What About The Evidence?

Every good scientist knows that the lack of evidence does not mean the evidence or proof of a lack. Bertrand Russell (an atheist who wrote a book, Why I Am Not a Christian), was asked what he would say to God if he were wrong, after all. He would retort: "Why didn't You give us more evidence?" The great legal expert, erstwhile atheist, and Harvard professor, Simon Greenleaf was challenged to consider the evidence. He became a believer! There is evidence (not proof though) against God. God has not coerced belief but has left it an open question. (If faith wasn't required, you could no more deny God than the sun.)

For instance, the problem of evil; there is no easy answer on either side--so don't claim that you have all the answers, because God requires faith ("For without faith it is impossible to please God...") and you don't need all the answers to take the leap of faith. However, an honest scientist must be willing to follow the evidence no matter where it leads, leaving his presuppositions behind. However, there is NO SUCH THING AS TOTAL OBJECTIVITY WITH MANKIND.

Lee Strobel calls Christian belief a "properly basic" belief because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Christ can be experienced. N.B. that Einstein was not an atheist, but even philosophized about Him: "God doesn't play dice with the universe." Another famous scientist, Blaise Pascal said, "...earth indicates neither the total absence of God nor his manifest presence, but rather the presence a hidden God." The Bible says, "O that I knew where I might find Him" (Job 23:3). God wants to be found, but not by triflers, he promises in Jer. 29:13 that if we seek with our whole heart we will find Him. God's pet peeve with man is that he doesn't seek. We must admit with Isa. 65:1 that God is found by those that aren't looking for Him. Actually, He gets the credit. He found us--we didn't find Him!

But remember that faith is a choice. If someone says to prove God exists, tell him to prove He doesn't. Either way, it takes faith; there are no laboratory conditions for God! God wills that if you want to deny Him you can. One philosopher has said, "If there is no God, why is there so much good? And if there is a God, why so much evil? You have the ability to explain away God if you so desire. God has given us just enough light to have faith, and just enough darkness to deny Him if we want to. "But men loved darkness rather than light..." Where there's the will God will bless as He says in John 7:17, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God...."   Remember this from Isaiah: "Truly You are God who hide Yourself... (Is. 45:15).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Doctrine That Important?

Everyone has a doctrine, it is just a matter of how accurate it is. Jesus' doctrine was right but the Pharisees hated His doctrine, though they loved doctrine per se.  Doctrine separates Christians when they make it the end and not the means. The purpose of all doctrine is to lead us to a fuller understanding and relationship with God--not a reason to feel puffed up with knowledge. One can know very little doctrine and be very good at applying what he knows and be a very good Christian.

The disciples were "dedicated to the apostle's teaching [or doctrine]" (Acts 2:42). In other words, knowing doctrine is a means to an end, and not the objective itself (what we apply is more important than what we believe in theory). Some people like to divide Christians into two camps, for instance: Arminian vs. Calvinist. Both can be very fundamental, evangelical and conservative in their beliefs. In fact, there are some Arminians that know their God far better than some Calvinists.

It is not a good thing to get into the habit of labeling fellow believers, which can lead to judging. You can say, "I am a Calvinist!" But I can retort, "I am a Christian!" In summary, God isn't going to ask you what party you were a member of or how you interpreted the atonement--but of your love for and trust in Christ.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Do Translations Matter?

Some cults (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or Mormons) and conservative circles prefer the Authorized or King James Version, as you may well know. This was the favorite translation of evangelicals for decades before the NIV replaced it in 1978. Still today many conservative circles swear by the KJV. I've heard it said that the KJV is the "original" and that all other translations are corruptions (actually Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into medieval English, not modern English though). I think this is a "Bible-club mentality" or exclusive spirit (which is what a cult has) and can lead to a narrow interpretation of the Scriptures.

First of all, the original translation into English was by John Wycliffe (not counting King Alfred translating some Psalms into old English or Anglo-Saxon), but those were before the printing press. Also, Tyndale (who prayed to God to open the eyes of the king of England--King Henry VIII) is considered the Father of the English version, and Coverdale finished his work. The Geneva Bible (the first one in regular type and verses) was the most popular one of the 16th century and England was not happy that the Bishop's Bible was not as popular so they commissioned a new translation. The 54 scholars who translated the Authorized Version relied upon this former work heavily. Tyndale was a student of Luther's and relied upon Luther for his translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it is not the translation per se that is infallible and inerrant, but the original autograph--and these are not extant today. If you really want to be accurate in your study, you really should not just go to the KJV or any other version, but to the original Koine (common Greek), Aramaic, or Hebrew text! (Exegesis involves a working knowledge of the original tongues.) Modern translations rely on more accurate and better manuscripts than the translators of the Authorized Version had.

I think that one should read a translation that he feels comfortable with and "graduate" to more sophisticated or scholarly Bibles as he matures. I don't think one should base his doctrine upon a certain translation and I don't think any major doctrine depends upon any certain translation--God protects His Word, and that means you can get saved reading the Roman Catholic Bible or a Jehovah's Witness can be shown wrong from his own version (New World Translation). The "Englishisms" in the KJV is hard to understand by beginning Bible students, and some words are archaic and have changed meaning since the Elizabethan English days of 1611. The New King James Version stays loyal to the KJV and just removes the "Thees and Thous" et al., and the words that are now obsolete or vague (or have changed the meaning) now, making it more readable, but staying loyal to the beautiful language as much as possible. Remember this: The goal is to get you into the Word!

There is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. A paraphrase isn't a literal word for word, but translated thoughts into idioms or appropriate phrases instead of being literal, even if it is not understandable. There is always a balance to be drawn in how literal to be and where to paraphrase a thought to give the idea. We simply don't understand some of the expressions, idioms, or euphemisms of antiquity and need to relate them to our century. Newer translations usually rely upon better manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators.

There is a niche for every translation out there and God has a place of them. The NASB is considered to be very literal, while the Living Bible is a paraphrase, and the New Living Translation is cross between the two, and the NIV is a translation that looks at thoughts more than words for an easier understanding but keeps the KJV where it is considered accurate. Sometimes being literal means we can't understand it; the goal is to understand and apply!

It is good to have a favorite translation; let it be an educated or advised decision, though. For instance, some well known Bible teachers prefer the NASB as being the most literal. The next best thing to knowing the original languages is having a favorite translation, but know why it is your favorite. It is not good to just compare translations and pick out the one that suits your fancy or is the most convenient to your school of theology. Remember, it is the autographs in the original tongue that are inerrant, and all translations are fallible.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Did God Die?

I will use a syllogistic proof (a major premise, a minor premise, leading to a conclusion) that shows God as dying on our behalf on the cross: Christ is God; Christ died on the cross; hence God died on the cross. Now some may balk at this kind of logic and seem to think that it is impossible for God to die; but what is here, but separation from the Father and Holy Spirit, in a cry of dereliction, taking on the sins of the world until Christ pronounces tetelestai or "it is finished," [a done deal!].

You have to look at your definitions of God and to see the logic. The sky went black from 12 noon till three o'clock that day as the Father could not look on the Son bearing our sins. Since God is infinite, we cannot put Him in a box and confine Him to logic that makes His Godhead understandable to us, but as the song goes, "Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God, should'st die for me!" Lee Strobel refers to "Deicide" as what we did to Christ on the cross.

If Jesus was only a man the sacrifice would be imperfect and insufficient for us. The triune God works together to accomplish a unified plan and goal. The Father purposes and plans, the Son implements and carries through, the Holy Spirit applies and completes the plan. Jesus experienced separation from the Father and in this sense, He died and wondered about His being forsaken. This is a paradox because in one sense God died for us and in another sense, God judged sin in Jesus as our substitute and is very much alive and working to preserve the cosmos.

As long as you define your terms you can make this statement. God is three persons in one essence. Jesus is two natures in one person, neither separated, confused, mixed, nor divided. He is not a deified man nor a humanized god or theanthropos, but the infinite God-Man, perfect God, perfect Man, very God of very God, and very man of very man (not a God in human disguise, nor a man with divine attributes). Jesus' two natures can be distinguished, but not separated; due to the hypostatic union.

In the final analysis, it depends on how you define death.  Christ's Spirit was indeed separated from His body and when we die our spirits are separated from our bodies too.  Christ never was separated in His divine nature from the Trinity but lost fellowship during His passion on the cross.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You Seeker-Sensitive?

