Clay-Pot: A Blog by Tim Brown

Basic characteristics for a husband - Purposeful Procession towards Marriage pt. 3

2009-10-31T16:21:00.004-05:00

The very basic, minimal requirements of a young man who is interested in showing his interest in or inquiring of courting a young woman are as follows:

He must be a Christian (2 Cor. 6:14)

He must be committed to biblical headship (Eph. 5:23ff)

He must welcome children (Ps. 127:3-5)

He must be a suitable priest (Josh. 24:15)

He must be a prophet (Eph. 6:4)

He must be a protector (Neh. 4:13-14)

He must be a provider (1 Tim. 5:18; Titus 2:5; 2 Thess. 3:10)

This list comes from Voddie Baucom in his book titled, "What he must be...if he wants to marry my daughter." I would assert that this is the bare minimum for a young man to attain if he wishes to seek out a young woman for a bride. you may look at the list and say, "Wow! You're asking for a lot there. You need to be more reasonable. You'll never find someone like that." Well, if you are ok with something less for your daughter gentlemen, then you will answer to God for not holding to a high standard of a man to entrust your daughter to. The life she leads will largely depend upon the father's evaluation of the young man who might seek her hand in marriage. We must be wise father's and sober minded in this area.

Now, let me say this: if we see a young man that has potential who may have inquired of us of our daughters, but has not quite attained these things, we should not totally dismiss him. By this, I mean that we should be those who graciously become mentors for them to help shape and mold them into mighty men of God that we will accept as son-in-laws. However, even in doing that, it must be made clear that they are not to pursue a relationship with our daughters unless we have given our permission. By pursuing a relationship, I mean that they are not to develop an emotional relationship whereby there is a seeking of a physical type relationship and showing of interest in a romantic way. Of course they may be friends, but that should be the extent of it. In my next post I will be linking to a short article on betrothal and find that it is more in line with how my mind set is. It's just that I have never actually had someone say this, so thought it would be something good for others to read.

I'll be going through these qualifications one by one over the next few posts. So stay tuned.

Beginning a Family - Purposeful Procession towards Marriage pt. 2

2009-10-31T12:30:00.006-05:00

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen. 2:24

Before looking at the biblical presentation of how a family begins, I think it is important to look at authority structure. The Bible is very clear on how authority is to be understood. We read of a certain Centurion in the gospels who knew authority well, as he was both under authority and also in a place of authority. In Matthew 8 we read of this man,

8 The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed.
9 "For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, `Go,' and he goes; and to another, `Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it."

Authority, however, does not exist only in the military. It exists in every facet of life and the Bible speaks to each of those instances. It exists in government (Rom. 13:1-7), employer/employee(master/slave) relationships (Eph. 6:5-9), God and man (1 Cor. 11:3), man and woman (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22), parents and children (Eph. 6:1-3). If we fail to understand authority and how God has structured it both for His glory and our good, then we will inevitably be in error at many points of our theology and practice. I think the easiest understanding of the authority in regards to the family structure is to see how the "chain of command" is laid out in Scripture and I believe the simplest format that we see is found in 1 Corinthians 11. We read there in verse 3,

3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

The term "head" here is the Greek word kephale and it speak not to a physical head attached to the body but metaphorically of the one who has authority. Just as the head of the body controls the movements of the body and is in authority over it, the heads referred to in this text also are in authority over those under them. Notice the flow of authority: God is head of Christ, Christ is head of man, man is head of woman. There is a clear line of authority seen here. Ephesians then expresses the authority of the parents over the children as well, as children are commanded to obey their parents in the Lord.
From this basic structure it appears that men are either in authority or under authority, or both. Thus, we do not see that men are an authority unto themselves. This should be useful to us in understanding roles of fathers with both their sons and daughters in regards to marriage. Authority has to do with one who governs and rules, who sets the boundaries and enacts discipline and/or reward. With that authority structure in place, let's get to the issue of who is the determiner of when a young man becomes an authority for a family of his own, or to put it simply, who determines when the young man is ready to pursue marriage. Let's ask how a family starts. The answer is found in the first family of the human race that was brought about: Adam & Eve. In Genesis 2 we read,

21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
22 Then the rib
which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her
to the man.
23 And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my
flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."

