Design of Providence

Steve Kelly and Wave Church - Cultic Teachings on Leadership

2013-05-22T08:18:00.002-04:00

The following is a link to my podcast reviewing the sermon "Is Your Destiny Connected to Your Leader?", by Steve Kelly of Wave Church in Virginia Beach, VA.

This link leads to the email exchange between myself and Wave Church Associate Pastor Clayton Ritter on December 30, 2012.

The following is a copy of the email sent to me by Frank Rue (shared with his permission).

from:		Frank Rue
to:		Tony-Allen
date:		Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:58 PM
subject:		Re: Greetings; Wave Church Tony-Allen - We were given an audio cassette (it was a while ago, haha) of "Your Destiny is Connected To Your Leader", and it was much more direct than the more recent one you've mentioned. The more recent one is a lot more tame. I wish I could dig up the old one, but it is not available anymore. My wife was the Executive Administrator for our church in New Jersey, and our church was the church in the Wave Network that was responsible for making most of their materials, including the Network Church Handbook. I still have copies of the handbook, electronically, and it contains the requirement of listening to the original "Your Destiny is Connected to Your Leader" language. This requirement is for leaders of the church (pastors on down through small group leaders). The handbook is certainly something I can dig up, if you think it would be worth the time. When our pastors in New Jersey were caught in adultery, Steve Kelly himself came up and gave a "talk" wherein he said anyone who went against him or the elders was using witchcraft and manipulation to divide the church, and to have nothing to do with them. Also, when I had a disagreement with the pastor earlier in my time there, my wife and I were shunned until we "repented" and apologized to the pastor and then publicly for having "gone astray". No, we didn't sin—we literally just disagreed with and spoke up about it to the pastors directly. For that we were branded "rebellious" and "arrogant", and people were told we were "working through things" and we "needed to be left alone". Further, our pastor's wife (also considered a pastor) spoke on being a "Prodigal". She equated the story of the Prodigal Son in the bible to the idea that a person sometimes makes bad choices, turns away from the church (read: gets kicked out), and cannot be contacted at all until they are pitifully begging for forgiveness, at the end of their rope and totally broken. My wife personally was contacted by a former church member once (who we did not know was kicked out) and, upon asking her small group leader about what to do, was told NOT to respond to the former church member and to ignore her so she wouldn't be "sucked into her hurtful world", or something of that sort. I know of a particular ex-military leader who once participated at many Wave Network events as a speaker. He once questioned something Steve Kelly said whilst at a Network Pastor's Breakfast, was reprimanded, and then was ostracized by all of the pastors in the network over the next 6 months. Effectively, no one had him speak any longer at any of their events or churches, and he was forced to find another outlet for his ministry. When he called to ask Steve Kelly what happened, he was gruffly refused by the administrative staff and told that Steve Kelly didn't have time for his phone calls. This is all common practice among the Wave Network churches (and Hillsong churches, for that matter), Wave itself, and our former church. It is almost exclusively the reason for the label "cult", frankly, though there are a number of other reasons which more than qualify the "churches" for such a moniker. Hope this helps! Frank

This link sends you to Frank Rue's Disconnect Church blog. It mostly covers The Connect Church, which is part of the Wave Network, but many of the issues are the same.

This link sends you to Frank Rue's Diakonos blog. Plenty of posts here are well worth the read. Of particular interest, in regards to this topic, is his Cult of Personalities post.

Therapeutic Theology V: A New Brainfart

2013-05-20T14:00:00.000-04:00

Hi folks we're here to discuss therapeutic blah blah blah blah blah moving on...

Over on the left here the therapeutic image reads: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (emphasis in original), and is attributed to Colossians 1:17. What is the actual wording of the verse?

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [Colossians 1:17]

Wait...holy cow! Did one of these things actually use an actual quotation? Let alone from a legitimate translation!? This seems like an improvement. Now let's use our next test: the context test (say that three times fast).

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [Colossians 1:15-20]

Let's ask a question: why was "hold together" bolded in the original quote? Chances are because it was meant to convey that Christ "holds together" all the aspects of your life. Bad relationship? Financial troubles? Harassed by creditors? Didn't save as much money switching to Geico as you expected? Don't worry! Because Christ holds ALL THINGS TOGETHER!

Is this the case as found within the context? Actually, no. Paul is talking about the divine power of Christ, calling him "the image of the invisible God" and "the firstborn of all creation" (v. 15). By Christ, all things that ever existed were created, and were created through him and for him (v. 16). We then see the statement that Christ is before all things (that is, all things of existence and which were created), and in him "all things hold together" (v. 17). Does this mean Christ is gonna make your life work out? Actually no - it means all things, as in, all things of creation, hold together because of Christ's power. The planets circle, the storms rage, and the natural world continues according to the power of God the Son.

Again, we need to be careful with how we handle scripture. We wouldn't like someone misusing our words to prove a point we weren't even talking about - we shouldn't treat God's word that way.

First Podcast - Steve Kelly and "Naming your harvest"

2013-05-15T10:14:00.002-04:00

Below is a link to my first podcast at a little web show I'm trying. It will essentially be an extension of this blog.

In this episode, I examine a sermon by Steve Kelly of Wave Church, in Virginia Beach, VA. Does it hold up to the light of scripture? Listen and find out.

"If I Were the Devil"

2013-05-11T10:00:00.000-04:00

Some words from Paul Harvey, from not too long ago.

Ergun Caner, Frank Dux and Jesus Christ: A Comparative Study

2013-05-09T10:00:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, Ergun Caner announced on Twitter that he was innocent and denied all charges against him. For those who are not familiar with the accusations made against Ergun Caner, this page where James White collected together his videos on the subject might help (by the way, the graphic at the top was made by yours truly). He added in response to one critic:

Whenever the Caner affair pops up its ugly head again, I can't help but remember similar charges made against someone else. Who is it? Of all people, it's actually one Frank Dux, whose real life experiences were the basis for the famous 1988 Jean Claude Van Damme flick Bloodsport. While the film of course made plenty of exaggerations and additions (some of which Frank Dux criticized), the basic premise is similar to how Dux claimed it unfolded in real life. This, of course, has led many to call foul and claim Dux is himself exaggerating or adding to his life story. Now, whether or not you think Frank Dux is the real deal, the point I'd like to make here is that he has responded to critics by providing evidence, or pointing to where the evidence can be found. One example can be found here, and another here. Overall, he's been pretty precise in response to his critics and naysayers.

Now compare this with Ergun Caner, who has done nothing in response to his critics except to repeat the mantra of "I'm innocent! They're being mean to me! It's a Muslim/Calvinist conspiracy!" Imagine, instead, if he release information to confirm or respond to his critics. Imagine if he presented evidence that he really was raised in the Middle East. Imagine if he explained the wild contradictions that exist in his various testimony presentations. Imagine if, once and for all, he told us who he debated in Nebraska! This sort of thing should not be hard, and one would think that at least some superficial evidence could be provided on this subject. For example, I grew up in my preteens in Europe when my father, who's in the military, was stationed there. If someone wanted to challenge this, they could easily research with the military on where my dad was stationed during my preteen years, to see if indeed it was in Europe. If I "misspoke" and said I was in San Francisco in 1991 when records showed my family wasn't there, I could easily correct it and say we were actually there in 1989, which could indeed be confirmed. The point is, these sort of things are easy enough to prove, and whereas Frank Dux, who (as far as I know) is not a believer, is capable of responding to such accusations, Ergun Caner, who claims to be a Christian and therefore worship He who is the embodiment of truth (Jn 14:6), does not even attempt to provide any answers or evidences. In fact, as precedence shows, Caner and his allies have a habit of simply trying to hide any errors and contradictions.

Now let's take a moment to turn to one other person: Jesus Christ. Ergun Caner said in the tweet above (as he has elsewhere) that Jesus never defended "against false accusations," and so he won't either. Of course, why did Christ remain silent against his accusers? Let's take a look at the accounts in the gospels:

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. [Matthew 26:59-60a]

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. [Mark 14:55-59]

Why was Christ silent? Because he didn't have to defend his innocence. It is said that these were "false testimonies," yes, but not only were they false but the "testimony did not agree." Christ's enemies were inconsistent, and if Christ had not been asked personally to assert his divinity and his Messianic status, he probably would have been a free man.

Now let's compare this to Ergun Caner's situation. Is he under attack by false testimony? Upon what basis is it false except his word against theirs - and his enemies have demonstrated their accusations, not simply launched into blanket charges. Is he under attack from accusations that are inconsistent? On the contrary, the accusations have been very consistent...in fact, the only inconsistent one has been Ergun Caner himself. People have not had to make up charges like they did with Christ, who was blameless before all, but there are serious charges and allegations against Caner which he has yet to provide any real response. Frankly, to use the innocence of Christ against legitimate questions and accusations is sickening and blasphemous.

Ergun Caner, if you read this post, please understand that this isn't being done out of hate. You bring a mark upon the gospel of Christ when you add to it your false stories and embellished testimonies. You're making it harder not only for yourself, but your family as well. Please, sir, repent of your sins, repent of your wrongdoings, and be an example for others out there who might be in your position. God has granted you this time to repent, but there will come a time when it will no longer be available to you. When that time comes, you will be held accountable for all you have done. Please, seriously consider these things.

John the Baptist and the End-Times: A Response

2013-05-07T23:48:00.003-04:00

As many who read this blog know, it's difficult to get a response from official sources at the International House of Prayer. Sometimes, however, I get responses on Twitter. Recently I got in a conversation with one Brandon, a.k.a. 1hundredfold, on Twitter. It started when I responded to an IHOP-KC tweet which read:

The Spirit wants to manifest His power through people who will not use it to draw attention to themselves. Jn. 3:29-30.