Some hard-line conservative preachers don't want the churches to be seeker-sensitive. But it is to the church that the keys have been given, and the door has been opened. The church is, of course, all believers; but when they gather together they have special anointing and Spirit-power. It should be so Spirit-led that a nonbeliever could come into the service and proclaim, "O my! The Lord is present here!" We need to knock some people out of their comfort zones with lightning bolts; prophetic utterances always make some people uncomfortable--we don't want ear-tickling preachers, who only say what people want to hear, and stay away from controversy. (To avoid controversy, is to avoid Christ Himself [Read John Stott's book, Christ, the Controversialist]).

Many preachers are against pragmatic services (doing what is expedient to meet their needs--if it works it's true!) and tend to just view what they see as biblical means to the end as ordained of God (as diehard traditionalists), and God will only bless that. By pragmatic, I don't mean that the end justifies the means, or that it is just practical, or that one doesn't look at the principles (are they really biblical or tradition?) involved, but the result--pragmatics is much more common in politics--and results matter. (Billy Graham calls adjusting our outreach to the seekers as "contextualization.") I have heard it said by missiologists that the best theories are the ones that work.

What I'm saying, is that something is not working in the American paradigm of singing, liturgy, sermon, prayer, communion, et cetera-which is the European paradigm transplanted here. We need to be more inclusive and not so exclusive, like that we are the only church in town and we are right and the others are wrong. This Bible-club mentality is easily spotted: No one church has a corner on the market of truth! However, Chuck Swindoll says to not drink of just one fountain, or you will lose your discernment, so don't give the impression of being an exclusive club or "cult."

If they like us, they will like Jesus--we are the mirrors of God's glory, and they either see Jesus in us or they don't--people aren't that blind. "That they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven." I'm not saying we need to open a coffee shop in every church to be more social, or to have plays or concerts or testimonies, or special speakers to attract a crowd. What I am saying is what Paul said in 1 Cor. 9:22, "I have become all things to all people...."

Everyone can reach someone and if you are in your right evangelical outreach, God will bless your witness. Just let the spiritual gifts be manifested, and let people discover their place and God-given talents and gifts. There should be a place for everyone to serve and/or grow. We need to be a little more utilitarian, which means doing what is useful--not the greatest good for the greatest number, what some think and give it a bad reputation.

A person should be able to come to a church with the hope of getting saved if nothing else; and the door should be open. The primary foci are to edify the body and to worship the Lord, but we can't forget those who are thirsty and are coming to the fountain for a drink. Even though the mission field is primarily in the highways and byways of our towns and in our homes and workplaces, the opportunity is wide-open at the church and no one should ever leave, without having had that chance at salvation. Rom. 10:17 says, "Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word."

So, we cannot abandon that format nor de-emphasize it. Paul urged Timothy to do the work of an evangelist! We should all strive to be churches like Philadelphia, which wasn't reprimanded for anything but had an open door. (To be just content to be doctrinally sound at the expense of love or life is not good. We don't want to be like the church of Sardis that had a reputation that is was alive, but it was dead.

The guest should say, "I was glad when they said unto me, 'Let us go into the House of the Lord!'" (Ps. 122:1). "A day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere" (Ps.84:10). Remember, though, that a church service is not a performance or a show or a place to get entertained, but a meeting of the body of Christ. But the person who says he didn't get anything out of the worship service went for the wrong reason. The right attitude is Ps. 84:2 which says, "I longed and even yearned for the courts of the Lord."

We should be seeker-sensitive even when taking offering (which is a part of the worship) by announcing that visitors shouldn't feel obliged to give, that they are our guests. And Jesus said His house would be a house of prayer, and prayer should be emphasized even if the guest feels uncomfortable--there are things we don't compromise on. Remember Augustine said, "In essentials [nonnegotiables] unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity."   Soli Deo Gloria!

Who Indwells The Christian?

Most Christians will testify that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and hence the third person of the triune God does indeed indwell us. But do you realize that Christ himself has taken up residence if indeed you are born again? Rev. 3:20 which pictures Christ knocking at the door of our heart is a case in point where Jesus seeks to live in our heart and not just in our head as head-knowledge. Paul says in Gal. 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me...." We should come to the realization that not only is Christ God Almighty but that He takes up residence within us.

You may say that the word for "in" is to be used figuratively and not literally (Scripture warns against quarreling about words in 1 Tim. 6:4 and 2 Tim. 2:14), but Scripture after Scripture verifies this doctrine, and the clarity of Scripture forces us to take the obvious meaning, rather than argue over the meaning of words, "which only ruins the hearers." Col. 1:27 says that the mystery is "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Col. 3:11 says, "...but Christ is all and in all." Rom. 8:10 says, "But if Christ is in you...." Eph. 3:17 says, "So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." Gal. 4:19 says, "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you...." This concept is not taught from this vantage point, simply because most Christians never actualize the role of Christ in their lives. When others see Christ in you, you will know what I mean.

The union with Christ is called the mystical union, or the unio mystica in Latin. If you want to believe that this is only in theory or figurative, I won't call you a heretic; I'll just think that you don't quite get it--Jesus wants to be real to you! In a sense you are denying the Trinity unwittingly, because Jesus, being God, is omnipresent and by definition, there is no conflict with Him living in our hearts (Eph. 3:17 says, "that He may dwell in our hearts by faith")--or do you deny that possibility, thinking that Christ is limited to a physical body in Heaven?

Though Christ became a man He is still, and always was and will be God. (The finite cannot contain the infinite.) "Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today and forever." During his earthly humiliation He merely gave up the privileges of Deity and His independent usage of His attributes; He never gave up any of His divine attributes--He is no less God than the Father or the Holy Spirit. And so, Jesus is physically in Heaven seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High, but in spirit, He is omnipresent--just like the Father. Jesus is here in a special way when two or more gather in His name or when we share the Lord's Table as He promised--this is another proof of His omnipresence (N.B. though Christ is in a body, He is not limited by it in His Deity).

The Monophysite heresy said that Christ was either a humanized god or a deified man, but not perfect man--perfect God or the infinite God-Man, as is taught in Scripture. The Chalcedonian definition of Christ was that He had two natures in one person which was neither mixed, confused, separated, or divided. He is vere homo, vere Deus or truly man, truly God, joined together in a hypostatic union, beyond our comprehension (referred to as the unio mysticall).  'We are not to confuse the nature nor divide the person!  

Martin Luther was attacked for his belief of what became known as "ubiquity." His view was that Christ was physically present in the communion elements, which lead to the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation. These were wrong views of His omnipresence and I will not fault Luther for not being right on everything--he was human.

Let's not forget the Father, who also takes up residence spiritually. Eph. 4:6 says, "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Yes, the entire Godhead indwells the believer! (1 John 4:15 says, "Whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.) A pertinent exhortation is John 15:5 as follows: "Abide in Me and I in you...."This doctrine is the test that Paul used in 2 Cor. 13:5 which says, "Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.    Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you? Unless indeed you fail the test."  We are also exhorted to test ourselves at the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11:28.

In summary, we should be as confident as Martin Luther that Christ lives in us. Billy Graham tells of how Martin Luther overcame the devil: "When the devil comes to the door, Jesus answers it, and when he asks for me, Jesus says, 'Martin doesn't live here anymore--I do!'"   Soli Deo Gloria!

Scientific Creationism?

It is impossible to have a science of creation because no scientist was there to observe the event that only God and the sons of God saw. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" An event must also be repeatable to be valid scientifically. The only true knowledge we have on creation is the Bible or from theology, which we believe is a divine revelation--another accurate way to truth. When scientists claim they know how the earth was formed, it is only conjecture and induction and certainly not infallible. They hypothesize and theorize, but cannot know for absolute certain. "By faith, we understand that the universe was created...."

Now there are some Christians who don't believe in a literal 24-hour day in the Genesis 1 account. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day so it might be postulated that a day could be any length of time--like when we say, "Let's call it a day!" There is also the gap theory that says there is a pause between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Grammatically this could be interpreted as a title and then an explanation of the opening remark. The Bible doesn't intend to tell how long it took to create the earth, only that God created it.