So, God made a woman just for Adam, a suitable helper. Did you get that? God made a woman to be the perfect companion for Adam. The Hebrew word is explicit in this. The word for made is banah and literally it means "build". God built Eve especially for Adam to be his suitable helper. Now there is no doubt that both Adam and his wife were equals before God. They were both a part of mankind. They were obviously different in that one was a man and the other a woman, and yet they were both made for specific roles and were equipped physically for those roles. I won't get into all the details of the roles here, since that will be for another post, however, we know that physically the man is structured for work and endurance in order that he can provide and protect and the woman is built in such a way as to conceive, bare and nurture children. These things are simply obvious, and yet one is to be in authority and the other under that
authority. It is not a dictatorship that is to be ruled heavy handed and tyrannically, but rather men are commanded to "love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her(Eph. 5:25). So we notice that the first Father, God, was directly involved in the selection, even the building of the wife of the first Adam and that He brought her unto Adam. Luke even says that Adam was the son of God (3:37). Adam was God's son, not divinely, but because of creation. Therefore in the very first marriage we see the father intimately involved in the selection of the wife for his son.
Next we notice the statement, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." We see that a man leaves out from under the authority, protection and provision of the home of his parents and comes directly under the authority of Jesus Christ as a new home is formed with his wife. This is a complete break with the authority of the home of his parents, though as their child he is still to honor them.
So the question comes, "Can a man leave the home before he takes a wife?" Well, the Lord Jesus, in quoting this passage on the subject of divorce, says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." What is the reason a man leaves his father and mother, and likewise a daughter her mother and father? The only reason stated is to be joined to his wife. We might immediately ask, "What about to join the military?" or "What about going to college?" or other such questions. Well the one thing that is specific is that they are to leave their mother and father to be joined to a wife. The woman does the same thing. She is passed from the authority, protection and provision of her father to the authority, protection and provision of her husband. Thus he becomes head of her under the headship of Christ.

This is an important point. For both the young man and the young woman, the father represented God to them and they were to honor and obey him, but now that they are in a new authority structure, the husband is now directly under the headship of Christ and the wife under the headship of her husband. She is to seek the instruction of her husband (1 Tim. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 14:34-35) and he is to wash her with the water of the word (Eph. 5:26). Once the son followed the voice of his father as he represented God to him and now he is to follow the voice of God as found in the Scriptures on his own.

With this in mind, I am to prepare my sons for leading in this manner. It requires diligently teaching our children when they are younger (Deut. 6:7) the commands of God and then as our sons grow older giving them more and more responsibility, trusting them to make more and more decisions on their own, the more we see them growing in accordance with the will of the father. Thus sons should exhibit these kinds of leadership abilities and qualities long before they leave the home and begin a family of their own. They must not simply be cast out into an authoritative headship directly under Jesus Christ without first experiencing something of it themselves, though it is under the authority of their father. This is why it is needful that our sons have boundaries and their freedoms limited until they begin to learn and do their father's will (to think as their fathers do, which should be in accordance with the will of God).

So, another question arises from this: Who determines when a son is ready for marriage? the son or the father? Obviously the father teaches and trains his son, but does the son set out on his own apart from the father to find a wife and then make all those decisions on his own? Well first remember how we saw God the Father intimately involved in the marriage of the first Adam. you might be inclined to say, "Well yeah, but that was because there was no one else around. It was the first family." I admit with a smile that is correct, but remember that God built Eve specifically to be Adam's helpmate. She was made for him and brought to him by the Father.

Now when the second Adam came, He came in search of a bride, did He not? The church is referred to as the bride of Christ. The apostle Paul speaks of the marriage of a husband and wife being a picture of Christ and His church and yet, did Christ go out seeking to do His own will in finding His bride? No. First he was commended to begin to do so by His Father. He was evaluated by the Father and declared to be well pleasing to the Father (Mark 1:11). It was then that He set out to do the Father's will and only the Father's will and that included pursuing those who would be His bride, whom the Father had chosen from all eternity (Eph. 1:3-6; Matt. 11:27; Jn. 5:30). So must a son seek his father's blessing, not only for the woman he marries, but also in determining his own readiness to pursue a bride and marriage, in the same respect that Jesus did nothing apart from the Father.

