1 Thessalonians 2:4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.
4 ἀλλὰ καθὼς δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, οὕτως λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν.
I don't really have a ton of deep exegetical insight about this. This is just a verse that struck me today. I do think that the word πιστευθῆναι is translated "to be entrusted with." This word is πιστεύω, which typically means something like "to believe" or "to have faith in." I don't want to make too big of a deal about it as this would preach really well and I'm not sure it is valid, but you could almost say that God had faith in Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. But isn't that what "entrusted" is all about? God trusted them. Why could He do that? He is the one who gave them new hearts so that they would be worth trusting. It's not about their inherent character and it's not something that they can manufacture. I fear that would how this could be preached and I would hate to do that.
What is their response? They speak so as to please God rather than man. They are not so concerned about making man happy as they are about making God happy. If you read the rest of this chapter you will see that this is not a license to bring out the big gilded pew bible and use it as a sledgehammer. However, it is a clear call to faithfulness in gospel ministry.
Frankly, that is the call that we all have. Want to make God happy? Preach the gospel. It seems that we look for hoops to jump through. God is not happy with you simply because you dress a certain way, avoid certain movies, and don't drink beer. In this case, Paul emphasizes that his preaching the gospel makes God happy.
Let's focus on that, amen?
Showing posts with label gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gospel. Show all posts
Monday, August 15, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Knowing the Elect
1 Thessalonians 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.
4 εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, 5 ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς.
One fairly common criticism of Calvinism is that it squelches evangelism. The argument goes that if God elects people from before the world began why bother with evangelism? Won't He save the people He means to save no matter what?
The short answer to that is of course a simple "yes," but that is woefully inadequate. This verse gives a little more insight into the issue. The phrase τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν is translated "he has chosen you," but technically it is "your election" or "your choosing." Verse 5 explains this. How do we know about your election? It is because the gospel came to them ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. What Paul means is that the gospel was not mere words to the Thessalonian believers, but it had true power to them.
How do we know who the elect are? They are the ones who respond to the gospel. It is our job to pray, preach, persuade, and do whatever we can to clearly communicate the gospel to people. But we cannot save anyone. All we can do is put the gospel out there. Their acceptance is between them and the Lord. We know the elect by the fruit of the gospel in their lives?
Does that mean that everyone who appears to live a godly lifestyle is saved? No. But we can be pretty sure that anyone who is not changed by the gospel is not saved. We can never be certain about anyone's future state. This is why we keep preaching the word. We put it out there. My prayer is that my preaching today would fall on fertile soil and produce fruit.
4 εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, 5 ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς.
One fairly common criticism of Calvinism is that it squelches evangelism. The argument goes that if God elects people from before the world began why bother with evangelism? Won't He save the people He means to save no matter what?
The short answer to that is of course a simple "yes," but that is woefully inadequate. This verse gives a little more insight into the issue. The phrase τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν is translated "he has chosen you," but technically it is "your election" or "your choosing." Verse 5 explains this. How do we know about your election? It is because the gospel came to them ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. What Paul means is that the gospel was not mere words to the Thessalonian believers, but it had true power to them.
How do we know who the elect are? They are the ones who respond to the gospel. It is our job to pray, preach, persuade, and do whatever we can to clearly communicate the gospel to people. But we cannot save anyone. All we can do is put the gospel out there. Their acceptance is between them and the Lord. We know the elect by the fruit of the gospel in their lives?
Does that mean that everyone who appears to live a godly lifestyle is saved? No. But we can be pretty sure that anyone who is not changed by the gospel is not saved. We can never be certain about anyone's future state. This is why we keep preaching the word. We put it out there. My prayer is that my preaching today would fall on fertile soil and produce fruit.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
How Do You Smell?
2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?
15 ὅτι Χριστοῦ εὐωδία ἐσμὲν τῷ θεῷ ἐν τοῖς σῳζομένοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, 16 οἷς μὲν ὀσμὴ ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον, οἷς δὲ ὀσμὴ ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν. καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ἱκανός;
I have to admit that I did not get a lot out of this chapter when I read it in Greek. Paul's language is rather figurative, which made it hard for me to see what he was getting at. However, this is one passage that did make sense. There is no special exegetical clue that jumps out of the Greek. The ESV captures it very well.
But what does it mean? It means that we should not become too discouraged in our evangelism. To those who are perishing we are a fragrance of death to them. Death stinks. The house I grew up in had these huge windows in the living room. One of them was like a magnet for robins. I can remember playing outside the house on summer days and discovering the sickly-sweet smell of rotting robin. It's not a pleasant smell. In fact, it is repulsive.
The words σῳζομένοις and ἀπολλυμένοις are present passive participles, just as you see in the ESV. Given what we know about the nature of election from Ephesians 1, I would maintain that those who are not elect will always find the gospel to be repulsive because it is a message of death. But to the elect it is a wonderful aroma of life.
However, we need to be careful here. I think that there is still room for someone being "broken down" by the gospel. In other words, most who hear the gospel for the first time do not immediately repent and believe. Yet some of them eventually will. What I'm getting at is that we cannot give up on someone just because of a single rejection of the gospel. But we also cannot be too discouraged when people do not believe because the gospel is going to be an aroma of death to them.
How do you see the gospel? Is it an aroma of life or death? If it is life to you, what are you doing to spread the gospel?
But what does it mean? It means that we should not become too discouraged in our evangelism. To those who are perishing we are a fragrance of death to them. Death stinks. The house I grew up in had these huge windows in the living room. One of them was like a magnet for robins. I can remember playing outside the house on summer days and discovering the sickly-sweet smell of rotting robin. It's not a pleasant smell. In fact, it is repulsive.
The words σῳζομένοις and ἀπολλυμένοις are present passive participles, just as you see in the ESV. Given what we know about the nature of election from Ephesians 1, I would maintain that those who are not elect will always find the gospel to be repulsive because it is a message of death. But to the elect it is a wonderful aroma of life.
However, we need to be careful here. I think that there is still room for someone being "broken down" by the gospel. In other words, most who hear the gospel for the first time do not immediately repent and believe. Yet some of them eventually will. What I'm getting at is that we cannot give up on someone just because of a single rejection of the gospel. But we also cannot be too discouraged when people do not believe because the gospel is going to be an aroma of death to them.
How do you see the gospel? Is it an aroma of life or death? If it is life to you, what are you doing to spread the gospel?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Still Paying
Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
17 εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσεν διὰ τοῦ ἑνός, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Paul continues his argument explaining the problem of sin and the need for justification. Here he uses a first-class conditional sentence, as seen by his use of εἰ followed by the verb ἐβασίλευσεν in the indicative. According to Wallace, a first-class condition assumes truth for the sake of argument. Here Paul assumes that death reigned through Adam because of his sin. We of course know this to be true because we have the record of Genesis to tell us this.
