before: Paul had physical problems; Timothy had physical problems; Jacob had physical problems; David had physical problems. All of them had the same gracious Father we have, who granted them the same kinds of promises and benefits we depend upon. How can we avoid the same experience of bodily health they faced? If faith is the key, as I've claimed it is, which of us would seriously put our faith up against any of theirs?

Since we cannot avoid the thing (death itself) that more than anything else proves that this is not place of ultimate fulfillment, should we not walk in humility while we humbly accept what it is that God will do for us here? God can do virtually anything, that's true. But how often, really, does he replace a detached limb, or separate a set of conjoined twins, or fuse a severed spine? Likely, there are anecdotes of healing concerning each of those scenarios, and there is no reason to believe, should the Holy Spirit inspire the gift, that any one of us could not speak forth such wonders today, but are we guaranteed such action here and now?

Personally, I look in faith for the blessing of Moses and Caleb to be mine. Yet, in that pursuit I also know that a refusal to accept reality is not the same as faith, that bearing false testimony is not the same as confession, and that nothing in life is a reason to give up on God. So please, dear readers, don't settle for less than God's grace and faith provides, but understand this: even blind with only one arm to raise in praise, we can still limp into glory.

Addendum: A great post on this subject by a Southern Baptist missionary.

The Issue of Sin in Healing

2013-03-07T00:35:00.000-04:00

What God Cannot Do, Even If He Wanted To

2013-03-01T10:56:00.000-04:00

Is there anything that God cannot do? Whatever God wants to do he certainly can do, in that there is nothing outside of himself that could possibly prevent him. That is true in regard to beings (for there are no other beings beside God at his level), or with regard to things that are abstract, like morality. In the instance of morality, there is nothing which could be imposed upon God as to measure him by, because there is nothing greater than him which could label a thing he would want to do as moral or immoral. God, in his perfections, is himself the only and final measure of what is good. Therefore, his very wanting to do a thing would be sufficient to make it moral.

Furthermore, if we tried to formulate a conception of the character of God that described him as being unable to do anything against his own nature, we would end up with a self-referent piece of fluff that neither described nor clarified anything about the actual nature of God. Besides, God has done and continues to do things we don't understand, or for which we don't have a full enough picture of to be able to say whether or not it went against his nature in the first place. There is a black box phenomenon at work here. We understand God's nature to the degree we do, not because we can dissect him and see for ourselves what he is, but because we hear his word and see his actions.

All of that not withstanding, there is at least one thing God could not do even if he wanted to: God could not make a replica of himself. If God could be made, even in replica, then God wouldn't be the unmade. The great I AM wouldn't be but would begin. The Creator would be but a creation. If God could be more than one in essence, the ones being considered are not the One. If something else could be made almighty, then the almighty would be so no longer. No, the best that God could do along this line is to make someone like himself, in his image, but not him in his power and perfections.

Which brings me to another thing God could not do even if he wanted to--preserve his image in a being made in it while determining that being's actions. If a being were made in God's image, that being would have to have freewill analogous to God's, or it would not be in his image. God is not under necessity nor are his actions determined, and neither could a creature in his image be thus confined in will. This is verified by the descriptions of Adam's freedom in the Garden. He had the freedom to do a thing or to not do it, and God "waited" observationally to see what Adam would do.

So, though God is the very perfection of all that he is, in power and in ability, there are a few things that God cannot do, even if he wanted to.

The Nature of Freedom and Depravity

2013-02-21T00:47:00.000-04:00

Human beings are free to do as they wish. God made them that way. Adam and Eve were free to do as they wished. They could eat anything that grew in the Garden, save that from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam could name the animals whatever he wished. He could have named them this, he could have named them that. They could have eaten this, they could have eaten that.

God made humans that way in making them in his image. God does as he wishes--it may be his most fundamental quality. No being is freer of necessity than God, for who or what is there that could impose necessity upon him? He could have created the universe, or he could have not. He could have made beings like us in his image, or he could have not. But God did make us in this image of freedom, excepting of course, that he could not make himself, so the image is not as powerful, nor as free, nor as able as the original.