I asked, very simply:

What does that passage in John have to do with the Holy Spirit?

Brandon responded to me by mentioning 1 Corinthians 14:1, and how it should be done in the spirit of John 3:29-30. I asked how they were related, and things started to go back and forth, as subjects related to the forerunner movement began to be brought in.

Of course, with the word limitations of Twitter, it can get difficult having a detailed conversation. So, Brandon provided a response here, and I have written up my own below. I would encourage people read his in full before reading my responses, as I'll be responding piecemeal. It's somewhat brief and at times doesn't go into as much detail as I may have liked, but I hope it would be edifying for those looking at this subject.

The first part deals with the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:11, 15-17):

This post assumes 3 Key points that if you do not agree, it will be hard for us to discuss John the Baptist.
1. Mark of the beast was not fulfilled historically. I cannot find, without having to suspend my faculties of logic and reason, these verses in history.

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name. Revelation 16:2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.

I would contend this has nothing to do with the topic of John the Baptist, and therefore it is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion, and therefore I don't see too much of a point in responding to it.

Moving on:

2. 2nd Thes 3:5‘s Apostasy and man of sin have not yet happened.

concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed

It's actually 2 Thessalonians 2:5, but that isn't too big of a deal. In any case, whether it has happened or not, it is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Moving on:

3. I do not want to stand before Jesus in heaven and say of Matthew 24:21 “I thought You were using prophetic hyperbole, I thought you were exaggerating.” Matt 24:21 “For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

While this is leading down one deep rabbit hole, Matthew 24 is actually about the destruction of the Temple and the ultimate end of the old covenant with all its signs and shadows. This has been the interpretation of many learned men throughout Christian history. The notion that it foretold something in the far (or even near, for us) future did not come about until really the past 200 years or so, with the rise of Dispensationalism. If you had gone back in time and presented this mindset to any Church Father, they would have looked at you cross-eyed (in fact, much of the theology and scriptural teachings at IHOP-KC are foreign to Christian history).

And again, this isn't related to the subject of John the Baptist.

Moving on:

The End Times
The seals trumpets and bowls are quite similar to the plagues of Egypt. Yet the children of Israel were protected. I believe the end-time tribulation will cause many to fall, yet their will be greater miracles and protection than through church history. Considering the damage and fatality, and Jesus’ warning for love to grow cold, it is wise to search this; God always sends messengers to warn and prepare before Judgment to give opportunity to repent.

Where was it foretold in the New Testament that men would warn and prepare for judgment? While it is true that God often sent messengers in the Old Testament to warn and prepare for judgment, where is the specific teaching regarding this? To try to apply a standard found in the Old Testament and immediately apply it in the new can be dangerous, similar to Mormons who go to the Old Testament and show the pattern of apostasy and revival to try to teach that, after the time of the apostles, the churches apostasied and now there's a revival among the Mormon church.

The good news is that, for Christians and non-Christians today, they already have the warnings...and the warnings and calls for preparation are in Holy Writ. It is the preaching of God's word, and not a special forerunner movement, that awakens the soul to repent and prepare for Christ. If Holy Writ is ignored, then those who choose to ignore it have no excuse before God, just as Abraham told the rich man regarding torment and punishment: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them...If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Lk 16:29, 31).

Here we are entering the realm of the IHOP-KC doctrine of the "forerunners." To summarize for those unfamiliar with this movement: those who embrace the lifestyle of a "forerunner" serve a John the Baptist-like role, warning people and calling them to repent before the second coming of Christ - which IHOP-KC founder Mike Bickle believes will be in our present generation. Bickle, unfortunately, often argues for the forerunner movement with scripture rather than from scripture. What I mean by this is that he uses the strategy of citing verses for the sake of their wording or to make an analogy, rather than demonstrating the doctrine being directly taught from the passages themselves.

Bickle has to do this, because nowhere in the Bible is it foretold that "forerunners" will be raised up in the end times, or that there is a special group of Christians known as "forerunners" who function in the same vein that John the Baptist did. Instead, Mike Bickle has to allegorize scripture and look to mere examples. To quote from his 7 Commitments of a Forerunner book:

End-time forerunners can find inspiration and instruction from New Testament forerunners like John the Baptist, the first apostles, and the seventy disciples, who all announced the first coming of Jesus to their generation (Mt. 10:5-8; Lk. 9:1-2; 10:1).

John the Baptist functioned as a forerunner by announcing the coming of Jesus, as well as the glory and pressures that would result from it in that generation (Lk. 3:3-9, 16-18).

The apostles functioned as forerunners in two ways. First, they announced the first coming of Jesus to the cities of Israel (Lk. 9:1-6). Second, they proclaimed the second coming of Jesus and the worldwide glory and pressures that would result in that generation (Acts 3:19-21; 2 Pet. 3; 1. 4-5; 2 Thes. 1-2; Rev. 6-19). [pg. 5-6; Forerunner]

Here we see that Bickle inserts his theology into scripture by saying that the apostles functioned as forerunners. However, is such theology actually in scripture, or taught in scripture? Let's see what the word of God has to say about John the Baptist and his function.

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me..." [Malachi 3:1a]

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction." [Malachi 4:5-6]

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come." [Matthew 11:7-14]

The words by Christ in the section from Matthew relate directly to the two prophecies regarding John the Baptist in the book of Malachi. Christ identifies John the Baptist as the fulfillment of Malachi 3:1a (which he himself quotes), and states "among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist" (v. 11). Why is this? Because John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the one chosen to foretell the coming of the Messiah to his people. Yet why does Christ add "the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (v. 11)? This is because there is a shift in eras - the era of the Messiah, who has come. This is seen even clearer a few verses later with "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John" (v. 13) - that is, all the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament came to a hilt with John, and are now being fulfilled. Christ then concludes: "if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come" (v. 14), making a direct reference to Malachi 4:5-6. In other words, John the Baptist was the "Elijah" prophesied in Malachi, and he had fulfilled that role.

Let us look at another set of related verses in scripture:

A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God." [Isa 40:3]

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’” Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. [Matthew 3:1-4]

Here we have the prophecy in Isaiah of John the Baptist's coming and his ministry, which Matthew explicitly spells out (and Mark and Luke likewise do in the parallel passages) as having been fulfilled in John the Baptist (v. 3). He adds that John wore a "garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist," which was similar to how Elijah dressed (2 Kings 1:8), signifying silently that John the Baptist was likewise fulfilling the prophecy in Malachi 4:5.

What does all this tell us? No one else is a "forerunner" or an "Elijah" but John the Baptist. As Christ clearly says, all of that was fulfilled in John. Bickle says that we "function" like John the Baptist, but why should we strive to "function" like him if he served a specific role, and that role was prophesied regarding him and fulfilled in his ministry?

Bickle's tactic here is nothing new to Christian history. The early proponents of monasticism - and those who support it today - turned to biblical examples and said many should "function" like them. They turn to Elijah's lifestyle of living simply in the wilderness (never mind it was done in exile), or to John the Baptist's similar lifestyle in the wilderness (never mind it was done in fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy), and encourage others to engage in this lifestyle for a kind of higher spirituality. In a similar fashion, Bickle will turn to the lifestyle of John the Baptist or the apostles, and try to find what goes along with his concept of what a forerunner is. The problem is, again, nowhere in scripture is the title of "forerunner" given to Christians, nowhere is it said anyone else other than John the Baptist fulfilled the roles prophesied in Malachi, and nowhere are those passages used by Bickle ever shown to be connected.

Part of the reason Bickle can't present a solid foundation for the teaching of "forerunners" in scripture is because this is based not on clear exegesis or systematic theology, but personal revelation. In other words, Bickle claims that God personally revealed this end-time movement to him. This places the authority of Bickle's ministry and movement not on scripture and its authority, but on his personal revelation and prophecy. I talk about this more in this post and this one.

Moving on:

Matt 25:6 Features a way to prepare for the return of Jesus that was identical to John the Baptists. Behold the Lamb!!

John the Baptist calls Israel to Behold Jesus 5 times. Matthew 25:6′s cry is to behold the Bridegroom Jesus.

At the risk of sounding like I'm straining gnats, John the Baptist actually only said "Behold" twice (Jn 1:29, 36). Only one other similar account is recorded in the Synoptics, with John telling the people to repent for the kingdom being at hand.

As for Matthew 25:6's use of "behold," it is in reference to the coming of the bridegroom, but that was not John did not say "behold" in his verse regarding the bridegroom. This is attempting to connect verses that really have nothing to do with one another, based on a single word.

Moving on:

Mal 3:1 speaks of preparing the way for both the 1st and 2nd Comings of Jesus, Malachi 3:2 on speaks of only the 2nd Coming:

“But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire And like launderers’ soap. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” Says the Lord of hosts (Mal 3:2).

There is absolutely no sign that there are two different comings spoken of in Malachi 3:1-2. I will present the full text here:

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap." [Malachi 3:1-2]

Verse 1 (said to be about his first coming) speaks "behold, he is coming," speaking of the messenger of the covenant - that is, Christ, who was the messenger of the covenant of grace. It then goes on into verse 2: "but who can endure the day of his coming?" Given the immediate context, and following the flow of thought from verse 1 into verse 2, the "day of his coming" can only refer to the day of the coming of Christ. Again, there is no change between one coming and another from verse 1 to verse 2.