When a son is ready for marriage, his father should let him know and it will become more and more evident as the son has the desire and learned to do his father's will. However, according to the reason Jesus made, we might understand that single sons and daughters are to remain under the authority, provision and protection of the father until they are married.

Purposeful Procession towards marriage

2009-10-31T10:14:00.003-05:00

I admit that I have several thoughts in regards to what should take place before a man and woman enter into a marriage. It seems that in my day that dating is the acceptable means of obtaining a mate, if indeed that is even the desire. In most cases, dating is preferable to marriage because it seems that many are happy to have the physical and emotional relationship that should only be reserved for marriage in dating without the covenant of marriage and the obligations that are intrinsic to it. However, having gone that way myself as someone who was not a believer, I am interested in how to guide my boys into marriage and how to prepare them as well as preparing my daughters and deal with possible suitors for them. So my aim here is to lay out thoughts and presuppositions and then see if they are biblical or not.

Before I begin, I want this to be clear: my aim is not to condemn people who are doing something different. If you feel intimidated or easily offended, then you may not want to read further. My aim is to simply lay out either what the Scripture says regarding this issue as the bull's eye, if you will. It is where we aim......the glory of God. If we don't have a target we can simply hit anything and then sort of move the bull's eye over where our arrow has struck and say, "it's ok". That is not what these posts will be about. I simply want to map out as clearly as I can what my role as a father is, my wife's role, and the boys and girls under our authorities roles are. So please keep this in mind, in the even that you might want to ask, "Well what if such and such?" and your question is pointed towards something that deviates from the specifics. I will try and deal with things that may arise from a failure to hit the mark.

With this said, I want for anyone to understand something, if my children turn out bad then that is simply on me. Let's put aside the notion that I am the authority and can do no wrong. We must keep in mind the issue of total depravity that works in men. My ego is not at stake here. The glory of God is, for our chief end is to glorify Him. Therefore, if my children turn out to honor Him and follow Him then it is all due to His grace and mercy. That doesn't mean it has nothing to do with our teaching, it just simply points to who is the potter and that is God.

Now, first I start with the sovereignty of God. I know that no man and woman come together apart from the eternal decree and providence of God. this is true whether they are believers or not. In marriage they are no less "one flesh" because of believing or not believing, and ultimately we can say they were brought together by Him. However, let's be clear: we are not to use the Providence of God to somehow justify our wrong actions. In other words, I don't say, "Well God brought me and my wife together and if i hadn't dated her the way we did then we would't be together and so we are thankful for God's providence" as though we simply throw our disobedience upon the providence of God and that makes everything ok. Of course God's providence is at work. Nothing happens that is not a part of that, but we are talking about using His providence as an excuse for our disobedience. I do not advocate that.

As believers we are called to, "do all for the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). This includes preparing for marriage and what type of mate one should be seeking and even how that process should be accomplished. So, while we have some idea of at least a framework of how marriage is spoken of in Scripture, we are very ignorant in how to prepare and lead the young men and women in our own homes in the process of joining themselves to a mate for life. I will attempt to use a phrase that will try and shy away from courting, though I believe this to be a more historic definition that I will seek to use. The phrase I will be using is "a purposeful procession towards marriage". This way much of what we will say will be bound up in the phrase itself. It is not dating, going out with whomever and attaching emotional feeling and touching and such out from under parental authority and it is not a myriad of courting opinions, but simply it is the process of being prepared for marriage and the logical and biblical progression from preparation to selection to marriage.

To begin with I have a few questions of my own to ask and hopefully in my study, by God's grace, I shall find the answers to these along the way. Here they are:

How do we prepare boys and girls minds to think biblically about marriage and the "purposeful procession toward marriage"? (orthodoxy-sound doctrine)

How do we prepare them practically? (orthopraxy-things pertaining to sound doctrine)

What is the role of the father in working with his son in preparing him for marriage and selecting a wife?