Nonetheless, that created in the image has to be free in a way analogous to God or it would not be in his image. If God determines our desires or decrees our choices we are no more free than a robot, and nor more in his image than a robot can be in ours. If our choice is circumscribed by desire, the result is not freedom but mere instinct. The Bible generally (there are specific exceptions) shows humans in a light in which the kind of choice described thus far would have to be presupposed in order for the accounts to make sense.

Mankind, since the Fall of Adam and Eve, are not as free as they were nor as free as a being made in God's image could be. Humans, on their own, could never replicate or reflect the choices that God would make (and they've been on their own since the Fall). Dead in spirit and separated from God, they have no means of discerning the way or the will of God. This lack of ability to discover anything or to do anything truly godly translates into mankind having neither the inclination nor the power to choose as God would have them choose. Even with God's word giving mankind more information than they could have ever gotten on their own, without spiritual renewal (regeneration) mankind remains depraved.

Fallen humanity does has the power of choice--the freedom to do as they wish. Their wishes, however, can never rise to nor align with the choice of God. Apart from the Spirit of God communicating the word of God into the soul of a man and thereby enabling faith, that man is not free to do as God wills or, indeed, to know what that is. With the action of God's Spirit bringing to bear God's word on the human heart and giving faith the opportunity to arise, something other than the general depravity of mankind is possible.

A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part II

2013-02-14T10:41:00.000-04:00

Continuing our look at Christ's Message to the Church at Thyatira, the vision-driven church...

Some interpreters of the Revelation suggest that Jezebel was the wife of the vision caster in Thyratira. Even though there are a few linguistic reasons for such an interpretation, I find none of them convincing in the least. Primarily (as I've written elsewhere), the angels to whom these letters are written are not pastors, prophets, vision casters, or even humans--they are angels as is consistent with the use of the term throughout the Apocalypse. Pastors and bishops are never called angels (or messengers) in the NT, and it would be a novel application of the term to use it as such in these messages to the seven churches.

Furthermore, since the same Koine word means "wife" and "woman", it is not necessary to interpret the reference to Jezebel ("that woman") as "your wife", even if an extra pronoun (your, second person, singular) is attested in some minority manuscripts. She is female, she may be married, but there is no way she is married to an angel! The bottom line: there is nothing compelling about such an interpretation, and much that militates against it.

Christ gives this self-styled prophetess time to repent of teaching and misleading Christians in Thyatira to commit sexual immorality and participate in idolatry. Of course, in that time she actually has an opportunity to lead more astray, although time granted for the one leading others astray is also time granted for those being led astray to come to their senses and repent. If they don't, they'll go down with her because followers never shed their responsibility for following what they follow. The Antichrist may be thrown into the fire first, but those who follow him get thrown in just the same afterward.

Striking her children dead is a shocking threat, not really unique in biblical revelation, but appalling to our modern sensibilities all the same. Whatever else that says about God, it certainly undermines any notion that he is the touchy-feely type that loves everyone unconditionally. God is love, but he does with people as he sees fit, and who is there that can argue with him about it or question his judgment? History has an ample record of bracing catastrophe, e.g. the Black Death (~1340's), the Shaanxi Earthquake (1556), the Spanish Flu (1918), the Boxing Day Tsunami (2004), and the Haitian Earthquake (2010), which should convince any of us that it is a fearful thing to be in the hand of a God who can suddenly bring us into judgment.

If one sees the name Jezebel as a merely figurative assignation, (i.e. there was not a woman actually named Jezebel in Thyatira), then I would think it was permissible to see her children along the same figurative line. In that case, the children would be her second layer or level of followers rather than actual biological offspring. Those she commits adultery with would be the first layer, those that are won to her way as a result of the first layer would be the children. All three (her, her first followers, and the followers of followers) are justifiably threatened with judgment, for none are innocent.