This verse is one of those verses that pretty much encapsulates the gospel. All of humanity has a problem because of Adam. We are born with a sin nature, which means that we are sinners by nature and by choice. In other words, we come into the world with an inclination to sin and that is just what we do. We are free to choose, but because our nature is bent toward sin we choose sin. This alienates us from God.
But the the second half of this verse is pregnant with hope, isn't it? Here we see that despite our sin problem God gave us a solution in Christ. It is a gift that God offers everyone. The question is whether or not we will take it.
I realize that this would be a fine place to split hairs about election and God's sovereignty. The problem is that I don't know who the elect are. Spurgeon famously said that if God put a yellow stripe on the back of all the elect then he would be in the business of lifting men's shirt tails. But since God didn't do that he had to preach with the assumption that the elect would hear and believe the gospel. That's what I'm trying to do here. My prayer is that those who read this would accept the free gift of grace that God offers.
This verse is one of those verses that pretty much encapsulates the gospel. All of humanity has a problem because of Adam. We are born with a sin nature, which means that we are sinners by nature and by choice. In other words, we come into the world with an inclination to sin and that is just what we do. We are free to choose, but because our nature is bent toward sin we choose sin. This alienates us from God.
But the the second half of this verse is pregnant with hope, isn't it? Here we see that despite our sin problem God gave us a solution in Christ. It is a gift that God offers everyone. The question is whether or not we will take it.
I realize that this would be a fine place to split hairs about election and God's sovereignty. The problem is that I don't know who the elect are. Spurgeon famously said that if God put a yellow stripe on the back of all the elect then he would be in the business of lifting men's shirt tails. But since God didn't do that he had to preach with the assumption that the elect would hear and believe the gospel. That's what I'm trying to do here. My prayer is that those who read this would accept the free gift of grace that God offers.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Third Appearance
John 21:14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
14 τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον ἐφανερώθη Ἰησοῦς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν.
As we finish out John, here we see Jesus appearing to the disciples and giving them a big catch of fish and a nice breakfast. Just after this verse Jesus reinstates Peter. Here I want to focus on this verse because of what it means.
This verse is one of those where we have to decide if we trust the Gospel accounts or not. If you trust the Gospels you cannot get around the fact of Jesus' resurrection. He appeared to them three separate times so that they would be sure that He really was alive. If it happened one time perhaps it was a fluke from their emotions. If it happened twice perhaps we could still come up with some plausible conspiracy theory. But here we see a third appearance. This leaves no doubt that Jesus really was raised from the dead.
As we find ourselves in the middle of Passion Week, it is important to consider this now. We're getting ready to celebrate Easter. This is when we remember what it is that makes Christianity unique. Anyone can celebrate some equivalent of Christmas because everyone who ever called himself a prophet has a birthday. But only Jesus has a resurrection day.
This should be cause for immense celebration. Because Jesus lived a perfect life, suffered, died, was buried, and raised we have atonement for our sins through faith in Him. We can celebrate our first spiritual resurrection with Him that we enjoyed when we were saved. And we can look forward to our physical resurrection with Him on the last day.
Can you look forward to this as well? If not, repent and believe in Christ.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
By Any Means Necessary
Acts 24:26 At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul. So he sent for him often and conversed with him.
26 ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων ὅτι χρήματα δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου· διὸ καὶ πυκνότερον αὐτὸν μεταπεμπόμενος ὡμίλει αὐτῷ.
The "he" in this verse is Felix. He had Paul imprisoned and this is what he did with Paul during that time. He had selfish motives, but he still talked often with Paul. What do you think Paul talked to him about?
I suppose that Paul probably made small talk with him. They probably were able to talk about current events and other mundane things. But I would be shocked if Paul did not regularly turn the conversation to the gospel. After all, Paul was all about the gospel. It didn't matter to him if Felix's motives were wrong, he was going to take every opportunity he had to preach the gospel.
Yesterday I was blessed to have a spiritual conversation with an unbelieving coworker. He is a theist, but just likes to dabble in various religions. I had a chance to talk to him about the uniqueness of Christianity, the historicity of the resurrection account, and various other matters. He hardly bowed his knee in repentance at that time, but I think it was a good chance for me to sow seeds.
I am not very good at bringing conversations to the gospel, but when a good opportunity does arise I try never to shy away. That is something I can almost always make time for. How about you? Do you share the gospel when you have a chance? Do you look for those chances? If not, why?
26 ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων ὅτι χρήματα δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου· διὸ καὶ πυκνότερον αὐτὸν μεταπεμπόμενος ὡμίλει αὐτῷ.
The "he" in this verse is Felix. He had Paul imprisoned and this is what he did with Paul during that time. He had selfish motives, but he still talked often with Paul. What do you think Paul talked to him about?
I suppose that Paul probably made small talk with him. They probably were able to talk about current events and other mundane things. But I would be shocked if Paul did not regularly turn the conversation to the gospel. After all, Paul was all about the gospel. It didn't matter to him if Felix's motives were wrong, he was going to take every opportunity he had to preach the gospel.
Yesterday I was blessed to have a spiritual conversation with an unbelieving coworker. He is a theist, but just likes to dabble in various religions. I had a chance to talk to him about the uniqueness of Christianity, the historicity of the resurrection account, and various other matters. He hardly bowed his knee in repentance at that time, but I think it was a good chance for me to sow seeds.
I am not very good at bringing conversations to the gospel, but when a good opportunity does arise I try never to shy away. That is something I can almost always make time for. How about you? Do you share the gospel when you have a chance? Do you look for those chances? If not, why?
Friday, February 25, 2011
Calling it Straight
Acts 13:10 and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?
10 εἶπεν· ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου καὶ πάσης ῥᾳδιουργίας, υἱὲ διαβόλου, ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης, οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς [τοῦ] κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας;
This was Paul's statement to Elymas the magician who was trying to thwart the message of the gospel as told by Paul and Barnabas. I think it's pretty strong to call someone ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης. Obviously Paul is engaging in hyperbole here. Or is he?
The point is that the gospel is righteousness. There is no righteousness apart from the gospel. Therefore, by definition, if you oppose the gospel you are ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης. This is pretty serious business.