Moving on:

John was in the wilderness led by the Lord, just as the Lord is calling many to the wilderness of fasting and ‘unplugging,’ to get free of the tentacles of our culture. If we can get in the wilderness and be shaped and prepared ourselves, we can then prepare others, to be burning and shining lamps like Isaiah 62:1 prophesies of us being in the end-times and like Gabriel said of John.

Here we are entering the dangerous realm of allegorizing and erroneous application, just as the monks of early Christianity would take the actions of Moses, Elijah, and others and apply it to people in their time. The fact is, why was John in the wilderness? Why did John live the way John lived? It was because his lifestyle was similar to Elijah, and hence he fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elijah before the Messiah. The clothes he wore, for example, matched those worn by Elijah (2 Ki 1:8).

Moving on:

Just as Joel 2 properly belongs to the final generation in context, yet Peter identifies a downpayment and dual-fulfillment at Pentecost, so in the same way Isaiah in Isaiah 40 prophesied of forerunners who would prepare the way for the Lord in the End-Times or at the time of Jesus’ Second Coming when all flesh (all nations) shall see Jesus’ glory together. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God…5 The glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh (all nations) shall see it together (at Jesus’ Second Coming). (Isa. 40:3-5)

Joel 2 does not properly belong to the "final generation," but rather to the generation to whom Peter was speaking, and, like Matthew 24, was a warning to the Jews of that generation of the coming destruction of the Temple and the judgment upon the Jewish nation. Mike Bickle has twisted the wording of Acts 2 to apply it to his theological presuppositions. I speak of this in greater detail in this post. I shall defer continued discussion on that there.

In regards to Isaiah 40:3-5, the word there for "flesh" can't mean nations, as that is hardly how the word is ever used in the original Hebrew. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the translators even use the word σὰρξ, the Greek word for literal "flesh." It is sometimes used in reference to mankind or living creatures, but in the context of the New Testament, such language is often said to speak of the inclusion of the Gentiles, rather than simply the Jews, who were considered to be "God's people" on the earth.

Likewise, it was never applied for the end times, but the evangelist Luke applies it contemporarily to John's present time, hence his wording "as it is written in the book of Isaiah the prophet" and the quotation followed (Lk 3:4-6). This was in reference to John's contemporary actions, not something that was yet to be fulfilled. Some might contend that Luke does not say "only this," but this is presuming there is a dual prophecy, and hence is begging the question. It is similar to Roman Catholics who, challenging the sola authority of scripture, will ask "Where in scripture does it say it's the only authority, and there aren't others?" This is likewise the old fallacy of proving a negative, ie., "You can't prove he DIDN'T say there was a dual prophecy!"

When John said "I am Isaiah 40" he was claiming an end-time verse for himself and in a way, rightly so, yet he confuses the chapter for many students of Isaiah, leading them to fully assign it to him. Therefore we can view John’s model of forerunner, preparatory ministry for Jesus’ first coming as a model for own our in Jesus’ Second, crying as a voice from the wilderness the ministry of the midnight hour of Matt 25:6 comes from years of preparation.

When a New Testament author quotes a passage from the Old Testament and applies it to an incident in the new covenant, we must do it under the context the author himself applies it. As it stands, Luke and the other evangelists do not apply Isaiah 40 as an end-time verse, but as a verse for the contemporary time (see previous response).

We also have a case here of yet again erroneously applying scripture and allegorizing it. We are told that "we can view John's model of a forerunner," and yet the only forerunner foretold by scripture, as we've established, is John himself. Nowhere are other "forerunners" foretold, and the only way to find them is to invent the concept first (as Mike Bickle has) and then read it into scripture, just as the monastics and ascetics of early Christianity did.

Here we likewise see an erroneous application of Matthew 25:6 - namely, it doesn't say we are to "cry as a voice from the wilderness the ministry of the midnight hour," let alone that we must prepare to do so over many years. The Parable of the Ten Virgins, found in Matthew 25:1-13, serves, as a whole, to foretell the coming of Christ, and warns believers to be prepared. The false believers (the virgins who were not ready) are shut out, while the true believers (the virgins who were ready) are let in and made secure. The verse in question reads: "But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'" Note, firstly, that this is a one-time event, not something that occurs every midnight. Note, secondly, that this is not said by believers, but is a generic call meant to symbolize the coming of Christ and the suddenness of it. Note, thirdly, that the point of the metaphor is that the coming is sudden - there is nothing here involving "years of preparation."

Moving on:

We will proclaim the 2nd Coming of Jesus to our generation with the same intensity and even greater power, Isaiah 40 and Mal 3 give us the path to prepare the way. But we also lead them to the sermon on the mount, of which Jesus said is the lifestyle that will stand, a house founded on the rock, that will stand greatest storm of all History, the coming end-time flood (Matthew 7). In Matthew 24 Jesus said the end times will be like the Days of Noah. Forerunners lead others to prepare and build the ‘ark’ of their hearts by doing the wisdom of Matthew 25, getting oil or getting the Holy Spirit, cultivating wisdom and revelation (Eph 1;17) and the knowledge of God.

I don't have much to say here, as it, again, mostly deals with IHOP-KC presuppositions that are read into the passages, especially the extra-scriptural concept of "forerunners." I will note, however, that Ephesians 1:17 is wrongfully applied. The full context:

For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. [Ephesians 1:15-21]

Paul prays that the believers in Ephesus may have God give them the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him - but is this talking about special end-times revelation or prophecy? On the contrary, this entire section is one of Paul's most notorious run-on sentences, and must be read in full. This wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God will have the eyes of their hearts enlightened, that they may know what is the hope to which he has called you - in other words, salvation. This is seen in the verses that follow, for Paul speaks of "the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe," and the "working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead." This is about knowledge of the Gospel, not simply a blanket knowledge of a higher being. Note too this isn't something we "cultivate" - this is something God gives us. The active person here, according to Paul, is God.

Moving on:

Bridegroom

29 He who has the Bride is the Bridegroom; but the friend of the Bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the Bridegroom’s voice…this joy of mine is fulfilled. (Jn. 3:29) John described what Jesus felt emotionally in saying “He who has the Bride is the Bridegroom”. To understand John, they had to know who He lived before.7 The marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. (Rev. 19:7) He that has the Bride – Jesus has a bride in His heart because God promised Him a prepared Bride at the end of natural history. He is the Bridegroom – He has tender love and burns with desire for His people.

Here we finally receive some touch upon John 3:29-30. While I don't have too much to touch upon here, the real meat of the matter comes in the following section:

John described his ministry and lifestyle as a friend the Bridegroom who stands and hears Him.
1. The friend of the Bridegroom – the best man in a wedding does not seek to draw the bride’s attention and affections to himself but to prepare her to receive the embrace of the Bridegroom. Paul spoke of ministries who preached or showcased ‘themselves’ (2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:19-21). Friends of the Bridegroom prepare people to receive Jesus’ embrace as the Bridegroom God empowering them to walk out the first commandment.
2. Who stands – diligent attentiveness to stand in God’s presence in prayer and the Word 18 For who has stood in the counsel of the LORD, and has perceived and heard His word? Who has marked His word and heard it? (Jer. 23:18)2 The seven angels who stand before God…to them were given 7 trumpets. (Rev. 8:2)
3. Who hears him – to respond with obedience regardless of the price

Let's quickly see the context of this section of John 3:

Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and a Jew over purification. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.” John answered, “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” [John 3:25-30]

We are told of "friends of the bridegroom"...but who is the friend of the bridegroom here? It's John the Baptist, discussing his function as the messenger preluding the Messianic era ("I have been sent before him") and the end of the Old Testament era ("He must increase, but I must decrease" - see also Mt 11:7-14, explained earlier).

We are likewise told that John here "described his ministry and lifestyle as a friend the Bridegroom." Yet John is not speaking of his ministry and lifestyle (nowhere is it even mentioned), but his role in relation to Christ. Even if we were to contend that part of John's role in relationship to Christ was his ministry and lifestyle, it is applied only to John, and not to us.

Now, our final bit:

John described the joyful emotional impact that hearing the Bridegroom’s voice had on him.
1. Because of the Bridegroom’s voice – growing in revelation of Jesus as a Bridegroom
2. Rejoices greatly…this joy of mine is fulfilled – empowered with joy by receiving the revelation of the Bridegroom even in the difficulty of a desert lifestyle

Referring back to the citation of the full context above, let's examine these claims:

We are told that John felt joyful because of "growing in revelation of Jesus as a bridegroom." No gradual revelation, however, is mentioned here. John appears to have full understanding of Christ's role in this regard.

We are told that John is "empowered with joy" by this revelation, even in "the difficulty of a desert lifestyle." Here, again, we find analogies being applied wrongfully, especially since the verses do not have John saying that he feels joyful despite his desert lifestyle (ignoring, for a moment, that many commentators contend whether or not John actually lived in an official "desert").

As a final note, I'd like to bring up a serious issue: Mike Bickle and his organization are founded upon sand. They are founded upon the abuse of scripture, none too surprising given Mike Bickle is a proven false prophet and does not have a good track record when it comes to so-called "prophetic ministry." His organization is putting a yoke upon the youth and elders alike with their lifestyles models and works. I would encourage the author of the former post, as well as anyone who reads this post, to review the facts for themselves. I have many posts on this blog that have reviewed the teachings at the organization and held them up to the light of scripture, and IHOP-KC has been found wanting. I exhort them to flee from this house of error, repent and put your faith in Christ if you haven't already, truly, and enter into true knowledge and truth in God.