When God strikes in judgment, it is meant to get our attention, but does he do so just because he desires to demonstrate his wrath? I think that the answer to that question must be both yes and no. No, in that he didn't desire it within himself as if wrath were an attribute of his nature; yes, in that given rebellion, he does desire to respond to it with wrath. Apart from creatures rebelling, there would be no need for, nor any expression of wrath--God is not innately wrathful. He doesn't have to, and hasn't fixed the game just so he has an opportunity to hurt someone and break things, but when it comes to unrepented of rebellion, God wants folk to know what reaction to expect from him.

So never read the wrong message into his patient forebearance--God searches the mind and heart, with absolute transparency. And what he knows in secret, he'll make known in judgment seen by all.

The Thorny Issue in Healing

2013-02-05T17:30:00.000-04:00

Continuing with the subject of Divine Healing, with a review of some pertinent scripture verses: Isaiah 53:3-5; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10; Romans 8:10-11; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 9:1-3; Luke 10:1-12; Mark 16:15-18; I Corinthians 12; Matthew 9:28-30; Mark 9:23-24; Mark 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; James 5:14-20; Revelation 22:1-3

And let's review the basics I've presented up to this point: a) humans experience sickness because they are born in bodies that were stricken with the curse of death due to Adam's sin; b) only by getting new bodies not stricken by that curse will Christians not be susceptible to illness; c) the Devil attempts to take advantage of that susceptibility to bring us to greater depths of misery than we otherwise would experience, but he is not the ultimate author of sickness and disease; d) in expunging the curse upon sinners through his own unmerited death, Christ undermined the foundation of illness; e) therefore, when Christians do experience illness, they can call upon God for healing in very much the same way they would call upon him for forgiveness if they had sinned.

This all sounds so simple and straightforward, but if I'm honest I'd have to admit that things don' t work that crisply and cleanly in the real world. God, apparently, juggles more variables in governing our lives than we can ever be aware of. Just when we think we have it figured out, and have identified all the relevant factors, the unexplainable (or maybe just the entirely too complex) comes upon us and we face that same awe striking reality Job did. Our understanding distills in those moments like Job's did in his--God is God and that has to be enough for us.

Some issues Christians face are just thorny. Like Job, the Apostle Paul had his moment of clarity (or resignation?) concerning such perplexities. Even though we anticipate God watching over our lives to bring blessing, there are times we are pummeled with everything but blessing. What can we learn from Paul's or Job's experience? Even though Paul did what any person of faith should do when faced with a physical attack (i.e. pain, disability, or sickness), whether directly attributable to the Devil or not, he got none of the relief the atonement of Christ would have been expected to deliver.

Let me sketch out the particulars of his circumstance in the hopes that we'll see this the same way: 1) Paul was afflicted by a singular source of irritation that "beat" his flesh (which I find hard not to see in physical terms as pain); 2) the Devil was the agent which visited this suffering upon Paul; 3) Paul prayed diligently in faith for "healing" (as I've posited should be our approach); 4) God had a spiritual agenda operating for Paul's benefit which acted synchronously, almost symbiotically, with the Devil's evil one; and 5) in the end, Paul celebrated his "beaten but unhealed", condition because in not succeeding in destroying him, it demonstrated God's miraculous power (perhaps as much as healing would have).

When physical suffering is clearly from the Devil, as in this case, the certainty that it is not ours to bear is that much more definite. We are the blood-bought, blood-washed children of God. The Devil has no business nor any right in afflicting us. Operating from that perspective, Paul asked once for it to be gone, nothing. Twice, nothing still. Thrice the charm? Not in this case.

Paul's faith in God's deliverance through Christ was sure, hence his importunity. Certainly, he understood the implications of Christ's atonement as well as anyone ever did. If ever there was a candidate for the healing ministrations of Christ, Paul was that one. And yet God did not heal Paul, he gave him a word instead. It was a promise of victory even though it wasn't a promise of healing.

Huh? God promised that even though the affliction remained, it would not get the best of him. Despite that thorn, Paul would go on and God's grace would be sufficient to carry him through whatever the Devil threw at him. I'm led to conclude that overcoming can look different from God's perspective than from ours.