The implication of this in our culture is pretty staggering. Take someone like Oprah, for example. She's a pretty good gal by the world's standards. She gives all kinds of high-end stuff away once a year on her show. She does what she can to help what she considers to be good causes. She tries to help people feel better about themselves.
Oops. Right there she is opposing the gospel by preaching a message of self-help rather than Christ-help. You don't have to watch much Oprah to see that she is drawing people away from the gospel and to themselves. Hence, I would put her in the same boat as Elymas here.
It's easy to pick on Oprah and she has almost become a trite example for illustrations like this. My point is just to exhort everyone to think through the messages that we hear. Let's be discerning about them. Are they for the gospel or are they opposed to it? Some may be obviously opposed like the difference between Islam and Christianity. Others are more subtle like the self-help messages of Oprah. Either way, we need to know our Bibles if we are to be discerning about this.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Drawing Up Lines
Luke 11:23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
23 Ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.
This saying is part of Jesus' explanation to His disciples regarding what happens when an unclean spirit leaves someone. He is responding to the charge that He casts out demons by Beelzebul. He explains that if someone who is strong guards his house he is safe, but that someone stronger can overcome that person. Jesus is asserting His power as being higher than the demons. Right after this verse He makes the point that when an unclean spirit leaves a person it will eventually come back and bring other unclean spirits to make things even worse.
So why does this verse appear here? Based on the context, it must have something to do with the theme of how He operates by the power of God and how Satan's house cannot be divided against itself. In other words, I see Jesus drawing a line in the sand. There's His team and there is Satan's team. There can be no in-between.
The construct of ὁ μὴ is very literally translated "the one not." Obviously the ESV captures this sense. The one who is not with Jesus is against Jesus. In fact, the one who does not gather with Him actually scatters.
I recently read an article about a woman who used to be a Planned Parenthood director, but after seeing the ultrasound for an abortion she had a change of heart. She bemoans the splinters of the pro-life movement, particularly how Catholics and Protestants do not work together. She has a point there. We should work together for social causes like abortion.
But at some point we need to draw the line. The Glenn Beck rally last year is a good example of that. Glenn Beck is Mormon, but is admittedly not intensely devout. Nevertheless, anyone who aligns himself with the god of Joseph Smith cannot possibly be aligned with the Triune God of Scripture. It's just not possible. Therefore, if we take this verse seriously, we see that he actually works against the cause of Christ, despite his talk of unity.
This extends to so many areas where we are tempted to compromise. The real trick is determining where we can accept and where we must reject. It gets down to what we call the gospel. Anyone not confessing the true Jesus as Lord cannot be in that circle. And, no matter how well-meaning that nice Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Jew, or Muslim may be, that person is by definition against Jesus and His gospel. At least that's how I read this.
23 Ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.
This saying is part of Jesus' explanation to His disciples regarding what happens when an unclean spirit leaves someone. He is responding to the charge that He casts out demons by Beelzebul. He explains that if someone who is strong guards his house he is safe, but that someone stronger can overcome that person. Jesus is asserting His power as being higher than the demons. Right after this verse He makes the point that when an unclean spirit leaves a person it will eventually come back and bring other unclean spirits to make things even worse.
So why does this verse appear here? Based on the context, it must have something to do with the theme of how He operates by the power of God and how Satan's house cannot be divided against itself. In other words, I see Jesus drawing a line in the sand. There's His team and there is Satan's team. There can be no in-between.
The construct of ὁ μὴ is very literally translated "the one not." Obviously the ESV captures this sense. The one who is not with Jesus is against Jesus. In fact, the one who does not gather with Him actually scatters.
I recently read an article about a woman who used to be a Planned Parenthood director, but after seeing the ultrasound for an abortion she had a change of heart. She bemoans the splinters of the pro-life movement, particularly how Catholics and Protestants do not work together. She has a point there. We should work together for social causes like abortion.
But at some point we need to draw the line. The Glenn Beck rally last year is a good example of that. Glenn Beck is Mormon, but is admittedly not intensely devout. Nevertheless, anyone who aligns himself with the god of Joseph Smith cannot possibly be aligned with the Triune God of Scripture. It's just not possible. Therefore, if we take this verse seriously, we see that he actually works against the cause of Christ, despite his talk of unity.
This extends to so many areas where we are tempted to compromise. The real trick is determining where we can accept and where we must reject. It gets down to what we call the gospel. Anyone not confessing the true Jesus as Lord cannot be in that circle. And, no matter how well-meaning that nice Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Jew, or Muslim may be, that person is by definition against Jesus and His gospel. At least that's how I read this.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Too Smart?
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
25 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις·
Here Jesus is talking about how the people reacted to John the Baptist. He notes how they are not satisfied with anything. They think John is demon-possessed because he doesn't eat or drink like they do and lives an ascetic life. They think Jesus is a glutton and a drunkard because He does eat and drink like they do and they think that a religious leader should be more restrained. He then explains how John came to prepare the way for Him.
This verse is particularly poignant for me. There was a time when I was sure that I was too smart to believe in God. I figured that religion was just an emotional crutch for the weak. It was invented to keep people in line. After all, they needed something to hold on to and they weren't smart enough to see the folly of believing in an invisible God with no proof. Of course, I have since changed my mind, but that's where I was in high school.
Jesus prays a remarkable prayer here. He thanks the Father for hiding Himself from the wise of the world and revealing Himself to the νηπίοις. That word refers to children that would be my son's age (3) or even younger. Think toddlers. I'm not sure that He means literally to the toddlers, but given the contrast and based on some other verses I think He means that those who would accept the gospel with a simple faith.
This of course is folly to the wise of our time just like it was 2000 years ago. It's also folly to folks who say that the gospel is more than just good news. At its heart that's all it is. It is the good news that Jesus Christ came to earth fully God and fully man, lived a sinless life, and died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. We need to accept the gift. Are you going to accept it or reject it?
25 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις·
Here Jesus is talking about how the people reacted to John the Baptist. He notes how they are not satisfied with anything. They think John is demon-possessed because he doesn't eat or drink like they do and lives an ascetic life. They think Jesus is a glutton and a drunkard because He does eat and drink like they do and they think that a religious leader should be more restrained. He then explains how John came to prepare the way for Him.
This verse is particularly poignant for me. There was a time when I was sure that I was too smart to believe in God. I figured that religion was just an emotional crutch for the weak. It was invented to keep people in line. After all, they needed something to hold on to and they weren't smart enough to see the folly of believing in an invisible God with no proof. Of course, I have since changed my mind, but that's where I was in high school.