Now, as far as man being created on the sixth day, it looks like Eve was also created on the 6th day--and I thought Adam had to name all the animals and get time to get lonely first before he met his match. Another discrepancy is that when you take everything literally, there is no time for the angelic rebellion. Were there angels before there was heaven? By the time of the temptation in the garden of Eden, there was already evil present in the cosmos.

The entire six days is looked on like one day later in Genesis ("On the day that I created...") As you may know, "day" in the Bible doesn't always refer to a 24 hour period, but may even be a thousand years, as in the "day of the Lord."

In summary: We have to be tolerant of Christians who believe scientific findings that don't directly contradict the Bible, e.g., evolution. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but where it does say something scientific, it is inerrant. Keeping the main thing the main thing, we should be glad that one believes God did create the cosmos and not quibble over words or doctrines that have no relation to the Christian life, and are therefore considered "minor" doctrines.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Who Chose Whom?

The question is whether we chose Christ first before God chose us, or that God chose us because He saw that we would choose us (called the prescient view); the former being that we become the elect when we get saved, instead of being born elect, and the latter that God merely saw something meritorious in us that prompted election (which would be the beginning of salvation by works). The election is unconditional, meaning that there was nothing in us that God saw to make Him elect us. The answer is that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world and that we were elect and predestined from our conception to be saved. "For the elect obtained unto it, and the rest were hardened...." Christ said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you... [John 15:16]."

 Fact is, we never would've chosen Christ if He hadn't intervened and poured out His grace on us to make us willing (yes, God can make us willing to do His will--see Psa. 110:3 and Phil. 2:13). The miracle is not that all don't get saved, but that anyone gets saved--if God would've chosen to save only one He would've been justified.

Jesus said in John 15:5 that without Him we can do nothing. That means that we couldn't even choose Christ apart from grace. The doctrine of total depravity or total inability attests to this fact--all of our nature is infected and depraved with sin, and we are as bad off as we can be. God gives us all a choice, but that does not mean we can choose without grace. Pelagius, the heretic, argued that God can only hold us responsible for what we can do, and this is what people are saying when they say that if the non-elect can't choose, that they have an excuse (that they were on the wrong list). The Word says in Rom. 1:20, "...They are without excuse." The blame is theirs, not God's. Romans 9:20 says, "O man, who are you to reply against God...?" God is no man's debtor, says Luther; and He didn't have to save anyone, just as He did not spare the angels who sinned. "...Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).

Some say that election makes God look like the worst of despots--meaning the condemned never had a chance. John 5:40 says that "you were not willing." Do you remember the old poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley? "I am the captain of my soul, I am the master of my fate." Well, sorry to say that God is the master of your destiny and the conqueror of your soul if you are saved." God never gives up His sovereignty in order to get someone saved. "Many are called, but few are chosen." Acts 13:48 says, "For as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

One of the slogans of the Reformation was soli Deo Gloria, which means "to God alone be the glory." If we choose Christ on our own ability, apart from God's help, then we get some of the glory--but God wants all the glory. It all depends on whether you see salvation as a human achievement or divine accomplishment.

In summary, we owe our faith to our election, not our election to our faith.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Seeking The Baptism?

NB:  Nowhere in Scripture are we admonished to "seek the baptism!"  What we ought to do is to "seek the Lord while He may be found."

Are we to seek to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? I'm sure you have come across some preacher who has challenged you about this on TV or radio but has you ever wondered if it is doctrinally accurate?

First of all, Jesus is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Secondly, baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism in the Holy Spirit is also the same thing. Thirdly, the Holy Spirit does not baptize, as is commonly claimed from a mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13 which says, "by one Spirit you were all baptized." Actually, the Greek says, "in one Spirit...we were all baptized." The reason the translators put in "by" instead of "in" or "with" is because there would be two "ins" in one sentence, making for confusion.

Some Pentecostals believe that there is more than one baptism and especially that it is subsequent to regeneration. Eph. 4:5 says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." This is not referring to water baptism, as some would maintain, but to the baptism by Jesus at salvation. 2 Pet. 1:3 says that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness: There is nothing more to seek (except a spiritual gift, which is commanded). There is no second blessing! The point of contention here is that there are many fillings, enduements, unctions, and anointings; however, there is only one baptism. Actually, the blessing is not only manifested in tongues, but in prophecy or any spiritual gift.

The false teaching is that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is always testified by unknown tongues or glossolalia. They get this from experience or from taking doctrine from narratives in Acts like Cornelius or the Ephesians instead of from didactic portions that contradict their teaching. This early period was a transition period for the church and the "usual" conversion experience wasn't known yet. The principle of hermeneutics is to interpret the narrative in light of the didactic, not vice versa. We don't make our doctrines based on our experiences either, no matter how convincing--this leads to mysticism and heresy. The only sure knowledge we have is Holy Writ.

There is no 2nd-class Christian (there are some who don't know their gift, though). The Pentecostal view puts us in we/them mentality and separates believers and makes them judgmental and jealous rather than one in the Spirit. We are never to make our doctrine based upon our experiences but test our experiences by sound doctrine. Birds of a feather flock together, right? Well, that is what happens in charismatic circles where ignorance of sound doctrine often prevails and experience is key. I'm sure something happened to them if they claim a second blessing, but it is highly probable that they were having a revival or even getting saved in the first place. It has been said that revival is a baptism on a large scale; I say they are fillings or salvation on a large scale. Let us not dichotomize Christians where the Bible doesn't: baptized and non-baptized Christians. No Christian has a right to feel superior.

Finally, Pentecostals will tell you that tongues are for everyone, and will the Father give you a stone if you ask for bread? However, the Bible tells us that in 1 Cor. 12:11 that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He wills (that is proof that the baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be when you speak in tongues, because the Holy Spirit gives tongues and Jesus baptizes!) We are to seek the greater gifts, such as prophecy--not tongues. There is no biblical, exegetical proof that in Jude where it says praying in the Spirit means we are to pray in tongues or have a private prayer language--this is hogwash. We pray in groans too deep for words sometimes and if you want to say that is a prayer language, which only God understands, that is fine.   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Proves Our Love For God?

"For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). "...And they spoke the word of God with boldness" (Acts 4:31b). When we have the filling of the Holy Spirit (God grants anointing at His discretion to do His will) we will be led to share the good news of Christ, and will have what's called the "can't help-its." We speak of what is in our heart and our tongue, which cannot be controlled, betrays us. 2 Cor. 4:13 says, "And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, 'I believed and therefore I spoke,' we also believed and therefore speak." Philemon 6 is a blessing on us to have the ability to share the gospel.  (See also Psalm 51:15:  "O LORD, open thou mine lips....")   The door of utterance must be opened, it isn't automatic--we are not to be "machine-gun" evangelists (aiming en masse and not individually targeted), but "sharp-shooters (at a specific target)." And so witnessing is a sure sign of love for God; it is obeying the Great Commission.

Some people describe their conversion experience like "falling in love" with Jesus. This is commendable, but usually what the case is, is that this wears off, like a honeymoon in a marriage, and things become more normal. (However, it is wonderful to be around a baby Christian that has just found salvation.) When one is in love one supposedly talks about that person (but hopefully he talks to that person more). One does talk about things he is interested in or cares about--if you love sports, you will discuss it. But one can love and not talk about someone but to someone. For instance, I love my mom very much and talk to her virtually every day for lengthy discussions, but I do not go around talking "about" her. If you are married, do you want your wife talking about you or talking to you? Actually, you would rather have her submit than talk about you.

1 Sam. 15:22 says that "to obey is better than sacrifice...." Jesus also said, "If you love Me you will keep My commandments." Nowhere does it say if you love Jesus you will talk about Him (Jesus said to Peter, "Do you love Me?...Feed My sheep!)--it is implied that if you witness and share the gospel that He will come up, but you don't necessarily go on a mission to talk exclusively about Jesus, like a Jesus freak. A balanced Christian talks about many subjects, and lets God open doors and waits for His timing--earning the right to be heard, not forcing oneself on someone.

I spent several minutes today talking about King David; however, I cannot say that I love him--I love the Lord. (Just talking about something doesn't mean you love the subject--you may just like to talk, and this even applies to discuss theological topics.) "Falling in love with the Lord" is not biblical terminology. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him, to feed His sheep, not to talk about him, there is a difference.