UPDATE MAY 8, 2013

The gentleman responded to me on Twitter upon receiving the link to this page. Unfortunately, his Tweets have all been deleted. This had happened before, and when I asked him about it, he said:

What I find curious, however, is that before all his latest Tweets were deleted, the only one deleted was the one linking to his full response (the link provided by me at the start of this post still works). Sometime later, the rest of the Tweets were deleted. Luckily, his deleted Tweets seemed to still show up on my iPad's Twitter app, so I saved a screenshot of them and decided to use them here. His contention, upon reading this post, was:

As I told him on Twitter (none of my Tweets are deleted), this page was written in response to our initial conversation. I was working on it as him and I continued to go back and forth. For the sake of fairness, I decided to go ahead and provide a response to those Tweets. They are, in their fullness (read from the bottom up):

Let me respond to this bit by bit.

Firstly, while Jesus did say Elijah would restore all things, we need to understand to what this "restore all things" refers. Let's first see the full context of the passage cited:

And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” [Mark 9:11-13]

It is strange that we are told that we are supposed to expect a dual prophecy with Elijah, when Christ himself says in verse 13 "Elijah has come." The verb used here (ἔρχομαι) is Perfect Indicative Active - what does this mean? The indicative active tells us that it is going on (John the Baptist has not yet died), while the perfect tense tells us that the prophecy of Elijah has been fulfilled. In other words, nothing else is needed - the Elijah prophecy has literally been "perfectly" met. It does not require anything else, either in that day and age nor in the near future. This is seen even more clearly in Matthew's parallel account:

"But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. [Matthew 17:12-13]

Once again, Christ says that Elijah has already come, and that they (meaning the religious and secular leaders) did to him whatever they pleased. In a similar sense (and switching from passive tense to future tense), the Son of Man (Christ himself) will endure similar suffering. Then, to put the nail in the coffin, the evangelist Matthew records that the disciples "understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist." In other words, this entire discussion was in regards to John the Baptist. No one could read into this that there will be future "forerunners" in the style of Elijah and John the Baptist unless they committed eisegesis and ignored what the verses clearly say.

Some will then ask what Christ means when he says Elijah "does come first to restore all things"? The key is that the word "restore" here is being presumed to mean the end times, when in fact it merely means here to make things right. The verb here for restore (ἀποκαθίστημι) is the same used in verses such as Matthew 12:13, where it was said the man's shriveled arm was restored (ἀποκαθίστημι) to its original state. It is likewise used in Mark 8:25, where it is said the blind man's sight was restored (ἀποκαθίστημι). The word signifies a healing or a setting back in its proper place.

What then does it mean with John the Baptist, whom we are told was the perfect fulfillment of the prophecies regarding Elijah. In fact, the "restoring" Christ speaks of is taken directly from the Septuagint rendition of Malachi 4:5 (actually Malachi 4:6 in our Bibles), which speaks of Elijah "restoring the hearts of the Fathers" (ἀποκαταστήσει καρδίαν πατρὸς) to their children and vice versa. The truest sense of this restoration is what we see in John the Baptist's ministry: namely, bringing people to a sense of repentance and preparing them for the Lord, returning and "restoring" them to a sense of repentance before the Messiah comes to the Jewish nation. It is just as it is seen in the words of the angel to John's father, Zechariah:

"And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared." [Luke 1:16-17]

The "restoring all things," therefore, which John the Baptist is said by Christ to have fulfilled completely, was restoring the hearts and minds of the Jewish people towards the coming of the Messiah, and bringing to them a message of repentance that would precede the coming of their Lord and the ultimate judgment upon the Jewish nation. This has been the interpretation of orthodox men throughout history, and never was it read in any different way until the coming of Mike Bickle and his private revelations from God.

Secondly, the passage from Acts 3:21 speaks of the restoration of all things (ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων), similar to the words found in Mark 9:12 (ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα). However, there is a grammatical difference here: Mark uses a verb that is in the Perfect Indicative Active tense; Peter uses the word in noun form, specifically the Genitive Feminine Singular, relating back to the "times" spoken of by Peter. Is there a difference between these two concepts? Let's review the context of Acts 3:21:

"Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago." [Acts 3:19-21]

Speaking to the Jews, Peter speaks of the times of refreshing that may come upon those who repent (in other words, the peace and security of salvation), and then speaks of Christ in heaven until "the time for restoring all things." What are these "all things," however? Peter then qualifies these things with "about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago." Two "times" here are spoken of: a time (καιρός, or an opportune season) of refreshing, happening now; a time (χρόνος, or a specific season) of restoring all things foretold by the prophets, most likely to occur in the future.

What does this teach us? The biggest lesson is that two different restorations are being spoken of between Mark 9:12 and Acts 3:21. Christ spoke of the restoration of all things that the messenger of the Messiah would perform, while Peter is speaking of the restoration of all things of which the prophets foretold regarding the Messiah. We cannot connect the two restorations without ignoring the larger picture found in the individual passages.

Finally, we are told that the spirit of Elijah "has to be on a people related to the 2nd coming/restoration." Where, however, are people mentioned in either verse? Christ does not speak of "people" in his discussions on John the Baptist, and Peter does not even speak of the "spirit of Elijah," merely the "time of restoration."

From this, we see, yet again, that the prophecies regarding "forerunners" and the like are isolated to John the Baptist, not to any special end-times movement that will arise. This movement has been constructed from the imaginations of men first and foremost, with God's word adjusted and mishandled to fit into these imaginations. The use of scripture by IHOP-KC is, bluntly put, weak and feeble because it is founded upon erroneous application and eisegesis used by the organization's founders. When you have to scripture jump and grab passages from here and there, ignoring the context of each, and read into verses concepts foreign to scripture itself, then we are not honoring God's word. We are honoring, as we said, the dreams and visions of men over and against God's word. Scripture has harsh word for those who do these things, and these words should be heeded...the last words here shall therefore go to the prophet Ezekiel.

"They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘Declares the Lord,’ when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word...My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord God." [Ezekiel 13:6, 9]

The Role of Past Divines

2013-05-06T10:00:00.000-04:00

In the preface to Jonathan Edwards's aptly named Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Church, Edwards quotes his grandfather and predecessor to the pastoral office in Northampton, a quote which deals with the Church Fathers. The quote, as Edwards cited it, was as follows:

It may possibly be a fault to depart from the ways of our fathers: But it may also be a virtue, and an eminent act of obedience, to depart from them in some things. Men are wont to make a great noise, that we are bringing in innovations, and depart from the old way: But it is beyond me to find out wherein the iniquity does lie. We may see cause to alter some practices of our fathers, without despising of them, without priding ourselves in our wisdom, without apostasy, without abusing abusing the advantages God has given us, without a spirit of compliance with corrupt men, without inclination of superstition, without making disturbance in the church of God: And there is no reason, that it should be turned as a reproach upon us. Surely it is commendable for us to examine the practices of our fathers...If the practices of our fathers in any particulars were mistaken, it is fit that they should be rejected; if they be not, they will bear examination.

The point in Edwards quoting this is related to the background of Humble Inquiry: Edwards was entering a debate with many in his congregation regarding whether communion should be taken only by those who had made "a profession of sanctifying grace" (Edwards's own position), or if it was in fact "a converting ordinance" (as the people of Northampton held) and hence such a profession was not necessary from those partaking it. One of the arguments made by opponents was that Stoddard had argued in favor of their position (indeed, he had been the one to introduce it). Stoddard had been a well respected and much beloved pastor in Northampton, and so they considered, in practice, his opinion as canon. Edwards therefore quoted Stoddard against them, pointing out that Stoddard did not believe in such glorification of the words of men, and would in fact be perfectly fine with Edwards's own evaluation of Stoddard's words and beliefs. As Edwards himself wrote:

Thus in these very seasonable and apposite sayings, Mr. Stoddard, though dead, yet speaketh: And here (to apply them to my own case) he tells me, that I am not at all blameable, for not taking his principles on trust; that notwithstanding the high character justly belonging to him, I ought not to look on his principles as oracles, as though he could not miss it...nay, surely that I am even commended, for examining his practice, and judging for myself; that it would be ill become me, to do otherwise...

The point Edwards was trying to make against his critics was simply this: Stoddard was a noble and spiritual man, but he was still a man first and foremost, and his theology should not have been treated on the same level as scripture. In critiquing or reviewing what he taught on a few subjects, Edwards was not declaring Stoddard erroneous in toto, let alone was he questioning the sincerity of Stoddard's salvation. All the same, Stoddard's high standing, whether among his studies or among his congregation, did not make what he said automatically canon.

The issue continues today on how we treat past divines. While individual persons who hold to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., may subscribe to an ideology that might be referred to jokingly as Sola Patres, Protestants are just as guilty in some regard. There are those who will quote the Reformers more than they will scripture, and some base their theological positions on "Well, the Reformers believed this, so I guess I should too." While studying the history of the orthodox Christian faith and how Christian doctrine has been understood through the ages is important, there's a danger in attempting to group men together under labels they themselves would never apply to themselves, or reading backwards into history beliefs or definitions which are not as the individual divines themselves may have understood them. It is likewise dangerous to group men together in such a way that we ignore differences (regardless of how small) there exist between them.