Jesus prays a remarkable prayer here. He thanks the Father for hiding Himself from the wise of the world and revealing Himself to the νηπίοις. That word refers to children that would be my son's age (3) or even younger. Think toddlers. I'm not sure that He means literally to the toddlers, but given the contrast and based on some other verses I think He means that those who would accept the gospel with a simple faith.
This of course is folly to the wise of our time just like it was 2000 years ago. It's also folly to folks who say that the gospel is more than just good news. At its heart that's all it is. It is the good news that Jesus Christ came to earth fully God and fully man, lived a sinless life, and died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. We need to accept the gift. Are you going to accept it or reject it?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Confession
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
9 ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας.
This is one of those verses that just about every Christian either has memorized or is very familiar with. If he isn't, he should be. I remember that this is one of the first verses I ever memorized. It's one of those great verses which summarizes the gospel beautifully.
What is John telling us here? It seems absurdly simple, doesn't it? We confess our sins and He forgives us. I don't think that he has the sacrament of penance in mind here either. I don't think that this is an ongoing process either. When God saves us He cleans us from all unrighteousness. We become white as snow as we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. It all starts with admitting our guilt before God.
Note that all the verbs are in the subjunctive. The construct with ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν is a third-class condition. This means that the fulfillment is uncertain, but likely. John is saying that he doesn't know if the reader is necessarily going to confess his sins, but he does know that if we confess our sins we can be sure that God will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This is because He is both faithful to His promise and He is just in not putting us under double jeopardy for the crimes for which Jesus was already convicted.
Where are you? Are you trying to live life as a good person? Do you hope that someday your good works will outweigh your bad on some divine scales of justice? If so, admit that you are a sinner before God because all it takes is one bad work to tip the scale. Once you've sinned you can never make up the lost ground. But Jesus came to offer Himself as a ransom for the penalty we deserve. Confess to God that you need His salvation. He is faithful and just and will forgive you.
9 ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας.
This is one of those verses that just about every Christian either has memorized or is very familiar with. If he isn't, he should be. I remember that this is one of the first verses I ever memorized. It's one of those great verses which summarizes the gospel beautifully.
What is John telling us here? It seems absurdly simple, doesn't it? We confess our sins and He forgives us. I don't think that he has the sacrament of penance in mind here either. I don't think that this is an ongoing process either. When God saves us He cleans us from all unrighteousness. We become white as snow as we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. It all starts with admitting our guilt before God.
Note that all the verbs are in the subjunctive. The construct with ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν is a third-class condition. This means that the fulfillment is uncertain, but likely. John is saying that he doesn't know if the reader is necessarily going to confess his sins, but he does know that if we confess our sins we can be sure that God will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This is because He is both faithful to His promise and He is just in not putting us under double jeopardy for the crimes for which Jesus was already convicted.
Where are you? Are you trying to live life as a good person? Do you hope that someday your good works will outweigh your bad on some divine scales of justice? If so, admit that you are a sinner before God because all it takes is one bad work to tip the scale. Once you've sinned you can never make up the lost ground. But Jesus came to offer Himself as a ransom for the penalty we deserve. Confess to God that you need His salvation. He is faithful and just and will forgive you.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Justification by Faith
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
24 ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον.
The title of this post and this verse seem to be at odds with each other, don't they? This is a verse that the Roman Catholic Church uses to defend their view of the gospel. In fact, the Council of Trent declared an anathema on anyone who believes in justification by faith alone. Their view of how one is justified before God is rather complex and I suggest you look it up for yourself to understand just how it is different from that which came out of the Reformation and, if I may say so, that which comes from a plain reading of Scripture.
Yet we have James 2 in our Bibles. Although Luther did take issue with this book, he did consider it to be canonical. What do we do with James 2:14-26, and particularly 2:24? The Greek doesn't help us here. I suppose you could try to do something fancy with the ὅτι and somehow try to suggest some kind of causation with a translation of "because" instead of "that," but I think that the ESV gets it right. What to do?
To me, this passage stands as a defense of what is sometimes called "Lordship Salvation," or as John MacArthur puts it, the gospel according to Jesus. It is clear from reading the Gospels that faith in Christ means action. How can anyone come to know the living God of the universe and not have his life changed? Everything about a person changes when they know the Lord. It has to. Look at what happened to Moses. Look at the apostles after the resurrection. They didn't really "get" what was going on until after Jesus was raised and they received the Holy Spirit. Look at how bold they became afterwards.
I also think that Ephesians 2:10 helps us. That verse tells us that we were made for good works. God didn't save us just to stare at our navels and talk theology, despite what some folks may think. He saved us to action.
To be clear, this does not mean that we suddenly stop sinning. What it means is that our hearts change. We go from being bent toward sin to being bent toward the Lord. There are times (perhaps extensive times) when we go our own ways, but ultimately our hearts are bent toward the Lord. That's what having the Holy Spirit is all about. If we accept the gospel merely as fire insurance we have missed it. The gospel is about God, not about us.
Also, to be clear, we do not do works to earn merit before God, despite what a Roman Catholic might tell you. We work because we are saved. We are not paying off a debt (we cannot), but we are acting out of sheer gratitude. God is glorious and as I've tried to show through this blog, He is worthy of honor and praise. If we aren't inclined to that then we must question the state of our hearts.
To me, it comes down to a simple question. If God is indeed God, how can we encounter Him and not be transformed? Unlike the apostles we have a completed canon. Let's read it and be changed by this awesome transcendent God that we serve.
24 ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον.
The title of this post and this verse seem to be at odds with each other, don't they? This is a verse that the Roman Catholic Church uses to defend their view of the gospel. In fact, the Council of Trent declared an anathema on anyone who believes in justification by faith alone. Their view of how one is justified before God is rather complex and I suggest you look it up for yourself to understand just how it is different from that which came out of the Reformation and, if I may say so, that which comes from a plain reading of Scripture.
Yet we have James 2 in our Bibles. Although Luther did take issue with this book, he did consider it to be canonical. What do we do with James 2:14-26, and particularly 2:24? The Greek doesn't help us here. I suppose you could try to do something fancy with the ὅτι and somehow try to suggest some kind of causation with a translation of "because" instead of "that," but I think that the ESV gets it right. What to do?
To me, this passage stands as a defense of what is sometimes called "Lordship Salvation," or as John MacArthur puts it, the gospel according to Jesus. It is clear from reading the Gospels that faith in Christ means action. How can anyone come to know the living God of the universe and not have his life changed? Everything about a person changes when they know the Lord. It has to. Look at what happened to Moses. Look at the apostles after the resurrection. They didn't really "get" what was going on until after Jesus was raised and they received the Holy Spirit. Look at how bold they became afterwards.