If you fell in love is past tense, "do you love" is present tense. The point is, is that we are not to live in the past on some experience but to evaluate the here and now. One could fall in love, and also out of love to extend the analogy. The unbeliever is a "son of disobedience," not a silent person. Talk can be cheap and some people are just talkers or have the gift of gab. We are to love not in word or in a tongue, but in deed and in truth, according to 1 John 3:18. We are to be a people zealous of good works and to love the brethren and so prove our discipleship.

A relationship based upon emotion is shallow, indeed; God wants saving faith that results in true heartfelt love, not emotionalism per se (faith, not emotionalism pleases God). There is a command to delight in the Lord through: "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the delights of your heart" (Ps. 37:4). This called Christian "hedonism" by John Piper; true faith always results in love for the Lord.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Faith And Preaching

"Where there is no prophetic vision, the people cast off restraint..." (Prov. 29:18).

Some of us think in our pride that we were wise enough to have faith, more so than the poor unbeliever. Some think we conjured up our faith on our own efforts. Some think we got it by osmosis or being around other Christians and it just rubbed off on us. Richard Dawkins thinks we got it like a virus become we were naive. Sigmund Freud thought all religion was a neurosis or even psychosis. The fact is, is that it came from God! "Faith comes by hearing, and by hearing, of the Word of God," according to Rom. 10:17. There must be preaching of the Word--that is God's modus operandi. We are all called to preach the Word, not just preachers.

Faith is the gift of God according to Eph. 2:8-9, and it is through grace that we believe, according to Acts 18:27, and it has been granted unto us to believe, according to Phil. 1:29, and God opens the door of our heart to pay attention and heed the gospel (Acts 16:14). No, we were no wiser than anyone else, nor educated, talented, refined, or lucky. It was God's sovereignty in choosing us in eternity past before we were born and had done anything good or evil. Jesus said, "Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice" (John 18:37). We don't need arguments to prove God to us, because we have the witness in us, ourselves. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! We just know and that is all there is to it. It is like knowing that honey is sweet; if you don't know that I can't help you. 1 John 5:9-11 says that we don't need the witness of man, because we have the witness of God in us.

It is dangerous to believe that faith is a work--it is a work, but the work of God in us, though it is our act (God doesn't have faith). If you believe faith is a work you are being saved by works. Romanists believe faith is a "meritorious work" and this is a denial of sola gratia, one of the slogans of the Reformation (grace alone). The main cry of the Reformation was sola fide or faith alone. Not faith plus works, but faith alone saves--but a faith that is alone, not producing works of love is dead and cannot save. "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone," they proclaimed.

Faith is not our righteousness, it is the instrumentality of our righteousness, as we take the step of faith believing in Christ. We turn away from sin toward Christ. Looking to Christ, coming to Christ, committing our lives to Christ are all the same thing. Genuine faith involves repentance as the flip side--they go hand in hand. Faith cannot be both our righteousness and the instrumentality unto righteousness. Nowhere does it say faith is our righteousness or we are saved on account of faith. We must exercise our faith in Christ. It is not faith that saves us, but faith in the object of Christ.

We need great expositors of the Word that don't go around the text, but give you the experience of the text, not just "wowing" you with their scholarship, but knowing where the parishioners are at. We need exegetes that can delve into the original Koine (common, vulgar Greek), Hebrew, or Aramaic text and see something the English conceal. We also need people that can just preach and explain the Scripture plainly for the common man. Remember the common folk heard Christ gladly. But we need preachers who aren't afraid to preach the Word, no matter what it says. The agenda should be the gospel, to the glory of God--Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and the scarlet thread of the Bible. The better we know Jesus, the better we know Scripture. We need modern-day prophets who don't foretell the future, but forth tell what is going on right now, not being afraid to stand alone, take an unpopular stand, or preach against sin in the congregation. When the preacher has faith, it rubs off on the hearer--we don't need another lecture, or a story-teller, or a joker, we need someone serious that knows the Bible. Most of all we need the whole counsel of God--not just their favorite passages or doctrines. Paul said that he had not failed to preach the whole counsel of God.

The Old Testament false prophets told the people what they wanted to hear.   Isa. 30:10 says that the people asked them to prophesy illusions and good things. They just thought that the true prophets were just telling bad news. Today we have many preachers who are just telling the parishioners what they want to hear--they are tickling their ears. The people itching for prosperity, wealth, health and peace of mind, mental health, among other things more than the gospel. There is only one gospel--there is no social gospel (that is a misnomer).

There is no prosperity gospel, either. Jesus never went after numbers, but quality. He never toned down his stringent requirements. The paradox is that through the gospel of salvation is free, it costs everything. You may not have to give up your life or property, but you must be willing to. Many preachers today are afraid of "killjoy" words such as "sin" or "repent" and try to stay "upbeat." We need preachers that will tell it like it is. Prosperity, popularity, fame or clout are no indication of God's blessing or of real success. Jesus says, "Woe unto you when all men speak well of you" (Luke 6:26).
Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Providence Downplayed?

I can remember reading early American literature of the Puritan era where they wrote of  Providence  (a term not found in Scripture, but biblical, nevertheless). The Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence mention it also. Ben Franklin said, "The longer I live the more I see that God governs in the affairs of men." Lincoln referred to Providence, and not just as rhetoric--he believed in it. Today a lot of people think this is just some town in Rhode Island.

Actually, Providence is "God's answer to happenstance," as Charles Colson puts it. When you realize there is no such thing as chance (it's merely a mathematical probability),  luck (which is dumb), fortune (it's blind), or fate (which is impersonal). (As R. C. Sproul describes it.) There's no such thing as coincidence; God governs over all things great and small. Prov. 16:33 talks about even the throw of the dice is in God's control. God is no onlooker or spectator, but is actively involved in ruling everything. According to R. C. Sproul, there isn't even one "maverick molecule" in the universe.

Naturalism says everything is ruled by independent iron-clad laws that can't be broken. The mistakes in thinking are Deism (that God doesn't interfere), Pantheism (that God is nature), and the Epicurean notion of chance and the Stoic notion of fate. Providence actually refers to God's government of the universe, concurrence (working together) of secondary and primary causes, and preservation of nature. Theologians have written volumes expounding on these aspects of Providence. The issue is God's sovereignty, plain and simple.

Arminians want to believe that God's will is not always done, and that in our "free will" we can frustrate or thwart God making things happen--that He doesn't ordain to be. Up with man and down with God, so to speak. They think that God was frustrated and had to change His plans when Satan sinned, as if that was not in God's plan. If God was unable to keep evil out of the Universe in the first place (according to Arminians), what makes them think that He can keep it out in eternity--what if one of us goes bad? You see, God could have kept Adam from sinning and also kept his will intact; however, it was in His decreed or secret will to have Adam fall and then to redeem the elect of the race.

Arminians don't understand how God can cause us to do something willingly (cf. Phil. 2:13). Indeed, He makes the unwilling willing (cf. Jer. 20:7).  , because He is the potter and we are the clay (cf. Isa. 64:8). He melts the hardest heart and makes the heart of stone into a heart of flesh (cf. Jer. 24:7). Arminians don't understand that God decreed the crucifixion down to the minutest detail and every sinful act included without interfering (i.e. using an outside force to force him to do something) with anybody's own will. Arminians don't understand that God is the causa prima or first cause and man is only the causa secunda or secondary cause.

We are moral agents who have the power of willing choice and responsibility for what we do. Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing." Acts 17:28 says, "In Him we live and move and have our being." Eph. 1:11 says, "He accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will." "I will accomplish all My good pleasure," He says in Isa. 46:`10. God does as He pleases in heaven and on earth (Ps. 135:6); that's one of the perks of being God. The poem, Invictus, by William Ernest Henley, talks about man being the "captain" of his fate. ("I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps", says Jer. 10:23; cf. Prov. 20:24; 16:9.) But actually, Christ is the captain of our destiny.

The Arminian doesn't see how God can ordain us to do evil without being stained by it--he limits God's omnipotence. God doesn't do evil, but uses evil (yes, he uses Satan as His servant) for His glory and purpose. Ps. 76:10 says, "He makes the wrath of men to praise Him...." Joseph said that his brothers meant him harm, but God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20; 45:5).

If God can ordain the crucifixion, it stands to reason that He can ordain all events. If God ordained one sin,  He can't be holy according to their way of thinking (Acts 2:23; 4:28 refer to the crucifixion). No one can thwart Him or say to Him "What are you doing?" (see Job 9:12; Dan. 4:35).   "No one can resist His will" (Rom. 9:19). Either God rules or man rules, there is no middle ground or neutral position. We live in an age of luck and of denying God's ultimate control over His creation.