I know dear brothers and sisters in the Lord who are full of faith and lead outstanding Spirit-filled lives of love and faithfulness, yet they are chronically sick and feeble or are lame. Diabetes, in particular, is a stubborn culprit for many dear brothers and sisters in God's kingdom. Did a lack of faith either create their conditions or does it keep them in them? No, I don't think so, but I do think we, like Paul, need to express the importunity of faith before we resign ourselves to those conditions.

Healing has already been won for us by Christ, provided in his atonement. Why should any of us accept a thorn, that by rights is not ours, without a word from the Lord that tells us to?

What Should A Sick Christian Do?

2013-01-23T09:30:00.000-04:00

We continue with the subject of Divine Healing, with a review of some pertinent scripture verses: Isaiah 53:3-5; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10; Romans 8:10-11; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 9:1-3; Luke 10:1-12; Mark 16:15-18; I Corinthians 12; Matthew 9:28-30; Mark 9:23-24; Mark 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; James 5:14-20; Revelation 22:1-3

Christians can and do get sick, they get injured, they lose body parts or the function of them. Some are born with genetic or developmental defects or had disease passed on to them in utero. In light of what Christ has done for us, why? We have already touched on the general principle: the dying bodies we were born with are susceptible to such things. So what should a Christian do about sickness?"

My response is that they should call upon God. Call upon God, I must be joking, right? No, that is the biblical answer! There are so many things God does for us without us consciously asking (we all breathe air at his discretion, without asking), but there are others that take the word of our mouth expressing the faith of our hearts to get. Our natural bodies do combat sickness and recover from or adapt to its effects, Christian or not. So it certainly is possible to be healed without asking (i.e. coming to him to receive), but when sickness crosses a certain threshold, I would say that is the exception rather than the rule.

I think the example of Jesus is illuminating here: everyone who came to him, or was brought to him to seek healing from him was healed by him. Have you ever wondered what happened to the sick that heard about Jesus, but didn't bother to come themselves or had no one bring them? What happened to those that did not have faith that compelled them to come and receive? I know it's a supposition, but I'd say they stayed sick, even died that way.

The Bible says flatly, if you're sick it's time to pray, and specifically, to get the church to use it's power of agreement in prayer for you. So whether you look at the pattern of folk getting healed in the gospels, or you hear the teaching of James on the subject, the bottom line is the same: when those in the community of faith get sick, they must ask God for healing! Healing is provided in the atonement, but like the atonement itself, it is not applied to humans generally apart from a receiving faith communicated to God.

Of course, some reading this will say, "I asked, but nothing happened. Doesn't that undermine everything said up to this point?" This is going to be painful for some of you to hear, so brace yourself, but please read on. It is possible to ask things of God amiss or to do so without any real faith. The only time Jesus' power to heal was ever stifled was in Nazareth when he faced unbelief.

As far as we know, the only time the Apostles, in doing Jesus' bidding in the gospels, were stifled was when there was a lack of faith. I hate the expression, "faith healing," but there is a measure of truth in it. When we come and ask Jesus for anything, it will be unto us according to our faith. A double-minded man will receive nothing from the Lord, even though Jesus died to provide it.

When we come to God for healing, we must come boldly, believing he hears us, and realizing that those stripes laid upon the back of Jesus were laid there for our healing. It is God's determined will to act on our behalf and heal us: "by his stripes we are healed!" So when we call upon the elders to pray over us, we cannot merely hope that it will work, we must know in our heart that it will.

But honestly, how can anyone know that? Well, all true Christians know that forgiveness of sins was an outcome of Jesus' atonement. They have no trouble knowing what to do when conviction of sin and a guilty conscience strike them. They go to God, confess their sin, and appropriate the forgiveness won at the cross. Most Christians have little difficulty believing that God forgives them when they ask him to do so.

After all, they have the pattern of the Lord's prayer, they have the historical fact of the passion, and they have the specific teaching of an Apostle. When they ask God to forgive them, they do so with confidence and the burden lifts. Why should they approach healing any differently? We have the pattern of God's management of his flock, we have the historical fact of the passion (specifically, those stripes), and we have the clear teaching of an apostle.