I also think that Ephesians 2:10 helps us. That verse tells us that we were made for good works. God didn't save us just to stare at our navels and talk theology, despite what some folks may think. He saved us to action.
To be clear, this does not mean that we suddenly stop sinning. What it means is that our hearts change. We go from being bent toward sin to being bent toward the Lord. There are times (perhaps extensive times) when we go our own ways, but ultimately our hearts are bent toward the Lord. That's what having the Holy Spirit is all about. If we accept the gospel merely as fire insurance we have missed it. The gospel is about God, not about us.
Also, to be clear, we do not do works to earn merit before God, despite what a Roman Catholic might tell you. We work because we are saved. We are not paying off a debt (we cannot), but we are acting out of sheer gratitude. God is glorious and as I've tried to show through this blog, He is worthy of honor and praise. If we aren't inclined to that then we must question the state of our hearts.
To me, it comes down to a simple question. If God is indeed God, how can we encounter Him and not be transformed? Unlike the apostles we have a completed canon. Let's read it and be changed by this awesome transcendent God that we serve.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Need for Discernment
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι.
Paul is wrapping up this short letter with some commands to Titus. This is the first of three verses about the kind of person who gets involved in μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις, or "foolish controversies." The δὲ in there is the weak adversative that we translate "but." Incidentally, the difference between this word and the stronger αλλα is one of the good reasons to study Greek.
Any conservative reader of Scripture will of course agree to this. But this is where the discernment comes in. What is it that makes a controversy μωρὰς (from which we get our word "moron," and in this case I do not think this leap is an exegetical fallacy) instead of essential? We all agree that the gospel is primary. When we get to Jude we'll see an extremely clear command to contend for the faith. How do we decide whether or not it is a vital doctrine or one that is μωρὰς?
Personally, I use salvation as my filter. Is this something that someone needs to understand in order to be saved? That's a bit nebulous though. Does someone need a perfectly-articulated understanding of the Trinity? Maybe or maybe not, but I would consider Christology to be pretty important. Relegating Jesus to "a God" as the Arians do is a problem. Relegating him to Lucifer's brother as the Mormons do is a problem as well. Do we have to get Jesus right?
This is where discernment is vital. I think that at the core we need to simply recognize that we are sinners who desperately need a savior. We need to recognize that there is absolutely nothing we can do to merit our salvation and trust completely on Jesus' finished work on the cross. If we agree on that as the core then some of the questions I asked above get answered pretty easily. It does matter who Jesus is because we have to understand Him as fully God (the perfect sacrifice) and fully man (representing us). We recognize the Holy Spirit and His work in salvation. This covers the Trinity pretty well.
It's tough to do this though and I fear that I may have missed something. But what I don't want to do is elevate any secondary or tertiary doctrine as primary. I will fight you long and hard over the gospel. I will fight very hard over God's sovereignty in electing and preserving His saints. I won't fight quite as hard over the mode of baptism. I will hardly lift a finger over eschatology.
We all need to determine where we put various doctrines. How many things are in the core that must be believed? How many do we hold with a fairly tight grip, but can let go of when pushed? And how many do we hold with a very loose grip?
Thoughts?
9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι.
Paul is wrapping up this short letter with some commands to Titus. This is the first of three verses about the kind of person who gets involved in μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις, or "foolish controversies." The δὲ in there is the weak adversative that we translate "but." Incidentally, the difference between this word and the stronger αλλα is one of the good reasons to study Greek.
Any conservative reader of Scripture will of course agree to this. But this is where the discernment comes in. What is it that makes a controversy μωρὰς (from which we get our word "moron," and in this case I do not think this leap is an exegetical fallacy) instead of essential? We all agree that the gospel is primary. When we get to Jude we'll see an extremely clear command to contend for the faith. How do we decide whether or not it is a vital doctrine or one that is μωρὰς?
Personally, I use salvation as my filter. Is this something that someone needs to understand in order to be saved? That's a bit nebulous though. Does someone need a perfectly-articulated understanding of the Trinity? Maybe or maybe not, but I would consider Christology to be pretty important. Relegating Jesus to "a God" as the Arians do is a problem. Relegating him to Lucifer's brother as the Mormons do is a problem as well. Do we have to get Jesus right?
This is where discernment is vital. I think that at the core we need to simply recognize that we are sinners who desperately need a savior. We need to recognize that there is absolutely nothing we can do to merit our salvation and trust completely on Jesus' finished work on the cross. If we agree on that as the core then some of the questions I asked above get answered pretty easily. It does matter who Jesus is because we have to understand Him as fully God (the perfect sacrifice) and fully man (representing us). We recognize the Holy Spirit and His work in salvation. This covers the Trinity pretty well.
It's tough to do this though and I fear that I may have missed something. But what I don't want to do is elevate any secondary or tertiary doctrine as primary. I will fight you long and hard over the gospel. I will fight very hard over God's sovereignty in electing and preserving His saints. I won't fight quite as hard over the mode of baptism. I will hardly lift a finger over eschatology.
We all need to determine where we put various doctrines. How many things are in the core that must be believed? How many do we hold with a fairly tight grip, but can let go of when pushed? And how many do we hold with a very loose grip?
Thoughts?
Friday, August 13, 2010
Sacred? Tradition
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
15 Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
Paul is wrapping up an argument about standing firm with the man of lawlessness coming. He's telling them to remain steadfast in what he taught them. This is of course important as the man of lawlessness is a deceiver. I'm not necessarily ready to buy into this pointing to dispensational eschatology, but I suspect that this is an important chapter.
What I want to discuss instead is this word παραδόσεις. This is translated "traditions." This is also what the Roman Catholic Church uses to defend its stance on "sacred tradition." You see, what the Church teaches is on par with Scripture. That was Paul's approach, so it is theirs as well.
This would be perfectly fine if the church had the apostolic authority it claims. So what you've got to decide is whether or not Matthew 16:18 really does grant them the authority that they take for themselves. If they truly are part of an apostolic succession then you've got to give them their claim.
However, if they are just another cult like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who claim divine authority then you need to be wary of them. That's the approach I take based on their history. There simply is not enough evidence to substantiate their claim for apostolic authority based on the history, but there is plenty to challenge it.
Where you land on this is critical because it gets to the very heart of the gospel. How is one saved? Is it the Catholic way or the Protestant way? I'm betting my future on the Protestant way. How about you?
15 Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
Paul is wrapping up an argument about standing firm with the man of lawlessness coming. He's telling them to remain steadfast in what he taught them. This is of course important as the man of lawlessness is a deceiver. I'm not necessarily ready to buy into this pointing to dispensational eschatology, but I suspect that this is an important chapter.