This leads us to the opposite extreme, seen in treating past divines in a harsh manner. One can see an example of this with how the team at The Berean Call treat the Church Fathers, writing them all off as heretics since they do not see eye to eye with them on every single theological matter. If a Church Father isn't a Premillennial Dispensationalist General Baptist, then they must be a heretic who's burning in hell as we speak. The Church Fathers aren't alone in receiving this kind of abuse: some think John Calvin is in hell simply for being a paedobaptist, while some think John Wesley is in hell for not being a Calvinist.

Should we read, honor and respect men like the Church Fathers, the Reformers, or any great theologian who lived after them? Of course. It is vital not only for the study of church history (and history often repeats itself), but to build upon that which has already been laid for us. Does that mean we have to accept everything that was said before us? Not at all. We should hold everything by the standard of scripture and what Holy Writ speaks to us - anything else is the work of man and should be treated accordingly. Many are hesitant to do this, because they desire to see scripture through a certain filter, and instead of reading the works of men with the discernment of God's holy word says, they will permit the opinions of later men to affect how they view the plain reading of a text. If the words of an uninspired man is true and in accordance with the will of God, then we should not fear it being held to the light of scripture, for the two will prove compatible. As Edwards's grandfather wrote: "If the practices of our fathers in any particulars were mistaken, it is fit that they should be rejected; if they be not, they will bear examination."

Permit me to join with this the sayings of some men in centuries past - in fact, I'll let them have the last word:

"Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [Basil of Caesarea; On the Spirit]

"Those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them." [Basil of Caesarea; Ascetical Works]

"...let us come to ground that is common to both [of us], the testimony of the Holy Scriptures." [Augustine; To Maximin the Arian]

"Let us not hear: This I say, this you say; but, thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe." [Augustine; De Unitate Ecclesiae]

"Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." [Augustine; ibid]

Comparison of the Canon

2013-05-03T10:00:00.000-04:00

This is something I dug up from the archives in my old blog. It's a comparison between the canon as recognized by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Here's the link.

Joseph Prince abuses the Lord's Supper

2013-05-01T10:00:00.000-04:00

The good brothers over at Long for Truth review a peculiar teaching regarding the Lord's Supper, as told by Joseph Prince.

When You Decide Who God Is

2013-04-29T10:00:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, I had quite the experience at a local pub here in Hampton Roads. I was spending some time unwinding after work, having a drink and reading Martin Luther's famous Bondage of the Will. Suddenly, I was brought into a conversation by three people: one gentleman by himself; and a couple. In terms of being able to handle a conversation between adults, I might from now on call these three (in order of the gentleman, the woman, and the man) by the names of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Bad and Ugly were obviously intoxicated (Ugly even more so), and so I tried to minimize my time speaking to them by speaking with Good instead. This proved to be a fruitless endeavor, given that Bad often interrupted Good, and Ugly spent much of his time leaning against me and murmuring things like "Your arguments are really bad" (he never said why) or "I don't want to talk to you any more" (apparently he couldn't just go anywhere else in the pub, which was empty). He was also doing small, annoying things like pinching my cheek and saying "You're so cute," or randomly tugging on the straps on the shoulders of my shirt. The amount of times Ugly made physical contact with me, in fact, gave me a brief fright that I was either going to have to call the police or reinterpret the meaning of "laying on of hands."

The range of topics between the four of us was everything from the morality of "self pleasure," to Calvinism, to whether the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds, to the nature of canon. The part that stuck out for me, however, was near the end, when Good asked me if I believed in "religion or relationship." I attempted to explain that this was really a false dichotomy, given God is the initiator of faith (and thus religion), and therefore it's a much more complicated matter (which is probably worth a future blog post!). Bad then cut in, declaring herself "Catholic," and saying that she liked going to liturgy because it appealed to her.

"It satisfies me, and that's what's important!" she said.

I then asked, "So you're saying that with worship it's more important to satisfy you rather than God?"

"No!" Bad retorted. "Don't misuse my words!"

"But that's what you said," I replied, "you said the important part was that it satisfied you. That just isn't scriptural."

"Well," she said, changing the subject (or trying to), "I just can't believe that my Jewish friends are going to hell, because they don't believe in Jesus!"

"Then you're at odds with Christ," I said, "because he said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me,' and 'he who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him before the Father.'"

To this, Bad said, "But you can't handle the Bible like that!"

"Why not?" I immediately asked. "Jesus quoted God's word against the devil. He quoted it against the Pharisees and Sadducees. The apostles quoted it against the Jews and Gentiles. Acts says that when Paul went into a new town, the first thing he would do is go to the local synagogue and reason with them from the scriptures. The standard was the word of God, and at this moment you are opposed to it."

Bad's response to this, and I quote:

"I don't care!"

Later on, as I drove away from the pub and headed back home, I pondered on what had just happened. Aside from the fact that I felt like I had just experienced firsthand an episode of Wretched Radio's Witness Wednesday, the words of Bad came back to me, and I realized that this is the battle cry of man's unregenerate state before God, and when faced with the truth of who God is they will turn violent and defensive. In retrospect, this seems to be the sad cleverness behind the lie of postmodernity: it offers a friendly answer but demonstrates no substance of truth; it plays the scholar while acting the fool.

Worst of all, this theology presents what appears to be a peaceful facade - a supposed ability to solve all the world's problems by pretending these problems aren't there - but in doing so, sacrifice the truth, and become enemies of it. I think it was part of the providence of God that the part of Bondage of the Will I was reading touched somewhat on this very subject; Luther writes, "To want to quell these tumults, therefore, is really to want to remove the Word of God and stop its course" (pg. 91). And likewise, "When we abandon [holy truths], we abandon God, faith, salvation, and all of Christianity!" (ibid) When we throw out the truth standard which God has put in place, then there is no standard, and every man is his own god, because every man is permitted to define god by his own standards.

What happens, then, when this cloak covering evil and error is removed, and the nakedness is exposed? Frankly, nothing much can be done or said. This is why there is nothing left to say except that which Bad said to me that night, when she declared "I don't care!" Here the facade of peace is removed, and the hostility is shown for what it is. Far from seeking truth, the rejection of the true God and His word is revealed to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The standard then becomes one we invent, based on what we decide to be truth (even if it is no truth). we in essence base God not around His word and truth, but our word and truth, and hence we place ourselves as the more important factor in worship over and against God. This is rank idolatry, of course, and it is this god which so many today worship. When this god feels threatened, its hostility lashes out at those who dare question its authority, and any gentleness the god has proclaimed to have is shown to be false. As Martin Luther wrote: "The world and its god cannot and will not bear the Word of the true God" (ibid). If, as Fulton Sheen once said, atheism is a cry of wrath, then postmodernity may be called a cry of rebellion.

Moments like what I experienced can no doubt be disheartening, and it can make us feel that we should join those passive voices which have submitted to this worldly theology. However, let us not cease to defend the truth, regardless of who it might opposing us or however they may choose to oppose us. The last word on this shall go to Martin Luther:

"Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed."

---------
Quotations from Bondage of the Will are taken from the translation by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, published by Baker Academic.

Therapeutic Theology IV: A New "D'oh!"

2013-04-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

Hi folks. Over on the left here, you'll see another one of those little images we've reviewed before, with text saying "Faith; It doesn't make things easy; It makes things possible," citing Luke 1:37 as the source of the quote. Is this what the text actually says? Well, as we always do with these posts, let's see the actual context:

For nothing will be impossible with God. [Luke 1:37]

Wait, where's faith being talked about? Where are we talked about? Huh?

Let's now see the real context:

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. [Luke 1:35-38]

Here we see the angel's response to Mary's famous question: "How can I get pregnant if I'm a virgin?" The angel explains the machinations of the virgin birth, the pregnancy of elderly Elizabeth, and ends it all with "for nothing will be impossible with God."

Now let's answer some simple questions:

1) Is this verse about faith? No, it's about the virgin birth and Elizabeth's own child-bearing, despite her old age - both of which wasn't reliant upon faith, but the actions of God.

2) Does this verse say that faith doesn't make things easy? Again, it's not about faith. We're not even the subject, but God is.

3) Does this verse say faith makes things possible? Yet again, it isn't about faith, let how faith effects our lives.

In summary, what we have here is a verse actually about the power of God being made about us, and for the sake of making people feel better upon reading it. Bluntly put, this is a terrible - and disrespectful - use of God's word.

Therapeutic Theology III: The Lost Context

2013-04-23T10:00:00.000-04:00

Well, friends, it's time once again to review one of those silly images shared on social media that take a passage of scripture and turn it into some feel good therapeutic nonsense. This one says: "God can restore what is broken and change it into something amazing. All you need is faith." It claims to come from Joel 2:25.

As we always do, let's see the original wording of the verse:

I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you.

Huh...so God can restore what is broken, eh? I assume what's broken is...uh...whatever the locusts, hoppers, destroyers, cutters, and God's great army ate? And where in the heck does faith fit into the picture? Do I need faith to handle the locust problem? Uh...I'm really confused here.

All right, so already we see a problem. Let's review the real context of the passage:

Then the Lord became jealous for his land and had pity on his people. The Lord answered and said to his people, "Behold, I am sending to you grain, wine, and oil, and you will be satisfied; and I will no more make you a reproach among the nations.

I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and desolate land, his vanguard into the eastern sea, and his rear guard into the western sea; the stench and foul smell of him will rise, for he has done great things.

Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice, for the Lord has done great things! Fear not, you beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness are green; the tree bears its fruit; the fig tree and vine give their full yield.

Be glad, O children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God, for he has given the early rain for your vindication; he has poured down for you abundant rain, the early and the latter rain, as before.

The threshing floors shall be full of grain; the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you.