Jonathan Edwards said that he likes to "ascribe absolute sovereignty" to God. God is in control of the nations (Psalms 22:28). ("The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as rivers of water, He turns it whithersoever he will.") He sets up one and down another--all the nations are a drop in the bucket to Him. ("I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil"--Is. 45:7.)  John Wesley read the newspaper daily "to see how God is doing in the world." God doesn't have "Plan B." He knows the future because He is in control of it; not just because He has foresight or a crystal ball, as it were.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Prosperity Doctrine Caveat

Everyone is talking about the "name-it-and-claim-it" teaching or the "health-wealth-and-prosperity" doctrine. The seeker-sensitive churches are well aware that this draws a crowd. The "church of what's happening now" is telling people just what they want to hear. False prophets in the Bible did the same thing--they prophesied what the people wanted to hear; they tickled their ears. True prophets were known for making people uncomfortable. Evangelism has become a marketing scheme and a promotional effort. Charismatic and entrepreneurial preachers (who don't have any exegetical skills) are gaining a following of themselves, not the Lord. I know this from personal experience where I was a "fan" of the teacher. Jesus never made it easy to become a disciple, he never toned down is requirements and made it more palatable--he wanted self-denial and the willingness to carry a cross. Beware of "easy-believism" that doesn't require bowing to the Lordship of Christ in repentance and faith.

I'm not saying that God doesn't prosper Christians: Far from it--"God delights in the prosperity of His servant." The problem is that Satan masquerades as an angel of light and is a sheep in wolves clothing. Just being able to prophesy or preach (some are really just great speakers or storytellers or comedians) doesn't mean it has the Lord's blessing, but God can still use him for His purposes. (Some will say, "Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name?") I am not vilifying or casting a slur on any certain preachers--whom I would rather call motivational speakers--but a word to the wise is sufficient.

Some of them are saying, "Ask not what you can do for God, but what God can do for you!" (Does that sound familiar?) People are seeking the benefits, not the Benefactor. God never said that money, fame, prosperity, or success was the reward--He is the reward. "The Lord is my portion..." (Lam. 3:24) See also Ps. 73:26. ("I am thy great and precious reward.") God looks at the motive--are you looking for money or for Him? Seek and you shall find, but you must search with all your heart (Jer. 29:13). Are we just to turn in our "spiritual lottery ticket?" Are the poor Christians in North Korean concentration camps just guilty of being Christians, or of not turning in their ticket? It is a higher calling to be a martyr than to be a millionaire, for instance. Prosperity is becoming the goal, not maturity in Christ. The mark of the believer is becoming wealthy, not the love of the brethren. (John 13:35 says they shall know the disciples by their love.)

The ironic thing is that God does prosper us--sometimes in ways we don't expect, though. Whatever you find to do, he can make you good at it. Brother Lawrence was a faithful cook in a monastery and practiced the presence of God, not wondering what blessing God had in store for him. There is saving faith and temporal faith. Temporal faith can be trusting God for a new job, for instance. Some ask, "If God is going to bless people, why not me?" The rain falls on the just and the unjust--God's principles work for the wicked as well. God's so-called common grace extends to all His creatures. The point is, what is your motive. Scripture says to "seek first the kingdom of God...." If you want God you will get success, etc. and if you want that you won't get it.

The covenant of Abraham still is in effect and we can claim many promises in the Bible. "Be it done unto you according to your faith" (Matt. 9:29). Remember: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." And "Do not love the world, neither the things of the world...." (Ps. 73:25-26 says, "For who have I in heaven but You, and earth has nothing I desire besides You...the Lord is my portion.") A wise man has said that our wealth doesn't consist in the abundance of our possessions, but in the fewness of our wants. "Store up treasures in Heaven...." Some seem to imply that if you're not prosperous in their estimate, there must be some sin in your life or you don't have enough faith. That may be true for some, but it is not always true, so you cannot judge. Where does it say, "You shall know them by their possessions"?


The truly spiritual man is content with what he has according to Phil 4:11 and David says in Ps. 23: "The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want...." We are to be "anxious for nothing...." Paul says that if he has food, clothing, and shelter he will be content. The order is to "Delight yourself in the Lord" or to be a Christian "hedonist" (according to John Piper), then God will give you the desires of your heart; however, those desires change as you grow in Christ. Paul said, "Whatever I had counted as profit, I now consider as loss...knowing Christ...." We don't get any promise to get all our "felt" needs, but only our legitimate needs, as God sees them. We are merely stewards of what God gives us, our time, talents, money, resources, and friends. Scripture says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Greed is one of the seven d/e/a/d/l/y sins. It is not wrong to want something good, but it must be on God's terms. He demands tithing, lordship, repentance, spiritual growth, among other things. Tithing is not a legal requirement for salvation, (note that tithing in itself to bend God's will doesn't work, for God loves a cheerful giver according to 2 Cor. 9:7), or sanctification, but a principle of God's economy to be blessed by God. The secret to being blessed is to bless. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). The mature Christian is so busy being a steward of what God has blessed him with and counting his blessing that he doesn't worry about being prosperous or wealthy. We should see God's blessing as having purpose of His glory. "...That you may have an abundance for every good work" (2 Cor. 9:8).


There are several promises and passages in Holy Writ that deal with this. God has a lot to say about the subject. Mal. 3:10 says that we should "test" God with tithing and He will meet all our needs and more! Ps. 84:11 says, "...no good thing does He withhold from those whose walk is blameless." 1 Tim. 6:17 says, "He has given us all things for our enjoyment." I like Jer. 29:11 the best: "For I know the plans that I have for you, says the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a hope and a future." Josh. 1:8 is classic: "Do not let this Book of the Law depart form your mouth...Then [note the condition] you will be prosperous and successful." "Delight yourself in the Lord [make God your highest joy], and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Ps. 37:5). Deut. 8:18 is widely read: "For remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth." (Never give yourself credit for your prosperity , thinking it was a fluke, or just think you're lucky!) "...And I will heal My people and bring them abundant peace and security." By the way, where is your security? Matt. 6:33 says, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."

Prosperity and success per se are no sign of God's favor or approval. One of the oldest questions in the Bible is, "Why do the wicked prosper?" (see Ps. 73) There is a right church for every believer, depending on where he is at spiritually. You don't have to go to a prosperity-teaching church for God to prosper you. I do not wish to judge any preacher's ministry, but only to make manifest the issues involved. "The rich and poor have this in common--God is the maker of them both." Some wise man has said that for every 100 people who can handle poverty, only one can handle prosperity. The point is this: You have to define success and prosperity, because they may vary from person to person. Success to one person may be being a good dishwasher or waiter--to another a good doctor or preacher. Success is really finding God's calling on our lives and enjoying it. Mother Teresa said, "God doesn't call us to success, but to faithfulness."

Success is up to Him, our part is faith. God tests all of us, and we must learn to rejoice in the Lord always, regardless (Hab. 3:18 says even if the trees don't blossom, we should rejoice--as long as we have the Lord we have not lost all.) The commission of the church is to spread the gospel and to edify the saints, not to make an empire. I don't believe we have to take vows of poverty like Catholic priests do, but we should be modest and not flaunt our wealth either. One of the churches in Revelation was poor and Paul collected offerings from a poor church to help out the poor brethren in Jerusalem--they gave out of their poverty--but first, they give of themselves.

Christ, though He was rich, become poor, that you through His poverty might become rich (but he isn't necessarily talking about money). I feel sorry for the rich man who is not rich towards God. "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Good advice: Earn as much as you can, save as much as you can, give away as much as you can. Hebrews 11 tells of the heroes of the faith that didn't receive the promise, but the world wasn't worthy of them, nevertheless.