So when we ask God to heal us, we should do so with the same confidence we have that he will forgive us. They are part and parcel of the same thing. But wait a minute, there are believing folk that remain in illness or disability, what about them? We'll tackle that in the next post on the subject.

A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part I

2013-01-19T16:49:00.001-04:00

‘I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate... Revelation 2:19-20a NASB

In his message to the church at Thyatira, Jesus pinpoints trouble in a church that seemed to know where it was going. Look at his description: notable deeds, love and faith, service, perseverance, and a trajectory in mission that resulted in latter deeds being greater than former ones. I think any of us looking at that description would say, "What a great church, now that's the way to do it!." Particularly, in today's business and marketing laden approach to church planting, church management and growth, those qualities would seem to be the core of producing the right kind of success.

Now please don't misunderstand what I'm saying, those were great characteristics. This church was relational, it was engaged and moving, they were focused. They knew what they were trying to accomplish, and they were getting after it. But as important as these considerations are, what cannot be overlooked is that they were not allowed by Christ to be substituted for proper teaching and upright behavior.

The message to Thyatira that perhaps today's church needs to clearly hear is that passe things like doctrine and discipline really do matter, at least to God. I fear that under the current church-growth regimens so widely practiced by congregations swallowing up whole the population of church-goers, discipline never rises past the level of showing the door to anyone who doesn't quite buy the leader's vision. Doctrine isn't anything more than the joyous knowledge that as long as you fit the profile the church is trying to attract and submit to that leader's vision, God loves you.

It is not enough to have a vision that drives your church. It is not enough to know one's mission and to dedicatedly pursue it. Even if one is successful in that aspect of church life, Christ may find significant and disastrous fault with such a church. Church discipline is a key aspect of church life as Christ would have it. False prophets, false teaching, immoral practices all have to be addressed via discipline. Talk about turning today's wisdom on its head--vision, evidently, is not a suitable vector for close-mindedness in church according to Christ, but doctrine is.

Does God Want Us To Be Sick?

2013-01-16T10:33:00.000-04:00

We continue with the subject of Divine Healing, with a reminder of some pertinent scripture verses before we deal with the subject at hand: Isaiah 53:3-5; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10; Romans 8:10-11; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 9:1-3; Luke 10:1-12; Mark 16:15-18; I Corinthians 12; Matthew 9:28-30; Mark 9:23-24; Mark 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; James 5:14-20; Revelation 22:1-3

As I have said in an earlier post, it was God's justified curse on man for sin which resulted in death and led to decay, infirmity and disease. A reasonable person might assume from that nugget of truth that God's will for fallen humans is that they be ill, at least at times. However, that same God sent his son Jesus to become the curse for us so that we could be freed from its effects. The penalty of death (and with it infirmity, decay and disease) was eradicated by the substitutionary death of the sinless lamb of God.

Since God's wrath against sin was fully expended upon Christ in suffering his passion, none of God's wrath is left for the heirs of salvation. Logically (even if there was no passage like Isaiah 53:4-5), for the sacrifice of Christ to exhaust and expunge the curse of death, it would also, by necessity, wipe out the effects of death, namely, decay, infirmity and disease. Therefore, people who embrace Christ's vicarious sacrifice for sin through faith, should not only have the blessing of sins forgiven and eternal life, but they should also have the provision of healing, now.

The promise of divine health and healing for those within the covenant of faith is well attested in scripture. It is an established pattern, from of old, that clues us into God's management style. He wants those he redeems to be well. That Isaiah makes it clear that healing is provided for within the atonement of Christ only strengthens the point. Some of the last verses of the Apocalypse underline the ultimate intention of God that those that are his be well.

But wait a minute here, we still grow old, get sick and die. Why, if all that I've written above is true? According to the Apostle Paul, these mortal frames formed from Adam and Eve's flesh (genes) must be put off before new bodies untinged by Adam's sin and not subject to death may be put on. We have a very rich inheritance in Christ, but we can only receive a portion of it now while in these dead bodies. We'll have to wait until the resurrection for the full package.