What I want to discuss instead is this word παραδόσεις. This is translated "traditions." This is also what the Roman Catholic Church uses to defend its stance on "sacred tradition." You see, what the Church teaches is on par with Scripture. That was Paul's approach, so it is theirs as well.
This would be perfectly fine if the church had the apostolic authority it claims. So what you've got to decide is whether or not Matthew 16:18 really does grant them the authority that they take for themselves. If they truly are part of an apostolic succession then you've got to give them their claim.
However, if they are just another cult like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who claim divine authority then you need to be wary of them. That's the approach I take based on their history. There simply is not enough evidence to substantiate their claim for apostolic authority based on the history, but there is plenty to challenge it.
Where you land on this is critical because it gets to the very heart of the gospel. How is one saved? Is it the Catholic way or the Protestant way? I'm betting my future on the Protestant way. How about you?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Prayers for Boldness
Ephesians 6:19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.
19 καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου, ἐν παρρησίᾳ γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 20 ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παρρησιάσωμαι ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι.
This is at the very end of the passage on the armor of God. Paul gives his readers a prayer request. He needs prayers to declare the gospel boldly. Think about this for a minute. This is the Paul who converted jailers because he would talk to them about the gospel while they were chained to him. This is Paul the missionary church planter who suffered all kinds of hardships so that he could spread the gospel. He still wanted prayers so that his mouth would be opened ἐν παρρησία, or in boldness. After all, that was how he had to speak.
It's fascinating to me that I read this today. I've been having conversations with a coworker who has been exhorting me to spend more time witnessing. He is absolutely right, though I'm still not convinced that million dollar bill tracts really do anything positive and may indeed be more of a negative than anything. Nevertheless, at least he's doing something. He sees a lost world and looks for opportunities to have his mouth opened boldly.
I do not shy away from opportunities to have spiritual conversations with people. I'm just not very good at bringing it up. I don't think it is very effective to force it, but I also know that people need to brought to these conversations. I don't think it is reasonable to expect to be like Philip finding the Ethiopian eunuch trying to figure out the book of Isaiah.
I want desperately to have opportunities to talk to people about Jesus. After all, that's one of the reasons why I'm in seminary. So what I get from this passage is that I also need to be more intentional in my prayers that "words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly." Quite convicting.
19 καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου, ἐν παρρησίᾳ γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 20 ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παρρησιάσωμαι ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι.
This is at the very end of the passage on the armor of God. Paul gives his readers a prayer request. He needs prayers to declare the gospel boldly. Think about this for a minute. This is the Paul who converted jailers because he would talk to them about the gospel while they were chained to him. This is Paul the missionary church planter who suffered all kinds of hardships so that he could spread the gospel. He still wanted prayers so that his mouth would be opened ἐν παρρησία, or in boldness. After all, that was how he had to speak.
It's fascinating to me that I read this today. I've been having conversations with a coworker who has been exhorting me to spend more time witnessing. He is absolutely right, though I'm still not convinced that million dollar bill tracts really do anything positive and may indeed be more of a negative than anything. Nevertheless, at least he's doing something. He sees a lost world and looks for opportunities to have his mouth opened boldly.
I do not shy away from opportunities to have spiritual conversations with people. I'm just not very good at bringing it up. I don't think it is very effective to force it, but I also know that people need to brought to these conversations. I don't think it is reasonable to expect to be like Philip finding the Ethiopian eunuch trying to figure out the book of Isaiah.
I want desperately to have opportunities to talk to people about Jesus. After all, that's one of the reasons why I'm in seminary. So what I get from this passage is that I also need to be more intentional in my prayers that "words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly." Quite convicting.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Not Above Scripture
Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
11 Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.
To me, this is one of the more surprising verses in all of Scripture. Here we see the Apostle Paul publicly call out the Apostle Peter. This is the same Peter that the Roman Catholic Church calls the first pope. To be fair, no thoughtful Roman Catholic thinks that the pope is without sin. However, it is interesting that Paul calls Peter out in a letter that has become part of our canon of Scripture.
What do we make of this? It shows me that no one and certainly no leader is above Scripture. We are all accountable to God's truth. That is the final arbiter of everything. If one of us goes off and starts preaching a wrong gospel then we should be called on to the carpet for it. The phrase κατεγνωσμένος ἦν means that he was in a state of condemnation. I don't think that means he lost his salvation, but it does mean that he was doing something terribly wrong. He was confusing people about the gospel. He made the Gentiles behave like Jews and they thought that there was something salvific about doing that. Big mistake.
This also shows me that there are times for rebuke. It is much more loving to correct someone going astray than it is to let them keep walking down the wrong paths. Sometimes this is more important than other times. I don't think that every mistake in doctrine requires a stinging public rebuke, but I do think that there are times when we all need to be called on the carpet.
As someone who may be a leader someday this is a great reminder that I need to remain humble. I could certainly find myself in error. I hope never to be wrong about the fundamentals of the gospel, but I don't want to underestimate the sin I can commit. This reminds me to be on guard against error. How do I do that? I stay in the Word.
11 Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.
To me, this is one of the more surprising verses in all of Scripture. Here we see the Apostle Paul publicly call out the Apostle Peter. This is the same Peter that the Roman Catholic Church calls the first pope. To be fair, no thoughtful Roman Catholic thinks that the pope is without sin. However, it is interesting that Paul calls Peter out in a letter that has become part of our canon of Scripture.
What do we make of this? It shows me that no one and certainly no leader is above Scripture. We are all accountable to God's truth. That is the final arbiter of everything. If one of us goes off and starts preaching a wrong gospel then we should be called on to the carpet for it. The phrase κατεγνωσμένος ἦν means that he was in a state of condemnation. I don't think that means he lost his salvation, but it does mean that he was doing something terribly wrong. He was confusing people about the gospel. He made the Gentiles behave like Jews and they thought that there was something salvific about doing that. Big mistake.
This also shows me that there are times for rebuke. It is much more loving to correct someone going astray than it is to let them keep walking down the wrong paths. Sometimes this is more important than other times. I don't think that every mistake in doctrine requires a stinging public rebuke, but I do think that there are times when we all need to be called on the carpet.
As someone who may be a leader someday this is a great reminder that I need to remain humble. I could certainly find myself in error. I hope never to be wrong about the fundamentals of the gospel, but I don't want to underestimate the sin I can commit. This reminds me to be on guard against error. How do I do that? I stay in the Word.