True success as a ministry is not measured in clout, prosperity, wealth, politics, numbers, or any other worldly idea, but in its adherence to the truth and faithfulness. Many so-called preachers are highly popular in the eyes of the world, but Jesus says, "Woe unto you when all men speak highly of you" (Luke 6:26). Doesn't Sun Myung Moon, of the Unification Church cult have one of the largest churches in the world?--case in point! "To mock the poor is to insult God," says Proverbs and to imply that everyone should be rich is mocking in my opinion. God has chosen the poor in this life to be rich in faith.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Powers Of Discernment/Judgment

When a preacher claims to be pronouncing prophetic utterances and exercising his discernment to insult the parishioners, I think he is out of line and is really judging. Actually, it could be the preacher's fault and not the congregation's that they are not saying "amen" enough to his satisfaction and encouragement. I believe in the power of discernment to notice people's eye's rolling, people falling asleep, people chattering, or sighing, but not to the extent of telling whether a person is "in the Spirit," as John would term it. Some people are less demonstrative and more stoic or phlegmatic. I can see how a Pentecostal preacher might react to a Baptist or Presbyterian congregation.

The hireling has no care for the flock and is only concerned with making an impression; the wolf in sheep's clothing scatters the flock and does not feed it. Good storytelling, anecdotes, jokes, and witty sayings are no substitute for the exegesis of the Word. The pastor of the church is responsible for the content of what the guest preacher says and should show discernment and not just "amen" everything.

God gives us all discernment and it grows with maturity, but we do not have a license to judge (and I mean insult) our (especially another pastor's) congregation. One has to ask, "Who do you think you are?" The Scripture says in Prov. 16:21 that "the wise in heart shall be called discerning." Chuck Swindoll says that the power of discernment is the ability to read between the lines. It is the power to perceive spiritual truth, not the ability to judge or read minds.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Preachers With Visions

Some preachers unashamedly go on and on in great detail about visions, (Col 2:18 ESV warns against this) thinking this is some sort of credential or approbation of God to their testimony. We don't need visions to tell us what to believe, but should "rely on the Word."

I think of Thomas asking to see Jesus, and being told, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed." Seeing a vision is not something to be sought after. I know we live in the last days, and Joel prophesies that young men shall see visions, but I don't think that this is a promotion per se, and shouldn't necessarily be shared--what on earth is their motive, except to perhaps exalting themselves. This is not the norm, and to talk about visions can be very discouraging for those who have to rely on simple faith.

There is a great possibility of being led astray by false mysticism and the deceived. Visions are not edifying and the Bible never says to preach visions, but to preach the Word. Preachers should be expositors, exegetes (doing exegesis or explanation/analysis of the text), encouragers, or modern-day prophets (having a vital message for our day) who are in tune with the Word, and not only with their own spirit and personal experiences.

Let's not forget Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church of South Korea who claims to have live conversations with Christ. This is dangerous territory and I think any preacher who feels led to share a vision should do it in a humble way so as not to seem to be exalting himself or making it seem normal. One has to wonder about the motive for sharing his vision. Paul was very humble and hesitated to share his vision. If one wants to boast, he should boast that he knows the Lord (Jer. 9:24). When the Scripture says in Prov. 29:18, "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." it does not mean we're supposed to have visions, but be visionaries.   Soli Deo Gloria!

I think Rick Warren's book The Purpose Driven Church expounds on this theme.

The Trinity's Value

A sure sign of a cult is that it denies the Trinity and hence the deity of Christ. Tertullian first used the term "Trinity" in the third century, but the doctrine was really defended by Athanasius in the fourth century, who was called the Father of Orthodoxy. The term is not found in Scripture, but neither is Providence, Incarnation, or Deity of Christ. There are two main heresies: modalism, which says that God merely expresses Himself in three ways, like a person being at once a husband, employee, and son simultaneously (the Oneness Pentecostals take this stand); and tritheism, which says the three together are God.

The orthodox position is that God is three persons (the tripersonality), each person is fully God, there is one God. This is not a contradiction, but a paradox beyond our comprehension. To say that God is three persons and God is one person is a contradiction. It is better to think of God not one person, but as being personal. Personalities cannot exist in isolation and neither can love, and God is love. "God in three persons blessed Trinity" goes the hymn. God is trinitarian, manifesting a "three-in-oneness" of personality.

We are uni-personal, but God is tri-personal. This is the "tri-unity" of God that we cannot fathom and must accept by faith. The Trinity is a unity--this should not be hard to understand because three Christians can be "one in the Spirit." There are many "trinities" in nature: water is known as a liquid, ice, and steam; yet it is still the same molecule and each is just as much water as the other.

When we say there is one God we are saying one essence. Each person is coexistent, coeternal, and coequal; however, the Father is exalted and the Son is subordinate. Subordination does not mean inferiority, just like a wife being subordinate to her husband does not mean inferiority. The members of the "Godhead" (a term found in Rom. 1) have definitive roles in salvation, for instance. The Father originated and purposed and planned it; the Son fulfilled and carried it out and implemented it; while the Holy Spirit applies it. It is said that things are "out of" the Father, "through" the Son, and "in" the Spirit. There is an economy of roles in the Godhead. Creation is assigned to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Spirit. God the Father is our Father, Christ is our intercessor, and the Spirit is our Paraclete and Dynamo. Jesus was the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament and his appearances are known as Christophanies. Jesus is our go-between and we are empowered by the Spirit to have fellowship with the Trinity.

All of the divine attributes of God are attributed to the Son and to the Spirit and they are equally "persons" of one substance or essence. The varied roles of the Trinity stress their individual personalities. However, though the Spirit is different from the Son, there is no "unChristlikeness" in the Spirit's character.

Humans could not be known as a personality in isolation from other humans in much the same way God has to be known through three persons. Multiple persons are necessary for love and personality. The Son proceeds from the Father and is begotten of the Father, but not made or created. If the Son were created, as Arius suggested, then it would be idolatry to worship Him and He couldn't redeem us as the God-man. All analogies that illustrate the Trinity fall short, but they give us an idea of the possibility of trinitarian thought.

There are several Scriptures that mention the Trinity specifically, though you could prove it the roundabout way of proving that there is one God and that each member is also God. Isa. 48:16 mentions all members of the Trinity. The baptism of Jesus mentions all three members. The benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 puts all members in juxtaposition. Think of the baptismal formula of the "name" (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). "I am the Lord, there is no other, besides Me, there is no God" (Isa. 45:5). Each member is fully God, not one-third God--but there is no disharmony or disunity in the Godhead. Note the "plural" name of God as Elohim and in the Shema (Deut. 6:4) "the Lord is one ("Echad" one as in a cluster).

Illustrations abound: In the church, we have many members, yet one body; husband and wife are one in body, mind, and spirit in God's eyes. There is one Being, yet three personalities; just like it is possible for a mentally ill person to have multiple personalities. Each person in the Godhead relates to the others as "Him," "Me," "You," or "Us." The example in Genesis One of creation is not the plural of majesty like a king would talk, and it is not God speaking to angels, but the members of the Trinity talking to each other and speaking for each other: "Let Us make man in Our image...."

The Son is called that because that is His relationship to the Father and shows a filial fellowship and understanding. A son is not inferior to his father (subordination is not inferiority), but equal in natural endowments in essence.  Actually, the Son is called "God" by the Father in Heb. 1. Jesus was 'calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God"--and for that, they wanted to stone Him. Once you realize that Jesus is God in the flesh, it is not a very big leap to understand that the Holy Spirit is also God.

You cannot be a Christian unless you recognize the deity of Christ (2 John 9). Jehovah's Witnesses see Jesus as the first created being and not as the Creator of the universe. They see Him as "a god" not as "God." As "a son of God" not as "the Son of God." God cannot be anything else, truth is not always easy to understand. No one can fully comprehend the divine essence of the Trinity, because the finite cannot grasp the infinite. If anyone does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, he does not have the Father; it's just as simple as that (see 2 John 9).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Seeking God?

God's Word promises that all who do indeed seek God "earnestly" will find Him. "Ask, and it will be given to you, seek, and you will find, knock, and it will be opened to you" (Matt. 7:7). "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). However, it also says, "Seek the Lord while He may be found..." (Isaiah 55:6a). "He that comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). So God does promise to reward the sincere seeker and not the mere trifler.

Some say that they are glad so many people are "seeking God" as they read the best-seller The Shack, but the Word says, "There is none who seeks God" ( Rom. 3:11b). Martin Luther says, "To say: man does not seek God is to say: man cannot seek God." They are seeking the benefits, not the Benefactor. They are in reality running away from God and hiding from Him like Adam in the garden. Isaiah 65:1b says, "I was found by those who didn't seek Me." "The search for God begins at salvation, it doesn't end at salvation," according to R. C. Sproul. Seeking God is the main business of the Christian's life, says Jonathan Edwards.