What is the role of the father in working with his daughter in preparing her for marriage and dealing with possible suitors?

What is the role of the mother in each?

Are arranged marriages biblical?

Is a son going out on his own to find a wife biblical?

Is a daughter going out on her own to find a husband biblical?

What should a yound man possess and know before making any interest in a young woman known? Likewise, a young woman?

Is a youjnd man's relationship with his mother an indication of how he will treat his wife? Likewise, a young woman with her father. Both with their parents and other siblings.

Is the young man's/woman's view of God, his doctrine and practice important? this may seem to be a given, but sadly doesn't always take precidence.

What is the testimony he/she bears both with his mouth and actions?

Do particular struggles that a young man or woman are currently having hinder them from being ready for marriage?

What is the young man's vision? Likewise the young woman?

Should a possible suitor be left alone with my daughter? Likewise, should my son be alone with a young woman of interest?

Are chaperones necessary if a young man and woman should go some place together? Are older siblings suitable chaperones?

How much time should be given to courting (limited interaction in company)? How much time should be given to engagement (the time of pledging to marry till the wedding day)?

Should a young man already have means of providing before making his interest know to a young woman?

Should a young man ask permission of her father before making his interest known?

Should physical contact be encouraged at all? during courtship? during engagement?

If the young lady doesn't have a father around, should the young man ask permission of the mother? If no parents are around, then what?

What should a young man desire in a wife? Likewise, a young woman in a husband?

Should they both know and understand their roles biblically?

Should they both have positive views of children and welcome them?

These are not all the questions by all means and i certainly may ask many more and hopefully answer them with God's wisdom which comes from His Word. Hopefully though, me being able to write these down I will be able to gain a more solid understanding both of my role as a father in this aspect and also a vision of where I want my children to be at when the time is right to leave the home and exactly how to get them there.

The Late Great Planet Church

2009-05-16T18:37:00.004-05:00

Well I took the time the other week to sit down for about 2 hours and review the long awaited video from NiceneCouncil.com, The Late Great Planet Church (The Rise of Dispensationalism). First and foremost, congratulations to Jerry Johnson and his son Tyler on the production finally being completed. It is very well down both quality wise and in it's content.

This is the first volume in a two volume set that which will be released sometime later. This volume however is an introduction to what dispensationalism is and is not and also discusses the major proponents of dispensationalism such as Charles Ryrie, C. I. Schofield, and John Darby. These are some of the men who made dispensationalism so popular from the 19th and 20th century. Others of late note include such men as Hal Lindsey (where his book Late Great Planet Earth is punned by the title), and those who established Dallas Theological Seminary have turned out millions of people who believe in dispensationalism, though the Bible knows nothing of it. The primary focus of dispensationalism is to somehow divide the people of God into two categories, the geo-political structure of the nation Israel (or those as dispensationalism puts it, who are "physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and those of the New Testament Church. Rather than see the continuity of both the Old and New Testaments in the people of God and those who are really the children of God as one people, they seek to destroy what Christ has established according to Ephesians 2 where he makes from the 2, Jew and Gentile, one new man. There is to be no more distinctions physically. Rather the distinction is purely spiritual. Thus the true Jew, Paul tells us, is the one that has been circumcised not of the flesh, but of the heart.

So this video seeks to attempt to deal with the birth of the thinking of dispensationalism and also those who promoted it. It primarily is not a theology but an eschatology that has then been read back into the Scriptures and thus the doctrines gained do impact one's thinking. At no time in church history was dispensationalism known until the 1800's. So it is relatively new. This does not make it wrong, but one should be careful in believing something that the church has not held to since the creation. Along with the primary distinction of the Church and Israel, there are also other doctrines such as a secret rapture and a 7 year Tribulation somewhere in our future followed by a 1000 year rule of Christ from Jerusalem. There are also disturbing doctrines regarding what takes place in the millenium that I'm sure will be discussed in volume 2.