You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame. You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God and there is none else. And my people shall never again be put to shame." [Joel 2:18-27]

So is this about God taking something broken and making it all better, and all you need is faith? Actually no, it isn't at all about that. The Jewish people had been called to repent, and this section takes place after said repentance would happen, and presents the promises which shall be fulfilled. The Lord promises to remove the plague of locusts that had come upon the people (see Joel 1:4), and proceeds to make promises for relief and joy...even eternal promises - promises which many commentators (even Jewish ones) believe to be about the age of the Messiah. The rest of the chapter continues on speaking of eternal rest in God and a prediction of Pentecost and the apostolic era.

This is all a fairly brief explanation, I know, but the overall premise is fairly well seen and clear in the entire reading. To be frank, these therapeutic interpretations of scripture are simply getting more and more removed from the original context. Please people, stop sharing these things!

Whose Faith is Truly Special?

2013-04-19T10:00:00.000-04:00

A while ago, I entered a discussion with someone that covered the topic of synergism versus monergism. The accusation was made my way that my theology turned men into prideful beings, as they looked upon their faith as though it made them better than others with no faith.

My response was that "my theology" (not that I myself invented it, or it rises and falls on my account, but rather it is the theology to which I adhere) could hardly make men prideful. For one, it was given to men as a gift, on account of nothing that they did (cf. Eph 2:8-9). For another, this gift was given completely undeserved. The Lord could have bypassed Tony-Allen and left him an unregenerated sinner, and He would have been perfectly just in doing so - instead, He effectually called him into the fold, for no other reason than His purpose and will (cf. Rom 9:10-11), and owing to nothing but His mercy (cf. Rom 9:18).

Upon what basis can I place my pride? That I was a sinner worthy of damnation? That our blessed Lord had to die to atone for sins which I could never repay? That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had to suffer on my behalf and fulfill all requirements of the Law, because I could not do it myself? That it was by the working of the Spirit that my heart was regenerated and not because I was smarter, kinder, or more holy to do it myself? Where in all this can I truly have pride? How can I look upon my faith as proving I'm better than someone without faith when I recognize: 1) that faith is not my own to begin with; 2) sans this faith and regeneration given by God, I would be no different than the person without faith?

I then told the person that it was their own theology, in fact, which led to prideful thinking. This was because they say that God calls to everyone, and pleads with everyone, and it's up to us to respond of our own power (a rather Semi-Pelagian position). What, then, made them so much more smarter and better than the atheist next door? What made them different than a person who rejects the gospel to their dying day? They would have to be intellectually honest and say that it's because they were somehow better, smarter, or more receptive of the gospel. They were, in essence, somehow better than the other person.

I recognize, of course, that few synergistic testimonies are about how great and wonderful they are, and most synergists are themselves humble Christians. However, their position in regards to salvation - when truly examined - states that part of their salvation was owed to them. They contributed to it. Even if it was a mere 1% out of 99%, they were still responsible for that 1%, without which God would have failed. They were able to contribute 1% by their own accord, making themselves better and, in some respects, far more religious than those who rejected God and did not fulfill that 1%. My position, on the other hand, states that God's contribution was 100% His doing. I offered nothing to the table except my own sin, for which God had to suffer, atone for, and then absolve by grace through faith, bringing me to repentance. There is no room for me to be prideful.

Some might say, "But can't you be prideful that God chose you over someone else?" I respond by repeating what I mentioned earlier: that Christ had to die for me in the first place, to atone for my sins, shames me from any possible pride. With the idea of election comes the responsibility of recognizing that your atonement was paid for at a price (cf. 1 Cor 7:23). I am no more prideful that God granted me faith, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice, than I am prideful that I love today in freedom because an American soldier in a foreign land died on my account. My salvation was paid for with the atoning blood of Christ, and there is no pride that can be taken from that.

There is only one thing I am prideful one, but it is not pride of my own, but pride I throw upon God, the one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and gave Himself so that my betrothed and I can be among His flock. All glory that could possibly go to me I redirect to the Lord, and all who desire salvation I point towards Him. God bless.

"When a Jihadist Calls"

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

Christian apologist David Wood goes through some 40+ messages on his phone...

Revelation Apart from the Word

2013-04-12T10:00:00.000-04:00

The following is taken from RC Sproul's article "The Establishment of Scripture," from the 2009 edition of Ligonier Ministries' Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

The claims of private revelations are many. Pat Robertson has routinely received a "word of knowledge" on national television. He says God reveals specific illnesses of people who live in various parts of the nation as he prays. I have seen him say things like, "Someone in Topeka, Kansas, is being healed of a goiter right this moment." This is an astonishing thing. Here is a man hundreds of miles from the scene who is getting supernatural revelation of the healing of a specific disease in a specific city. But what puzzles me is the restricted specificity of these revelations. The disease and the city are named, but never the name and address of the person being healed. Consequently, the prophecy can be neither verified nor disproved.

Oral Roberts once told the nation that God had revealed to him that his life would be taken if he didn't raise a large amount of money in donations. Robert Tilton promised his constituents that he would mail them a special message from God if they sent in their donations. These, of course, are crude forms of modern claims to added revelation. How these claims can be entertained by the credulous is a matter of consternation for me.

But it gets more subtle. We hear respected Christian leaders claiming that God has "spoken to them" and given specific guidance and instructions they are duty-bound to obey. They are careful to note that this divine speech was not in audible form and there is a disclaimer that this is not new "revelation." Yet the message that is "laid on the heart" is so clear and powerful that to disobey it is to disobey the voice of God. I am not speaking here of the work of the Holy Spirit, by which He illumines the text of Scripture in such a sharp manner as to bring us under conviction or direct our paths; in such times, the Spirit works in the Word and through the Word. I am speaking of the voice of the Spirit that men claim is working apart from the Word and in addition to the Word.

Though such claims are more often than not attended by the disclaimer that they are not revelation, the way they function is as revelation, so that the distinction between them and bona fide revelation is, in actuality, a distinction without a difference. [pg. 56]

My Testimony at Long for Truth

2013-04-10T10:00:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, I was interviewed on the podcast Long for Truth about my spiritual journey (and what a journey it was to say the least). If you'd like to hear it, always wondered what I sounded like, or you wonder how many times a person can say "you know" in 45-minutes time, here is the link to the podcast below.

What is Fellowship?

2013-04-09T10:31:00.001-04:00

Recently I encountered an interesting definition of the word "fellowship." A gentleman was using the term in reference to the relationship between believers and unbelievers, and the ability for believers to befriend and witness to unbelievers and sinners. Is this the case? Is this a proper definition of "fellowship"?

One of the first mentions of "fellowship" in scripture is in regards to the early Christians, a use that is repeated in Paul's letters:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [Acts 2:42]

And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. [Galatians 2:9]

The word used here both times for "fellowship" is the Greek word κοινωνία, which refers to a kind of communion or partnership. It comes from the noun word κοινωνός, which means a "sharer" or "companion," and hence signifies some level of intimacy. Within the New Testament, various forms of κοινωνία are used about nineteen times. At times it references a contribution (Ro 15:26; 2 Co 9:13), other times a kind of sharing or participation with something else (1 Co 10:16; 2 Co 6:14; Php 3:10; He 13:16). Many more times, however, it is seen as fellowship among believers or with God.

Let's see many of the serious verses which use the word seen in Acts and Galatians:

God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship [κοινωνίαν] of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. [1 Corinthians 1:9]

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship [κοινωνία] of the Holy Spirit be with you all. [2 Corinthians 13:14]

The life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. [1 John 1:2-3]

If we say we have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.[1 John 1:6-7]

The most important aspect of fellowship, seen in these verses, is that it is among believers, and this is because of the fellowship held between the individual believer and God. That is, because the individual believer is in fellowship with God, so too are all individual believers in fellowship with one another, because of that union with God. It is our union with God that enables us to have union with one another, and we have fellowship through the common faith we share and our unity in the common God.

Is it possible, therefore, for believers and unbelievers to have "fellowship"? Quite the contrary, and no where does scripture make such a possible connection. Believers and unbelievers cannot have fellowship because the unbeliever does not have fellowship with the Trinitarian God. While it is proper for us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Mt 5:44), as well as to assist our enemy in times of need so that we "heap burning coals on his head" (Pr 25:21-22; Ro 12:20), and we should of course witness to those who are lost...we cannot have the same relationship with unbelievers that we have with believers. My spending time with coworkers after my shift ends is not the same thing as having a meal with a family from my church - that's just the reality. We call the bonding between believers "fellowship" because, like the origins of the Greek word suggests, we are "sharers" in faith and belief, united by a common God. This kind of experience cannot happen outside of companionship with believers - in fact, there are times when it can be downright dangerous, hence Jude's warning to "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

When we try to decide how scripture defines a certain word, we must strive to avoid our own personal definitions, or definitions that have been given to us from anywhere other than scripture. We must permit scripture to speak for itself, and not strive to speak for it. God bless.