The reward is not money, fame, fortune, prosperity, or anything material, but God Himself--He is the reward. "I am thy great and precious reward," said God to Abraham (cf. Ps. 73:26). Some people think that sincerity impresses God and that He rewards all who are sincere in their religiosity. God is no man's debtor and seeks out those whom He wills and chose in eternity past. We get none of the glory or credit, not even the bragging rights to say we sought God-we cannot pat ourselves on the back at all. You have to be sincere, but that in itself does not obligate God. Many a Muslim is sincere and fanatical to boot. God owes no man and is obliged to save no man, but all is grace. Soli Deo Gloria!

Living Relationship With Christ

In regards to having a relationship with Christ, I would like to explain a few things. This is a cliche that isn't in the Bible. Walking with God is and fellowship with Christ is, though. When we are born again we have a positional relationship with Christ of course that doesn't change (We are "in Christ" as the Bible says, which means we are justified once and for all), but to maintain our "walk" we need to have no unconfessed or unjudged sin in our lives that God convicts us of. We need to trust and obey, doing nothing that we couldn't invite Him to do with us.

When we present the gospel we are not presenting a formula or a prefabricated prayer to say to become a Christian, but a person to respond to and to get to know. Christianity is the only religion that one can have personal knowledge (we can know Him, but not comprehend Him, since He is infinite and we are finite) of God, and God knows and loves us personally. Islam, of course, is impersonal and fatalistic. Islam means "submission" and Kismet is an impersonal fate. They think God is too great to know them individually, but au contraire! It's not that we know God, but that He knows us, that's vital though (Gal. 4:9). "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God...."

I am asked, "How is your prayer life?" and it is something I pray that God will improve. I don't need more books to inspire me to pray, because I know the basic doctrines--I just need to discipline myself and take the time to "practice the presence of God" as Bro. Lawrence talked about (He can be with us in the most mundane, humdrum activities). Take time to be holy! Time spent in prayer is time well invested. It fortifies us spiritually. Someone wise has said, "Satan laughs at our toil, mocks at our wisdom, but trembles when he sees the weakest saint on his knees!" I don't know how, but there's power when we get on our knees, according to the song.

God's usual way of speaking to us is through His Word, but our communion with Him can be jeopardized by bad relationships with fellow Christians. No one can say he is an island and that it doesn't matter what kind of relationships he has with people. Even broken fellowship with one's spouse can hinder prayer. So let's strive to be in fellowship with God and our fellow believers. In seeking God we find that the reward is not material things, but God Himself ("I am thy exceeding great reward" Gen. 15:1).   Soli Deo Gloria!

What About Repentance?

First, let me define the term. It comes from the Greek metanoia which means to "think after," "after-thought," or to "change one's mind." Actually, it means to do a 180-degree turn or to do an about-face in military parlance. It is repudiating and renouncing sin; not doing it partway. It is not mere emotionalism but involves the mind or intellect, the will, and the emotions. It is the gift of God and is a fruit of saving faith, not a condition for salvation; Reformed theologians do not believe we can do anything to prepare ourselves for salvation, because we are depraved people who cannot do anything meritorious. A DEAD man can do nothing! This U-turn, aboutface, or turnaround is a radical change of heart, mind, and will. It is not a one-time event but is progressive and one is never through repenting as far as God sees it--it is progressive. It is not remorse, self-condemnation, regret, or feeling sorry, for Judas had these--it must be accompanied by saving faith. It is more than eating humble pie--it is coming clean with God and owning up to our sin.   Surrender to the lordship of Christ is implied and there can be no real repentance without it-- there must be submitted to the Lord's will and absolute surrender.

John the Baptist heralded Christ's coming with the message, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." This is also the first message Christ proclaimed. Repentance is a recurring motif in the Scriptures. "Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish," Christ warned. Ezek. 18:30 says, "Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin." "And the times of ignorance God winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). "Repent, and be baptized every one of you...for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Many see repentance as the prerequisite of salvation and the starting point. We must see our sin, our need, and then Christ can fill that need. Faith and repentance are linked in Acts 20:21, which mentions "repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ."

 It is clear that repentance is a mandate. It is in the imperative case and everyone has to do it. Some say that the righteous have no need of repentance, but they are righteous because they have already repented or demonstrated saving faith. Spurious repentance or pseudo-repentance is like a child that just wants to be good enough not to be whipped (being sorry about the consequence not that he offended someone).

The Roman Catholic Bible (Vulgate) translates "repentance" as "doing penance." They view it as a meritorious work and externalize it, and not as the gracious work of God in a person's heart. We do works fit for repentance, but repentance is an attitude that God grants us. "If perchance God may grant them repentance..." (2 Tim. 2:25). Acts 5:31 and 11:18 talk of God "granting repentance." There is no genuine repentance without saving faith, and likewise, no saving faith without genuine repentance according to Billy Graham; for they are complementary and go hand in hand. Repentance is the flip side of the coin of faith.

One must either have believing repentance or penitent faith, so to speak, as John Piper and Wayne Grudem phrase it. True repentance manifests itself in works that are appropriate (bringing forth fruit worthy of repentance), and I don't mean doing so many "Hail Mary's" or "Our Father's."  Restitution or reconciliation is often called for, but to be sure we must see our sin as God sees it and that it is an offense against His holiness. (Confession means to "say the same thing as.")

Many preachers today do not preach repentance because it is such a killjoy word, and they want to tickle the ears of the church members. People listen to what their itching ears want to hear, and this is unpopular. Without repentance, there is no salvation, but God grants repentance in His grace. False repentance is attrition or simply regret. Contrition is when we are truly sorry and don't intend to do it again. Judas was sorry and Esau was sorry, but they found no repentance. Whereas Peter was truly sorry for having denied the Lord and did find repentance and a change of heart, and thus forgiveness and restoration. Peter sincerely believed in the Lord--that is the difference. He believed the Lord could forgive him and never despaired.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Faith A Gift Or A Meritorious Work?

This is an issue that separates Arminian and Reformed theologians. If you believe faith is a work, then you are saved by works.  But we are saved by grace:  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done," (cf. Titus 3:5).   If you believe faith is a gift, then you are saved by the grace of God. Titus 3:7 says we are "justified by grace." Faith is not something we conjure up, but it is bestowed on us through the preaching of the Word. "Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17).
Regeneration actually precedes faith according to John Piper and John Orr.  NB:  If we could believe prior to or without regeneration, what good is regeneration?  The fact is that God quickens faith in us.  The Spirit is like the wind that blows where it wills. "For by grace are you saved by faith, and that (the complete deal) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..." (Eph. 2:8-9).

We don't psyche ourselves up for faith, and we don't catch it like an illness from others, we don't conjure it up--it comes directly from the Holy Spirit who quickens faith within us. He overcomes our hardened heart and reluctance to believe. God has the ability to cause us to do something willingly in His omnipotence. Rome, on the other hand, has made faith into a meritorious work and denies that there is any such "gift."

Some pertinent verses are as follows:

"For you have believed through grace..." (Acts 18:27). "...To those who have obtained like precious faith..." (2 Pet. 1:1). "For it has been granted unto you ... to believe in Him..." (Phil. 1:29). "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ HAS BEEN born of God..." (1 John 5:1 ESV, emphasis mine; (2 Thess 2:13) says "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.'   Nota bene  HAS BEEN means this is the past tense indicating that regeneration precedes faith. "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him..." (John 6:29). "God ... opened the door of faith to the Gentiles..." (Acts 14:27). "God opened Lydia's heart to pay attention to Paul..." (Acts 16:14). "What do you have that you didn't receive?"  (1 Cor. 4:7).

Faith is our act (God doesn't have faith--He doesn't believe for us!), but it is God's work in us. Soli Deo Gloria. God gets all the glory, and we have nothing to boast of. It isn't our virtue nor our wisdom, but God's. God is no man's debtor and isn't obligated to save anyone, or salvation would be justice, not grace.  It is grace that He saves anyone. God works all things "according to the pleasure of His will." "We are the clay, He is the potter" (See Isaiah 64:8).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Simple, But Not Ignorant Faith

God wants us to have simple faith, but not simplistic, childlike, but not childish.