However for volume one sit back and listen at least to the birth of dispensationalism, the character of it's earliest proponents and at least see if it isn't valid to ask, whether we should not take a serious look at dispensationalism if for no other reason than the character of those who first popularized it, such as John Darby and C. I. Schofield. In the end it is what the Bible says and teaches in its context that determines the truth, but we should be on guard against those who seek to draw sheep after themselves as these men did and then shut off any other believers from them. On top of that some of the disturbing things that were in these men's lives also reflect a lack of godliness and qualification for one to teach the Word of God, much less add notes in a study Bible.

I highly recommend this first installment of "The Late Great Planet Church" for personal viewing, as well as, for groups. Now, if you are a dispensationalist, don't discount what I write here and not view the dvd. Get it and take in the information and then respond to it. I am one that use to be dispensationalist many years ago, but when I was forced to study through books of the Bible an do so in their contexts there is no way one would ever come to the conclusion of dispensationalism apart from someone teaching it to them, because the concepts are foreign to the text itself. With that I will end on the note of encouragement to arm yourself with the facts contained in the video. Jerry is an excellent researcher and makes sure his facts are straight before publishing them. As a former contributer to Watchman Fellowship, a counter cult ministry in Texas, he is widely known and is the president of NiceneCouncil.com and writer for the Amazing Grace, The History and Theology of Calvinism DVD. Click the link above to be taken to the web site where you can order this dvd.

Updated wish list

2007-10-31T16:15:00.000-05:00

New and Improved Wish List of Vision Forum Items:

The Anti-Historical Revisionism Home School Kit #23507 $45

The Master’s Plan for Fathers # 43752 $35

Strength and Dignity for Daughters #86650 $10

Passionate Housewives Desperate for God # 84332 $16

The Wise Woman’s guide to Blessing Her Husbands Vision # 68221 $16

Strategic Siblings # 58785 $10

Building a Family That Will Stand # 10176 $30

The Adventures of Missionary Heroism # 74642 $24

Yankee vs. Rebels # 64111 $10

Providential Battles Vols. 1 & 2 # 35272 & # 352274 $50

Total: $ 246.

sponsored by,

Vision Forum & InAShoe

Vision Forum Wishlist:)

2007-10-25T07:22:00.000-05:00

Vision Forum and Lifeinashoe are having a giveaway:) so we are posting a wishlist. go check out their sites.

Wish List of Vision Forum Items:

The Anti-Historical Revisionism Home School Kit #23507 $45

The Master’s Plan for Fathers # 43752 $35

Strength and Dignity for Daughters #86650 $10

Passionate Housewives Desperate for God # 84332 $16

The Wise Woman’s guide to Blessing Her Husbands Vision # 68221 $16

Strategic Siblings # 58785 $10

Family Driven Faith #37825 $18

Total $150

Book Review: Prowl

2007-08-26T19:53:00.002-05:00

Well wow! It's been almost two years since I posted anything on the blog site and now I just discovered that I never posted a book review of my brother Gordan Runyan's Prowl. So Here it is from 8/27/2007. It is short and I can't give all the details since I don't want to give the story away, but suffice it to say we thoroughly enjoyed the book. Thanks so much Gordan:)

I wanted to take a moment and write a brief review of a good friend's novel, Prowl. Gordan sent me the book a few months back. I often read historical type novels with the kids during or after family worship at night. However, since my dear brother sent it to me and in anticipation of all of the excitment and suspense that I heard about, we put it immediately in line to read to the kids after our current book.

We began the book some weeks back, but because of having to be out of town due to an overload in the work we had, the book went very slow for us. However, it was all it was made out to be:) Gordan has a great style of writing and if you have ever talked with him, you can almost hear his voice in some of the humor of the book. If you've ever read his blog and enjoyed it, then you will enjoy this novel. Like I said there were times where I was completely cracking up, looked at my wife and kids and said, "This has Gordan Runyan written all over it".