Monday, July 19, 2010
False Gospels
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
There is so much in this chapter to write on, but I want to focus on this verse. Paul gets right down to business after a very brief introduction. Here he makes quite a bold statement. Even if he who was the Apostle Paul preaches a different gospel then even he should be declared ἀνάθεμα. A lot hinges on the meaning of this word.
Thayer has a fairly extensive entry on it. First, it mentions that in the Septuagint it refers to a "thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and, if an animal, to be slain." Here is the entry for the NT:
This business between Protestants and Roman Catholics goes back five centuries. It is vital that we pay attention to this as this is a matter of eternal life or eternal torment. But we can't stop there. What about those nice young men wearing white shirts, blue pants, and ride around on bikes while knocking on doors and telling them the "good news of Jesus Christ?" If part of their story involves The Book of Mormon then you need to be aware of what Paul has to say here to the Galatians. Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni gave him gold tablets with inspired text. The problem is that the Mormom gospel is subtly different from the Christian one. Therefore, one group or the other is ἀνάθεμα.
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim special revelation, but they do claim to be God's faithful stewards of His truth here on earth. They preach a different Christ and they preach a different, works-based salvation. Therefore, either the Christians or the Jehovah's Witnesses are ἀνάθεμα. You can't have it both ways.
So, despite our age of ecumenicalism and the desire to forget all our differences while singing "Kum-Ba-Ah" around the campfire, Paul draws a very clear line in the sand. We need to understand what Scripture has to say and stop there. I join what Luther said at Worms:
8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
There is so much in this chapter to write on, but I want to focus on this verse. Paul gets right down to business after a very brief introduction. Here he makes quite a bold statement. Even if he who was the Apostle Paul preaches a different gospel then even he should be declared ἀνάθεμα. A lot hinges on the meaning of this word.
Thayer has a fairly extensive entry on it. First, it mentions that in the Septuagint it refers to a "thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and, if an animal, to be slain." Here is the entry for the NT:
a. a curse b. a man accursed, devoted to the direst woes and in Rom. 9:3 (pregnantly equivalent to doomed and so separated from Christ).So that's pretty heavy, right? The Council of Trent made a big deal about this. As Luther worked to return the world to the true gospel the Roman Catholic Church needed a response to save their false view of the gospel. You can read their declarations. Clearly there are two different views of the gospel here. Paul makes it clear that there is only one true gospel; therefore, either Protestants are ἀνάθεμα or those holding to the Roman Catholic view of salvation are ἀνάθεμα. It cannot go both ways.
This business between Protestants and Roman Catholics goes back five centuries. It is vital that we pay attention to this as this is a matter of eternal life or eternal torment. But we can't stop there. What about those nice young men wearing white shirts, blue pants, and ride around on bikes while knocking on doors and telling them the "good news of Jesus Christ?" If part of their story involves The Book of Mormon then you need to be aware of what Paul has to say here to the Galatians. Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni gave him gold tablets with inspired text. The problem is that the Mormom gospel is subtly different from the Christian one. Therefore, one group or the other is ἀνάθεμα.
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim special revelation, but they do claim to be God's faithful stewards of His truth here on earth. They preach a different Christ and they preach a different, works-based salvation. Therefore, either the Christians or the Jehovah's Witnesses are ἀνάθεμα. You can't have it both ways.
So, despite our age of ecumenicalism and the desire to forget all our differences while singing "Kum-Ba-Ah" around the campfire, Paul draws a very clear line in the sand. We need to understand what Scripture has to say and stop there. I join what Luther said at Worms:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.Where do you stand?
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Self-Examination
2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
5 Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε· ἢ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν; εἰ μήτι ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε.
There are those who espouse that so-called "Lordship salvation" is akin to works-righteousness. I'm not sure what they do with a verse like this. It seems that you have one of two options with this:
5 Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε· ἢ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν; εἰ μήτι ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε.
There are those who espouse that so-called "Lordship salvation" is akin to works-righteousness. I'm not sure what they do with a verse like this. It seems that you have one of two options with this:
- You need to work to stay in the faith. Those who fail to work lose their salvation. This would be an Arminian viewpoint.
- Those who are truly saved will exhibit good works. This meshes well with James 2:24
Paul makes it very clear here. If the Corinthians Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε and find that there is no evidence of salvation then they have ἀδόκιμοί, or failed the test. I find it interesting that Paul uses the particle μήτι here. He expects them to give a negative answer to his negative question. In other words, he expects that they will find that they are truly in the faith, but there is a chance that they are not.
What about you? If you are truly saved then your life will demonstrate it. There will still be sin and it may be some terrible bondage to sin. I think that someone can be truly saved and yet struggle with habitual sin. But is there any fruit? Or did you just raise your hand at the end of a service or pray a prayer and consider that to be enough? Are you seeking after the Lord or are you either indifferent to Him or running from Him? How you respond to these questions will give you some clues as to where you stand.
If you fail the test then I urge you to repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. He is the Lord. Do you acknowledge Him as yours?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
True Apostles
2 Corinthians 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
12 Ὃ δὲ ποιῶ, καὶ ποιήσω, ἵνα ἐκκόψω τὴν ἀφορμὴν τῶν θελόντων ἀφορμήν, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται εὑρεθῶσιν καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς.
Paul is giving the Corinthians a pretty stern rebuke here in chapter 11. In fact, it kind of seems like he uses guilt as a rhetorical tool. That's interesting, but I find the section that this verse starts fascinating. He is writing to them about false apostles, though the false apostles say that they are working καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς or "just as also us," if you want to be quite literal.
The fact is that there are some pretty grave doctrinal differences within groups that call themselves Christian. I'm not talking about pre-mil vs. post-mil or Calvinist vs Arminian. Those are in-house debates. I'm talking about the nature of Jesus. Was He fully God and fully man? Was He the product of the Holy Spirit or did God somehow have actual relations with Mary as the Mormons teach? Was He just a spirit man who was the first created being as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach? Or was He fully God and fully man?
You also can get Jesus right but then get the gospel wrong. What must we do to be saved? Is it faith alone or is it some combination faith and then good works as the Roman Catholics teach? We can't all be right on this because God is God and does not change.
What is the result of this? Those nice young men in their white shirts and blue pants riding around on bikes and knocking on doors passing out The Book of Mormon are teaching a false gospel. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a different gospel than the one I believe. Either the Catholics are right or I (and historic Protestants) am. We can't both be right. Either the Catholic view of salvation will save someone or the Protestant one will.
We will get into this more in a few days when we hit Galatians 1, Lord willing. But for now do think this through. There is a gospel. Many people will claim to preach it. Some of those will actually be preaching something different. This is why it is so vital for us to know our Bibles that we may be able to discern the truth.