Until then all humanity, even the believing, will continue to die in their time. And while in dying bodies, even Christians can get sick, despite the provision of healing in the atonement. Is there anything that can be done about that? We'll take up that question and the whys and wherefores in the next post on the subject.

Her Name Rings A Jezebel

2013-01-11T15:13:00.000-04:00

"...you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols." Revelation 2:20 NASB

Jezebel called herself a prophetess and unrepentantly led Christians in Thyatira into license. Exactly who was she? I doubt there was a person in Thyatira actually named "Jezebel" at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, but I do think there was an actual person in Thyatira around that time who was symbolically designated by the reference but was otherwise unnamed. What I feel quite certain about is that whoever was referred to by the name was not a "spirit" or a demon. It's not that I don't think that a demonic spirit could have been behind the activity mentioned, it's just that it's not at all discernible from the text if it is. It's better not to make such a claim.

The name itself hearkens back to some of the dark days of the northern kingdom of Israel during the era of the divided kingdom. In a politically expedient marriage, Ahab, an Israelite king, married the heathen daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians. Her name was Jezebel. She was willful, a dedicated pagan, and in utter opposition to God and his prophets. Elijah, the one prophesied to reappear in the end of the age, was driven to despair and into hiding by her focused effort to undermine what he said and to kill him.

Whoever the actual person referred to by Christ may have been, the qualities which make her a symbol for all who followed are that she was: 1) a woman, 2) who wanted those in the believing community around her to embrace practices foreign to true religion, and 3) who resisted all correction from legitimate spiritual leadership. Furthermore, this self-appointed authority was associated with teaching the "deep things of Satan." Christians never need delve deeper into the things of Satan than realizing he's on the prowl seeking someone to devour. Learning his secrets is not the means of overcoming him, rather getting deeper into the things clearly, openly revealed in Christ is.

My experience over the last 30 years leads me to doubt any claim to "deep things" from contemporary prophetic figures, so when I hear the phrase used by teachers today, my mind translates it into: "reading into the text something completely alien to it". I do not doubt the Jezebel referenced by John the Revelator would have foisted her teaching in a similar vein. In fact, since I see these letters as prophetically representative and therefore in force for types of the local church as it exists in various places at various times, I would expect that at any given time some local church would be dealing with such a figure in their midst. If and when that happens, even though the false prophetess' name may not, her way most certainly should ring a Jezebel.

God's Sovereignty and Man's Freewill

2012-12-22T06:00:00.000-04:00

If asked, "Is God in control?" my answer, as I understand it from scripture, is absolutely, he most certainly is! In fact, God wouldn't be God if he wasn't in control over what he made. If his will can be frustrated, then ultimately, he's not omnipotent; if he can be surprised then he's not omniscient; if he's subject to time then he's not eternal. If any of these are true then he's not holy (separate from creation).

Is it possible for God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, to not thereby bear ultimate responsibility for everything that occurs? If he's capable of speaking the worlds into being, then, minimally, he is capable of stopping anything he wants to, anytime he wants to, with a word! Since nothing happens that he was not aware would happen, then, maximally, he is the cause of all that does happen. God is sovereign, and therefore God is responsible.

Why then do things occur that are specifically stated in his word as being outside of his desire and will? It would seem that it must be his will for things to occur that are not in his will. What kind of mechanism would make that kind of doublespeak possible without making God hopelessly divided against himself? Namely, independent will would, created by God, for God, and allowed under his governance to express itself as it, rather than he wills.

It makes sense even if it is counterintuitive, seemingly contradicting God's omni characteristics. If will wasn't independent it couldn't actually be will, it could only be instinct or some such like. When God created wills other than his own, independence or autonomy in their expression is what he willed for them in creating them. And evidently, having created them, he is not willing to contravene the exercise of them (at least not for a while).

So, in his sovereignty, it is God's will that we express ours. That is real, God-given freedom. I take this to be the very core and substance of being created in his image. Because I see things this way I find that Arminianism, rather than Calvinism, more fully encompasses the truth concerning God's sovereignty. The truth is that God is sovereign, and that humans truly have free wills.