Some say we should keep our walk as simple as possible. But the mature Christian has developed a taste for the Word and doesn't balk at the deep things of God's Word. Augustine has said, we believe in order to understand, and our faith is enhanced as we gain a better understanding. Our faith is growing and living like Peter says, "Grow in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Being negative to knowledge per se is not an option, the reason the Jews went into captivity was lack of knowledge ("For this reason, My people go into exile, because they have no knowledge," says Isa. 5:13.) We can have a simple walk with the Lord and know him in a deeper communion. Ignorance is not bliss, as they say, but knowledge and confidence are like Siamese twins that are linked together, says Charles Swindoll. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free," says John 8:32.

Eccles. 12 says "Much study is weary to the flesh." Well, it's not weary to the spirit, especially if God is in it according to Phil. 4:13, which says, "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." Make sure were just not slothful with our minds--love God with all your mind. "Of making many books there is no end." We need scholars, though everyone is not cut out to be one so that we don't have to start out at square one and rediscover the Trinity, the rapture, the deity of Christ, or Providence.

Everyone isn't intellectual, but some are and they shouldn't be treated with contempt and become "anti-intellectual."  We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved. The commandment to love God with all our "heart, soul, and mind" is appropriate, and we should not have lazy minds. "Let us know, let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord" (Hos. 6:3).  "For I desire the knowledge of God more than burnt offering" (Hos. 6:6).

Paul says he'd rather have us not ignorant in Rom. 1:13. When it says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good," it means that learning about God makes us thirsty for more and makes us want to turn it into a knowledge of God. "Now that you have tasted that the Lord is good...." God equates ignorance with foolish men and knowledge with wise men. (Ignorance in the Bible comes from the same Latin root word as an ignoramus and agnostic, from the Greek, means the same thing.)   Soli Deo Gloria!

Churchianity

Some Christians "play" church and go through the motions of worship and never go for the right reason--to worship God--they say, "I didn't get much out of worship today!" (maybe they should concentrate on what they put into it). God condemns us for having worship without our heart in it or hypocritical worship, this is just "memorizing the dance of the pious." A real hypocrite (hypocrite means wearing a mask, or acting in a play) is not one who falls short of his ideals, but one who uses religion as a cover-up and knows he is insincere.

The theme of Psalms is Psa. 29:2, "Ascribe the Lord the glory due to His name, worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness." Deut. 17 condemns insincere and dishonest worship or sacrifice. Amaziah was known for doing the will of the Lord, but not with a true heart. Someone has said that there are 4 persons that we show: The one God sees; the one you see; the one the world sees; and the one your intimate friends see. Let's be careful not to just have a "public persona" and parade our spirituality or piety.

Worship should be a delight and our feelings should be in it (or we are blaspheming God--like doing it as a "duty" not because we want to) as the command "Delight yourself in the Lord..." says. In summary: Psa. 84:1 says, "My soul longs, even faints, for the courts of the Lord" and Psa. 122:1 says, "I was glad when they said unto me, 'Let us go into the house of the Lord.'"

We can worship or be edified in a "crowd," but we need to function in a local body of believers with our spiritual gift. Rick Warren says that there is no "one-size-fits-all" for worship and there are many ways to worship. He says we believe, we belong, we become. We are to be committed to our church as a token of our commitment to Christ--they go hand in hand--and then we will grow and be accountable.

I can't stand the legalistic crowd that goes to church thinking that will make them a Christian, like going into a garage will make you a car, or eating a donut will make you a cop. They are called the "nod-to-God" crowd, which thinks it is fulfilling its obligation by a short visit to the local church, just out of guilt. The true Christian wants to worship God and wants to fellowship with other believers with whom he is a "fellow in the same ship." I think some mega-churches miss the boat in worship, you just don't hear people "amen" the preacher (where is the worship in the Spirit and in the truth?). But different people are at different stages and God has a purpose for their existence--mega-churches aren't where I'm at, because I want to know my pastor personally, not just from afar.

Some think their religious performance is enough to save them. To some, it's only a formality and not a relationship. John MacArthur says, "We can't enter through our religious emotion or our sanctified feelings....Lip service is no good--there must be obedience...You don't get into the kingdom by sincerity, by religiosity, by reformation, by kindness, by service to the church, not even by simply naming the name of Christ; you get there only by personal trust and faith in [the person and work of] Christ." We can have a form of godliness and be empty. The church at Sardis had a reputation that it was alive, yet it was dead (see Rev. 3:1). We can even have "sanctimonious emotions" and not know Christ. There is a difference between knowing the Word and knowing the Author of the Word.

We can have many experiences in church and everyone has a different one, but I believe we should test our experiences by the Word of God and not the Word of God by our experiences. That's an important concept--we are not to become either rationalists nor empiricists (going by reason or experience only), but belief in the Bible (revelation) and sound teaching. The more we learn the more we realize where the wiggle room is and what is not worth fighting about. We are to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Sectarianism is a sin according to 1 Cor. 1, and we shouldn't divide into factions if we can help it. Pascal said, "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity."   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You An Arminian? Take This Test!

Most people know that Calvinists (or Reformed, if you will) believe in the five points of Reformed theology, unless they are a so-called four-pointer, of course, but here's a test that may surprise you. In case you aren't familiar with TULIP, the acrostic that stands for "total depravity," "unconditional election," "limited atonement," "irresistible grace," and "perseverance of the saints," I will review. T means we are inherently bad, not good--we are not as bad as we could be, but as bad off as we could be in God's estimation; U means God doesn't base His election of us on anything meritorious in us, not prescient election, which says God merely sees who will believe and elects them (that would be meritorious); L means God has a particular redemption or definite atonement in mind--it is the Arminians that actually limit the atonement, the Calvinists make it efficacious for the elect. P means God preserves us despite ourselves, otherwise known as eternal security.

Denying any of these doctrines makes you part Arminian. The Synod of Dort in 1618 condemned the Remonstrants who were Arminian and affirmed these five points. Calvinism is the biblical and orthodox position, not Arminianism, developed by Jacobus Arminius (his Latin name, who was Jacob Hermann in his own tongue) of The Netherlands, who was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council and lost his professorship (he was actually a Reformed theologian).

A: Salvation is synergistic, or man cooperates with God
C: Salvation is monergistic and grace is efficacious and irresistible & God's work
A: All have the ability to believe if they want to
C: No one can believe, or will to believe apart from grace
A: Faith is the reason we are saved, it is our righteousness, it is a work of man
C: Faith is a gift of God, it is the work of God, but our act
A: Faith is reckoned as righteousness
C: Faith is reckoned unto (the instrumentality or means of) righteousness
A: Salvation is a cooperation between man and God-man takes the first step of faith and meets God half-way
C: God initiates salvation and grants faith through grace--we cannot believe apart from grace's intervention
A: Man has a free will and can operate independently of God, even thwarting Him
C: The will is enslaved to sin, in bondage and not freed, though he is a free
moral agent
A: Faith is a meritorious work accomplished by man that leads to salvation
C: Faith is a gift of God that is unto salvation, the instrumentality
A: The atonement saves none for sure, but makes possible the salvation of all if
they believe
C: The atonement was accomplished when Christ said, "It is finished" and secures the elect's salvation.

Arminians above represented by A; Calvinists or Reformed by C

The Arminian believes he met God "half-way" and pats himself on the back for his salvation--not giving all the glory to God (a battle cry of the Reformation was sola Deo Gloria--to God alone be the glory.)

The Romanist believes grace is necessary, but not sufficient--one must do something meritorious. However, grace is the sin qua non of salvation--it is necessary and sufficient. Have you heard of the Geritol testimony where the person said Geritol really helped him but he also took his grandmother's secret recipe? Of course, that testimony could not be used because it could not be proved the Geritol was the answer.

R. C. Sproul quotes J. I. Packer as follows: "The difference between them [Arminians and Calvinists] is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man...."  The big question is whether Jesus saves us outright, or just enables us to save ourselves--does He make salvation possible, or assured?

Now, I do not believe Calvinists should show contempt for Arminians, because if they are evangelical they are probably Christians, too, and also there are very few Calvinists around who can say they were never Arminians at one time or at least convinced of one of their doctrines. I do not believe it is good to label our fellow believers, but this distinction is very clear and is like Protestant/Catholic. One can be an evangelical Arminian, of course. Arminian churches are Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal, Methodist, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic.    Soli Deo Gloria!