You will enjoy the story. It has action, suspense, and edge of your seat drama. this reads almost like an episode of 24. The great thing about the novel is that it is not a pipe dream. It is based in reality. Real life stuff happens. Gordan gives you intimate details of the inner workings of a Navy submarine and he takes time to develop the ship and its crew for those who wouldn't know what a poopie suit is:)

The message of the gospel is realistic too. Gordan develops the characters in the story very well and the back and forth between scenes is what makes it so great. You are never stuck in just one scene, but are constantly being moved about with action, suspense and adventure as well as an easy to follow story line. Gordon, you should write many more books brother. Those who read will not find this the usual "Christian novel" simply because the main character is struggling to understand who he is in light of what he learns from God's Word. In the midst of things he isn't surrounded by a bunch of Christians who are encouraging him. Rather he finds himself trying to stay alive amidst a killer on the loose in his submarine. My hat's off to this book. My family enjoyed reading it together:) They even run around the house saying, "Mo betta"....and if you are wondering what that is......get the book:)

The erasure of American borders with Canada & Mexico??

2007-08-19T08:34:00.000-05:00

Conservative Coalition Assembles To Warn Americans About Agenda For ‘Hush-Hush’ North American ‘Merge-Fest’ In Quebec.

Lancaster, PA/ August 17, 2007 - The Constitution Party, joins conservative groups and a growing number in Congress urging Americans to speak out against the formation of a North American Union (NAU).

A meeting, planned for Aug-20-21 in Quebec, will advance the well-developed plan despite a near blackout by U.S. media.

The summit, sponsored by The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, a vehicle by which the NAU is being advanced, will be led by President George Bush of the United States, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico to plan an EU-type merger joining all three countries.

Former Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Howard Phillips said: "This summit is being held away from the scrutiny of the American people. It was declared off limits to those who oppose it, and that speaks volumes. The SPP is part of a treacherous scheme to incrementally merge Canada, the United States, and Mexico in a manner similar to that, which brought the European Union into being over a span of 50 years. Lost liberties and a lower standard of living would be the inevitable result if our borders with Mexico and Canada were to be erased. Americans won't want to be part of that global nightmare." Phillips, founder of the fast-growing Constitution Party, one-time presidential candidate and the leader of the Conservative Caucus (www.conservativeusa.org) will be joined by a coalition of American and Canadian leaders assembled in Quebec to speak out against the proposed merger of the three countries at a press conference.

The press conference is scheduled for August 20th, 2007 at 10 am at the Ottawa Marriott Hotel, Ottawa, Canada.

“The NAU and the SPP are a virtual toxic alphabet soup being cooked up behind closed doors so Americans won’t have a clue they’re about to lose their rights and freedoms until it’s too late,” warned Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer. “Just ask the people in Europe who are now dealing with the disastrous effects of the E.U.”, Clymer further noted.

Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., New York Times best-selling author of the new book The Late, Great U.S.A.-The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada will be covering the SPP summit from Quebec. Corsi is an internationally known expert on the clandestine effort to force Americans into an unconstitutional fusion with other countries.

The Constitution Party joins opponents of the SPP/NAU and supports proposed legislation (HCR40) introduced by Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) which calls for an end to the merger that would result in a North American Union (NAU). In addition, the Constitution Party expresses appreciation to the 18 states introducing resolutions calling for a halt to work on the NAU.

Thomas More before those who condemned him

2007-08-13T07:15:00.000-05:00

I ran across this quote in my study of Philemon. It comes from Sir Thomas More, who was the Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII. The quote is cited in Thomas More, by R. W. Chambers, pg. 342). Remember that this quotes comes after the very men he is addressing have condemned him to death.

“As the blessed apostle St. Paul…consented to the death of St. Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now both twain holy saints in Heaven, and shall continue there friends for ever, so I verily trust, and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though you Lordships have now here in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in Heaven merrily all meet together, to our everlasting salvation.”

May God grant us this kind of spirit in dealing with those who oppose us!

A quick update

2007-08-13T06:35:00.000-05:00

Just a quick update. I know I haven't posted in a while, but wanted everyone to know that things are ok with us. Today we hope, in God's Providence, that this will be our last visit with DSS. It has been 8 months since this started. The other week RC was released from the specialist and was given a clean bill of health. So we are waiting now on the case worker's visit. We are praying for God's favor with them.