12 Ὃ δὲ ποιῶ, καὶ ποιήσω, ἵνα ἐκκόψω τὴν ἀφορμὴν τῶν θελόντων ἀφορμήν, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται εὑρεθῶσιν καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς.
Paul is giving the Corinthians a pretty stern rebuke here in chapter 11. In fact, it kind of seems like he uses guilt as a rhetorical tool. That's interesting, but I find the section that this verse starts fascinating. He is writing to them about false apostles, though the false apostles say that they are working καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς or "just as also us," if you want to be quite literal.
The fact is that there are some pretty grave doctrinal differences within groups that call themselves Christian. I'm not talking about pre-mil vs. post-mil or Calvinist vs Arminian. Those are in-house debates. I'm talking about the nature of Jesus. Was He fully God and fully man? Was He the product of the Holy Spirit or did God somehow have actual relations with Mary as the Mormons teach? Was He just a spirit man who was the first created being as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach? Or was He fully God and fully man?
You also can get Jesus right but then get the gospel wrong. What must we do to be saved? Is it faith alone or is it some combination faith and then good works as the Roman Catholics teach? We can't all be right on this because God is God and does not change.
What is the result of this? Those nice young men in their white shirts and blue pants riding around on bikes and knocking on doors passing out The Book of Mormon are teaching a false gospel. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a different gospel than the one I believe. Either the Catholics are right or I (and historic Protestants) am. We can't both be right. Either the Catholic view of salvation will save someone or the Protestant one will.
We will get into this more in a few days when we hit Galatians 1, Lord willing. But for now do think this through. There is a gospel. Many people will claim to preach it. Some of those will actually be preaching something different. This is why it is so vital for us to know our Bibles that we may be able to discern the truth.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Opened Eyes
Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.
31 αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν· καὶ αὐτὸς ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.
Jesus had just walked to Emmaus with Cleopas and another disciple. He interpreted the Old Testament to them and explained how it pointed to Him. They didn't put two and two together until they shared a meal with Him and ιηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ. In other words, it took something outside of themselves to understand the significance of what He told them.
This is true for us today as well. We can search the Scriptures all that we want, but unless we have our eyes opened by the Holy Spirit we are not going to make the connection. There are some who would say that we can learn everything we need about Jesus from the Old Testament or even the Pentateuch. It is true that the Old Testament is a valid witness of Christ. Somehow Anna and Simeon were able to understand the coming Messiah without what we call the New Testament. They had the same Scriptures as the Pharisees.
The fact is that we are dead in our trespasses and sins. There are so many illustrations for this, but the one I've heard lately is that you don't offer a cup of life-saving elixir at the morgue and expect the bodies to get up and drink from it. They are dead. They are incapable of doing anything. This is how Scripture describes mankind in his unconverted state. Therefore, there must be something external to "open our eyes" to the beauty of the gospel.
My prayer is that you would have open eyes as you consider who Jesus is. And if your eyes are already opened I pray that you would have a much more profound sense of gratitude over what you have been saved from.
31 αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν· καὶ αὐτὸς ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.
Jesus had just walked to Emmaus with Cleopas and another disciple. He interpreted the Old Testament to them and explained how it pointed to Him. They didn't put two and two together until they shared a meal with Him and ιηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ. In other words, it took something outside of themselves to understand the significance of what He told them.
This is true for us today as well. We can search the Scriptures all that we want, but unless we have our eyes opened by the Holy Spirit we are not going to make the connection. There are some who would say that we can learn everything we need about Jesus from the Old Testament or even the Pentateuch. It is true that the Old Testament is a valid witness of Christ. Somehow Anna and Simeon were able to understand the coming Messiah without what we call the New Testament. They had the same Scriptures as the Pharisees.
The fact is that we are dead in our trespasses and sins. There are so many illustrations for this, but the one I've heard lately is that you don't offer a cup of life-saving elixir at the morgue and expect the bodies to get up and drink from it. They are dead. They are incapable of doing anything. This is how Scripture describes mankind in his unconverted state. Therefore, there must be something external to "open our eyes" to the beauty of the gospel.
My prayer is that you would have open eyes as you consider who Jesus is. And if your eyes are already opened I pray that you would have a much more profound sense of gratitude over what you have been saved from.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Due Punishment
Luke 23:41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
41 καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως, ἄξια γὰρ ὧν ἐπράξαμεν ἀπολαμβάνομεν· οὗτος δὲ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔπραξεν.
This statement was made by the repentant thief on the cross. Jesus was crucified between two convicted men. One continued to mock Him, but the other came to faith at the end. This statement gets to the very heart of Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross.
We don't use the word "atone" much in our society. The idea is to cover something up. One illustration would be for the bank to call you one day and tell you that your mortgage is forgiven. That would mean that your mortgage was covered up.
A much more poignant example is shown by this thief on the cross. He was justly convicted for his crime. He knew it and he confessed it (καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως). However, he was stuck on a cross and there was absolutely nothing he could do to save himself. He realized that. He needed Jesus to save Him.
We are in the same predicament. We cannot save ourselves. No amount of good works can save us. I don't care how good of a swimmer you are, but if you go west from Los Angeles you are never going to make it to Hawaii. You may get a good ways out, but Hawaii is so far away that it is impossible to do. The same is true of the chasm that stands between us and God. We need Christ to bring us to Him.
Are you ready to stop swimming and to embrace Jesus' free gift of grace?
41 καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως, ἄξια γὰρ ὧν ἐπράξαμεν ἀπολαμβάνομεν· οὗτος δὲ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔπραξεν.
This statement was made by the repentant thief on the cross. Jesus was crucified between two convicted men. One continued to mock Him, but the other came to faith at the end. This statement gets to the very heart of Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross.
We don't use the word "atone" much in our society. The idea is to cover something up. One illustration would be for the bank to call you one day and tell you that your mortgage is forgiven. That would mean that your mortgage was covered up.
A much more poignant example is shown by this thief on the cross. He was justly convicted for his crime. He knew it and he confessed it (καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως). However, he was stuck on a cross and there was absolutely nothing he could do to save himself. He realized that. He needed Jesus to save Him.
We are in the same predicament. We cannot save ourselves. No amount of good works can save us. I don't care how good of a swimmer you are, but if you go west from Los Angeles you are never going to make it to Hawaii. You may get a good ways out, but Hawaii is so far away that it is impossible to do. The same is true of the chasm that stands between us and God. We need Christ to bring us to Him.
Are you ready to stop swimming and to embrace Jesus' free gift of grace?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