The Importance of Treating Scripture Honestly

2013-04-06T10:00:00.000-04:00

A while ago, my wife and I attended a seminar done by a well known Christian apologist. He spent much of the time talking about the importance of reading scripture carefully and, of course, letting it speak for itself. To give an example, he went to the subject of baptism, and started to collect verses from scripture that specifically dealt with baptism. Whenever he would collect one, he would bold the words dealing with baptism inside the verse. One of the passages given was from Acts...and I couldn't help but notice something about the way it was put into bold:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” [Acts 2:38-39]

What is the immediate problem here? The bold was stopped at "everyone," but immediately afterward the apostle Peter then qualifies who that "everyone" is - namely, those "whom the Lord our God calls to himself." The reason this stood out to me was because the individual was, most likely, a paedobaptist, and I had a feeling that the "everyone" would be taken by some in the audience (who were majority paedobaptists) to include even babies. Given the unbolded part, it is clear that this is in reference to those called by God (the prophecy in Joel is likewise relevant here, as I discussed in this post), not literally everyone. My wife and I both were rather shocked by this, as the previously mentioned qualification was right there, on the screen, for all to see.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying the individual, or the others in the room, were all heretics or evil (I've kept the person anonymous because I actually respect their ministerial and apologetic work and don't want to detract from that). However, as I left the seminar, I was reminded of why it's vitally important to understand scripture according to its exact wording and how it is written. I'm certainly not saying I'm perfect or the best exegete in history - this incident reminded me why it's so important to examine my own study of scripture and ask the question: "Am I doing this?"

Therapeutic Theology II: The Revenge

2013-04-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

I came across another one of these images on a social media site which shall remain nameless. It cites Romans 8:28 and reads: "God can turn around any situation." I just did some cross referencing in the Bible, and realized that, once again, we had an example of therapeutic theology robbing a verse of its context and reading into some feel good mentality that distracts people from the true meaning.

First, let's look at the original wording of the verse:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. [Romans 8:28]

All right, so maybe this is a little more in context than the previous image we looked at. Now, let's look at the full context - and I do mean the full context.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:18-30]

What is this talking about? Is this talking about God taking your flat tire on the highway and making your day all brighter? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if they put toppings on your hamburger (when you clearly said not to put any on there) since God will make you smile later on? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if someone's texting and talking while you're trying to watch Les Miserables, because God will help you enjoy the movie nonetheless? Actually, no. In fact, starting in verse 18, Paul even confesses that there are sufferings, but that it doesn't matter compared to the glory revealed to us (that is, salvation). He then talks of how the Spirit assists us during these sufferings, and then says: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." Does this mean, however, God can make our day better? Actually no, given the following verse, which is the famous golden chain of redemption. This means that God makes all spiritual things work out for good, because no matter how bad our sufferings might be. It is saying that regardless of what a Christian encounters that will cause him to feel despair and a loss of hope, that we can find joy and peace in the knowledge that we are in the hands of a God who will never let us go, and who will see us through to the end.

As I said in the previous post, this sort of thing does nothing but sacrifice the true meaning of God's word in exchange for emotionalism and "feel good" theology. Yes, I'm sure this image brightened the day for some people...but at what cost? And what does it ultimately teach them in regards to the treatment of God's word?

Silly Arguments Part III

2013-04-03T11:27:00.001-04:00

Well kids, we've been graced yet again by face palming Picard, which means it must be time again for another silly argument.

I saw the image on the left shared on social media. It's a sign held up that reads: "Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet." I thought I would provide a brief response to it.

Firstly, the analogy here makes no sense. A person is on a diet to abstain from food - they would only be angry at the doughnut eater because they might desire the doughnut themselves. By contrast, people opposed to same sex marriage are not desiring it (let alone homosexual fornication) for themselves. The reason one might oppose homosexuality based on religious beliefs is not because of personal preference or abstinence, but because it contradicts divine truths. Comparing it to a doughnut being eaten while someone's on a diet is truly comparing apples with oranges.

Secondly, no one's "angry." Well OK, the Westboro cult, maybe, but they're special any way.

Thirdly, some might contend that the picture is trying to say, "Religious people are against same sex marriage because they think it's wrong, same as those who follow a diet think eating a doughnut is wrong." Even with this understanding, however, the analogy completely fails, because even those on a diet might recognize a doughnut as a legitimate food to eat (even if unhealthy), whereas a person who upholds belief in a Divine Creator, who has designed the natural order, are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that it is completely contradictory to said natural order. A closer analogy would be a person on a diet advising another person not to eat a rubber tire.

Truth be told, and being perfectly blunt, this is a really, really, really, really, really, reeeeeeally bad argument. I saw this being shared and people saying "Wow, that's awesome!" in response, and couldn't help but think...really, people? And some of these people were individuals who claimed to be Christians - do they truly not understand the difference between being on a diet and believing in a just, holy, righteous God?

We seriously need to pray for them.

Why the Stone was Rolled Back

2013-03-31T10:00:00.000-04:00

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. [Matthew 28:2]

Perhaps a question not many ask themselves, when coming across this verse, is: why did an angel roll the stone back? Consider, for a moment, shortly after the resurrection, that when the disciples were gathered together in a closed room, Christ appeared to them without a problem (Jn 20:26). Why didn't he do the same with the stone? Why was it necessary for an angel to come down and roll the stone back?

Perhaps a few explanations could be considered as to exactly why:

Firstly, the stone was rolled back so that the women, approaching that morning (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1), might see that Christ was gone, and could be told by the angels to go tell the apostles that the resurrection had occurred.

Secondly, the stone was rolled back to demonstrate the sovereignty of God over the sovereignty of man. The Roman soldiers positioned at the tomb had placed a seal on the stone (Mt 27:66), which served a two-fold function: 1) if the stone was moved back, the seal would be broken, and be prove of wrongdoing if the stone was moved back in place; 2) it was a way of telling potential thieves "Property of the Roman Empire - Keep Out." By the angel coming down and rolling the stone aside, he not only challenged the authority of the seal (as well as the nearby guard), but showed that no power of man on earth is able to stop the will of God.

Thirdly, the stone represented the ultimate separation between those who have passed on and those are still living. Death separated man from God, but in Jesus are men granted eternal life, as the apostle Paul wrote: "for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). With the rolling back of the stone, the end of that separation was realized, and Christ's resurrection gave hope for those struggling with the pains of death, seeking eternal life.

Fourthly and finally, the rolling back of the stone signified that Christ had been acquitted of all charges laid against him, and was now free to go. For those who killed him, he was guilty of two crimes: from the Jews, blasphemy (Mt 26:65-66); from the Romans, treachery (Lk 23:2). However, for the purposes of God, he was convicted of greater crimes...namely, the crimes of all those who would believe in his name. The apostle Paul wrote that it was "for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin" (2 Co 5:21), and the prophet Isaiah had foretold that the suffering servant would be "pierced for our transgressions" and "crushed for our iniquities," and that the LORD would lay on him "the iniquity of us all" (Isa 53:5-6).

This final point has greater significance, for in being let out and declared free of all charge against sin, God's sheep likewise were cleared of all charges. Christ paid the ultimate price for the sins of his people, and our guilt he took on. Every sin we ever committed, are committing, and would commit, was paid for on the cross, and we were declared innocent in Christ the minute that stone was rolled aside. As we ponder and meditate on Resurrection Sunday, and think of what it means when Christ walked out of that tomb, let us remember that he was the Good Shepherd, and those who did follow, are following, and shall follow him out of that tomb are his sheep.

If you are reading this, and you are outside of Christ, then the Resurrection still has relevance for you. There will come a day when God will judge you for every sin you committed: every lie you told, every curse against your fellow man, every lustful thought, everything you stole, and on and on. For those outside of Christ, the wrath of God abides (cf. Jn 3:36), and their guilt remains. If you have not considered eternity, my friend, then let me exhort you to consider eternity, for when the time comes, there will be no opportunity for second thoughts or pondering - that will be it. Consider seriously, then, the situation you are in, and look to the open tomb of Christ. It shows to you that the resurrection was a reality, and that there will come a time when Christ shall resurrect the dead and bring forth the living for a reckoning. What will you say when all your sins are laid before you?

There is, however, the gift of eternal life available for you. Those who repent and believe and lean upon Christ for salvation shall find a Savior who "is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him" (Heb 7:25). In Christ all your sins shall be atoned, and before God you shall be declared innocent. You shall have peace in the knowledge that you are in Christ, from which no one can snatch you (Jn 10:29). You will be declared as innocent as Christ when he went forth from the tomb, and you shall join him in the company of saints on the day of resurrection. Consider these holy things seriously, for these are serious things to consider. You are being called to repent, and the chance is now for you to see the gravity of your sins and the love of Christ in those who believe.

God bless.

What the Crucifixion Meant

2013-03-29T18:00:00.000-04:00

The following is from Michael Horton's preface to the 2009 publication of Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. It comes after his quotation of Romans 1:18a: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."

But in our day, preaching cannot be foolish. It must be "relevant," which is the word we have drafted into the service of market-driven approaches. However, the message of the cross assumes the terror of the law, divine wrath toward sinners (and not just their sins), and the need for a substitutionary sacrifice to assuage divine justice. It assumes that the greatest problem facing humanity is original and actual sin - personal rebellion against a holy God - not stress, low self-esteem, and a failure to realize one's full potential. [pg. ix]

Three Days and Three Nights?

2013-03-29T10:00:00.000-04:00

The following is quoted from the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

Matthew 12:40: On which day of the week was Christ crucified?

Matthew 12:40 states: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If the general tradition—that Christ was crucified on Friday of Holy Week, died at 3:00 P.M. (the “ninth hour” of the day), and then rose again from the dead on Sunday at dawn—is correct, how can it be said that Jesus was three days and three nights in the grave? He was interred about 6:00 P.M., according to Luke 23:54. (“And it was the day of preparation [hemera paraskeues] and the Sabbath was coming on [epephosken].”) This would mean that the period of interment was only from Friday night to Saturday night before the Resurrection on the dawn of Sunday; and it would also mean only one dawn-to-sunset day, namely Saturday, had passed. How do we get “three days and three nights” out of two nights and one day? Must not the actual day of crucifixion have been Thursday or even Wednesday?