On a lighter note, the family and I were able to meet Nathan White and his wife and daughter the other week as he was up our way on business. We had a delightful time around the table and are thankful to call them brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope we are able to do it again sometime:)

Gordan, hehe, we are still trudging slowly along through Prowl. We are almos towards the end. We just finished the chapter where the Omaha torpedos the cruiser. That has been the most intense chapter! I loved the back and forth too. It really made it edge of your seat reading.

Hopefully, I will get back to posting some things soon.

Some of you may have seen this

2007-08-13T06:18:00.002-05:00

I received this email the other week and thought I would share it with you. Though our government has the right to wage war on those who threaten it's citizens because they are ministers of God and hold the sword as a means against evil doers, we as individual believers should have a heart of compassion for these who have been deceived and we are obligated to love them and present to them the blessed gospel of Christ, which alone can save them. Here is the email.

These Pictures tell it all!

Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!

These are pictures not shown on American TV or in American Newspapers (as they might help Bush's war on terror), but were forwarded to me by a Canadian Friend who thought Americans ought to know!

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the streets of London during their recent

"Religion of Peace Demonstration."

Why would anyone think

that we should be at war

with such nice, peaceful Muslims?!

PS>Our war brothers is not with carnal weapons, but they are mighty spiritual weapons God has given us in the tearing down of strongholds.

Pics from Jamestown

2007-07-01T07:38:00.000-05:00

I thought I might post a few pics from our trip to Jamestown. I don't do a lot of pic posting, but thought some might enjoy:) So here they are.

The John Smith Monument
The Susan Constant.

Teddy Roosevelt reenactment

Fifers at Jamestown

First Landing Reenactment.
Inside the first Jamestown church building

The Memorial Cross at Jamestown

Dakota showing that Jamestown is not only 17th century history, but also Civil War history

The Browns in front of the Jamestown settlement.

Hannah enjoying the delights of fruit..

Caleb becoming a young man and helping his mother by carrying the diaper bag.

OK, Mom & Dad got into trouble. Fortunately we weren't hung

Hailey enjoying a piggyback ride. Dad with a super short hair cut!
And people think boys are only interested in science fiction.....

A Reformed Baptist's kids with the idol of Pocohantus..
A very cute Brown girl beside the James River.

The family by the James River

The kids with Ms. Hawley & Ms. Regina, and yes RC is having a caniption fit:)

Tori and Tabitha with a new friend Emma

Hailey with new friend Jacille (not sure about spelling:)

The Brown kids on Duke of Gloucester St. in Colonial Williamsburg

DSS Update 7-1-2007

2007-07-01T07:29:00.000-05:00

Well it has been 6 months since R.C. was released from the hospital. It has been about 5 since DSS claimed that our case was "indicated". I got a call this week from the social worker letting us know that at least for now, she will be coming once every other week, rather than every week. Praise God for that! He has certainly shown us mercy in this area:) He has continued to keep our rebelliousness at bay by His Spirit in the matter and for that we give Him glory. We don't know when there will be finality. The doctor wrote some things in a letter to the social worker that were clearly not true and the worker knew it from previous experience, so I will be confronting that with video recorder in hand on our next visit at the end of the month.

We covet your prayers for a demonstration of the power of God to continue to restrain our own sinful desires and to cause us to love those who are against us. Please pray for the social worker and doctor. I have shared our concerns and the gospel and am desirous that God might be pleased to use it for His glory in their lives. Finally, please continue to remember Denise as she is due in the first part of November. We are very, very tight in our finances, so please pray with us for the Lord's provision as the midwife now is another responsibility we have. May God continue to be glorified in all of this:)

Jamestown Quadracentennial 1607-2007

2007-06-14T20:40:00.000-05:00

This week our family was given a very special gift. A very sweet lady and her daughter from San Antonio, TX purchased tickets for our family to attend the Jamestown Quadracentennial in Virginia. We were greatly humbled and appreciative as our children had been studying some of the beginnings of our nation. We arrived here on Wednesday and these dear ladies had lunch ready for us at the hotel where we registered for the celebration. Then later when we checked into our hotel we entered and these ladies had found out where we were staying and filled our room with all sorts of fruits and organic goodies:) Denise and I were speechless and in all honesty were moved to tears. They then proceeded to purchase for us hot air balloon tickets and a historical boat tour for all the members of our family.