It is perfectly true that a Friday Crucifixion will not yield three full twenty-four-hour days. But neither will a Thursday afternoon Crucifixion, nor a Wednesday afternoon Crucifixion either. This results from the fact that Jesus died at 3:00 P.M. and rose at or about 6:00 A.M. The only way you can come out with three twenty-four-hour days is if He rose at the same hour (three days later, of course) that He was crucified, namely, 3:00 P.M. Actually, however, He rose “on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4). Obviously, if He rose on the third day, He could not already have been buried for three whole nights and three whole days. That would have required His resurrection to be at the beginning of the fourth day.

What, then, is the meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40: “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”? (NASB). This can only refer to three twenty-four-hour days in part or in whole. That is to say, Jesus expired at 3:00 P.M. near the close of Friday (according to the Hebrew method of reckoning each day as beginning at sundown), which would be one day. Then Friday 6:00 P.M. to Saturday 6:00 P.M. would be the second day, and Saturday 6:00 P.M. to Sunday 6:00 P.M. would constitute the third day—during which (i.e., Sunday 6:00 A.M. or a little before) Christ arose. Christ rested in hades (where paradise, or “Abraham’s Bosom,” still was, according to the indications of Luke 16:22-26; cf. Luke 23:43) for a portion of the three days: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The same would be true, or course, if the Evangelists had been reckoning according to the Roman method, from midnight to midnight.

Why then are three portions of day referred to in Matthew 12:40 as “three days and three nights”? The simple answer is that the only way “day” in the sense of dawn-to-dusk sunlight could be distinguished from the full twenty-four-hour cycle sense of “day” was to speak of the latter as “a night and a day” (i.e., an interval between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. of the day following). In other words Friday as a twenty-four-hour unit began on Thursday 6:00 P.M. and lasted until Friday 6:00 P.M. Correspondingly, Sunday began at 6:00 P.M. Saturday, according to Hebrew reckoning (but 12:00 P.M. Saturday according to Roman reckoning). According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three separate twenty-four-hour days, you said, “Three days and three nights”—even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved.

A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where “he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights” is equated in v.13 with hayyom se losah (“three days ago”)—which could only mean “day before yesterday.” But if the Egyptian slave fell ill on the day before yesterday (with relationship to the day on which David found him), then he could not have remained without food or water for three entire twenty-four-hour days. We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals. (“Similarly the Feast of Pentecost was originally called the “Feast of Weeks” because it fell on the forty-ninth day after the offering of the wave sheaf on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet it was known actually as the Fiftieth Day— Pentecoste in Greek.)

How to Speak to Your Calvinist Friend

2013-03-28T10:00:00.001-04:00

The following are just some tips in how to speak to your Calvinist friend - mostly dealing with presuppositions I've often encountered in discussions with people.

Tip #1: Don't bring up passages of scripture that involve human action.

It seems like the false presupposition among many who interact with Calvinist theology (even if this is unintentional) is that Calvinism excludes any form of human action. Hence many, believing they refuting Calvinism, will run to passages in the Bible that ask people to confess their faith. "Ah, see," they'll say, "scripture says we have to do something, and since it asks us to do something, that must mean effectual grace is not involved."

Part of this may be the presupposition among some synergists that monergists (Calvinist, Lutheran, what have you) essentially believe that man is a robot, and all God has to do is hit a button and ZAP! man believes and is a good Christian. This, however, isn't the case. Some might be shocked to learn that monergists, be they Calvinist or otherwise, actually believe that man has a will. The question, however, is what we believe regarding the status of that will. That is, is it completely and absolutely free, or (as monergists and orthodox synergists believe) is it enslaved to sin? I could hold up a brick and say, "You are free to go up or down!", but so long as that brick is enslaved to the force of gravity and has nothing to free it from its grip, it will continue to go down the minute I let go. Hence we believe (as scripture teaches) that God's grace is required to free a man's will from the bondage of sin. That grace will then enable the man's will to be turned towards God, just as the Lord Christ said, "No one can come [literally has the power to come in the original Greek] to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (John 6:44).

So if a person throws a verse dealing with human action at a Calvinist, the Calvinist can only say, "Yes, I know, I agree with that." The question that must then be addressed, however, is where the ability for that action comes from. If you wish to have a discussion with your Calvinist friend, I might suggest coming from this angle.

Tip #2: Don't bring up popular passages to use against Calvinism.

This is a follow up of the previous post, but for a more specific problem. A lot of people, when they first encounter a Calvinist, want to throw out all the usual passages at them: John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; etc. If you have a Calvinist friend, or become acquainted with a Calvinist, I might suggest not throwing those verses at them. Not because they don't have an answer, mind you...rather, it's because they've probably dealt with all those verses at least a hundred times already. At the very least, you should not throw these verses at your Calvinist friend with the attitude of, "Aha! I've got you! This disproves your theology! Instakill!"

At the very least, what you could do is ask your Calvinist friend, "How do you explain these verses?" or something of that nature - by doing this, you'll come across as curious about their beliefs, and explaining the verses will be easier for them. If you want to go a step further for your friend, do some research on how Calvinists have been responding to these verses for literally centuries. You will then at least be able to adjust your arguments and not come across as someone who did their homework rather than just repeat what they heard a pastor say somewhere.

Tip #3: Don't ask them how they can do evangelism.

Another false presupposition is that, because God has predestined those who will be saved, evangelism is worthless and it's nonsensical for a Calvinist to evangelize. As I've discussed on this blog before, this notion that Calvinists can't consistently evangelize or do missionary work is contradicted by two things:

1) The precedent of history. Some of the greatest evangelists in history (John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon and countless others) were also Calvinists, and their theological beliefs offered no conflict with their missionary work or evangelism.

2) The simple facts behind our knowledge of God's election. That is, many people seem to forget that Calvinists don't know the identity of the elect. Many might be familiar with the John Carpenter film They Live, starring professional wrestler "Rowdy Roddy" Piper. In it, Piper plays a man who discovers sunglasses that permit him to identify aliens maintaining control over the earth. In a similar fashion, many people seem to think that Calvinists have special sunglasses which, putting them on, help them to see who are the elect and who are not. As we said before, this isn't the case. Calvinists don't have special glasses that they put on and then go into a crowded room to say, "I have come here to save God's elect and chew bubble gum...and I'm all out of bubble gum."

This might surprise some people, but all we do is follow God's command: we go out and preach the gospel to all people, knowing that God, by His grace, will save His sheep. In this manner, a Calvinist can evangelize or do missionary work and not feel his theology threatened in any way, shape or form.

Tip #4: Don't assume God's grace is forced on anyone.

Some people seem to be able to recognize both total depravity and irresistible grace, and yet seem unable to understand how the one relates to the other. That is, they seem to perceive that when a person is irresistibly called, that "irresistibleness" is reliant more upon force than it is upon enabling. This is where you get people saying that Calvinism believes people are "dragged into the kingdom," or that it is "divine rape," or even where people give that goofy bridge metaphor which says Calvinism believes there's a bridge to heaven and people are dragged kicking and screaming over that bridge.

This forgets that (as stated in the previous tip) part of irresistible grace is the idea that man's will is turned towards God. The regenerated heart will no longer have the God-hating inner nature of those still unregenerate. They will not be dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, but will earnestly desire heaven. That initial resistance to God will no longer be a dilemma, and to believe that it will is to misunderstand the morphing power of the Spirit upon the human heart.

In short, Calvinists do not believe God "forces" salvation upon anyone; God's grace serves to regenerate a person to have a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone.

Tip #5: Don't assume the doctrines of grace end at the effectual calling.

Many people seem to assume that the doctrines of grace only involve the election and/or calling of the individual. I've had people ask me, if I'm elected, why don't I go out and murder somebody, since I'll be off the hook.

Of course, this fits more with the concept of "easy believism" than it does Reformed theology. The Doctrines of Grace do not teach that we are saved by prayers or a one-time human event, and on that one basis alone someone will be justified before God. Part of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is the sanctification of the individual believer towards glorification, which will, of course, be perfect after the resurrection.

Tip #6: Don't call God maleficent, evil, wicked, mean, cruel, etc.

You may not like Calvinist soteriology, and you might have valid objections to bring up...however, you will get nowhere by name calling and declaring that Calvinists worship a different God entirely. I recognize there are many misrepresentations of Calvinism out there, however if you were to speak honestly with your Calvinist friend (or any knowledgeable Calvinist in general) to explain their concept of God, and you listen with an open and calm mind, you will find that their concept of God is no different than yours - if not more or just as Biblical. Your Calvinist friend will also demonstrate how he does not believe in a maleficent, evil, wicked, mean or cruel God.

Tip #7: Don't keep name-dropping Calvinist personalities.

Yes, we know about John Calvin. Yes, we know about John Piper. Yes, we know about James White, John MacArthur, and a lot of other big names in Calvinism, past and present. Maybe you don't agree with everything they say - that's fine, you'll discover a lot of Calvinists don't agree with everything they say.

However, don't throw them at your Calvinist friend as if you're refuting or defaming Calvinism in toto. Don't treat your friend as the whipping boy for any contentions you may have for another individual.

An Atheist versus a Cafeteria Catholic

2013-03-27T10:00:00.000-04:00

Todd Friel of Wretched showcases an example of why it's important to remain consistent in your position: an atheist argues like a Roman Catholic, and a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic argues like a Lutheran.