These dear ladies attend a church in San Antonio and after speaking with several of the men in that church, this is not unusual for them to do. God has given them tremendous means and a wonderful gift of His Spirit. This church is greatly blessed to have such women in its midst. God has indeed been gracious to these ladies, their church, and to us as well. We bless Him for His goodness through the means of women like these in His body.

Now, we are here to learn about the Providential hand of God in our nation's founding. As we are instructed in Psalm 78 as fathers :

Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.5 For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;6 That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,7 That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;8 And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

One of the desires I have is to better understand history and the Providence of God, so when I get an opportunity to hear men speak of historical events and put it in the perspective of seeing the hand of God at work and the purposes He was accomplishing, I jump at it. This week has been pretty impressive so far. We missed the first two days, so of course we are hearing all about the wonderful tours and speakers. I was really encouraged on Wednesday evening by the fact that the dramatic presentation of the first colony settlement basically came down to a memorable quote:

There are no extraordinary men. God simply puts ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances to achieve extraordinary things for His purposes and glory.

SBC MONEY USED FOR CALVINISM ATTACK!

2007-06-11T06:11:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading Nathan's blog, along with several other's including Tom Aschol and Timmy Brister concerning what the Florida Baptist Convention has done in distributing what they feel are "evils" coming into the church. First and foremost, it simply should have never been done. Whoever authorized it should not only apologize, but should have to foot the bill or lose his job. Many of you who know me, know I can be very gracious about a lot of things, but when it comes to someone outrightly attacking the doctrine of God's sovereign grace, well, I have no patience for that at all. If someone is not understanding the doctrines, fine, I have no problem with patience, but when men who should be able to read and articulate properly another's view and should have been trained to exposit Scripture and they openly misrepresent and mischaracterize and demonize those who hold to those doctrines that they are so foolishly balking at, then it is time to do what the apostle Paul says to do.

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

This passage falls right in the midst of a section concerning elders. Many of those in the position of leadership in the SBC are in fact elders, though most want to use the title pastor. As such, we must remember that those in leadership in the SBC must be held accountable and that does not merely mean some "apology", but biblical repentance.

Just so that we understand, the SBC has been politicized for over a decade. While some of the men such as Dr. Jerry Vines, Dr. Adrian Rogers, and Dr. Paige Patterson were incredibly effective in bringing the SBC back from total liberalism, these men, along with others, are the ones keeping the convention from returning to truly conservative Christianity and a clear biblical gospel AND returning to the rich calvinistic heritage of their forefathers. As a matter of fact, many who founded the SBC would see these men as liberals. This must be kept in mind when confronting this situation.

Once the SBC had pushed the issue of inerrancy to the forefront, many thought that was all that needed to be done and as long as you hollered from the pulpit that you believed the Bible was inerrant made you one of the "good ole boys". Well, there are many great men of God who have been used of God in that. However, what eventually happened was that many of the liberals wanted to stay in the SBC and try to retake the convention. When this happened those who had battled their way to the top via standing upon the Word of God as the Word of God, sunk to political maneuvering and sought to rid the convention of the liberals through means of money. By using money as a ploy to maintain status in the SBC, those in power hoped to rid themselves of the liberals. Gentleman, you should have simply stood fast upon the Scriptures apart from the political tactics.

With that in mind, now calvinism (the true gospel), is under open and blatant attack. There is no reason for the ignorance of these men. They are PhD's for crying out loud, not some small town guy from South Carolina. There is simply no excuse for the blatant misrepresentations, dishonesty and yes outright lying concerning the doctrines of grace. These men evidently express such arrogance in their sermons that sometimes I simply think they are desirous of the applause of men when it comes to this issue and not good pleasure of God (that's my opinion). You can hear it in their tones.

As Dr. Nettles told me at the conference in October in Virginia, "the battle right now in the SBC is over recovering the true gospel." He is right. Basically we are seeing a similar battle raging in the SBC that took place 500 years ago. Many Southern Baptists don't know their own heritage and are WILLINGLY IGNORANT OF IT.

I recall receiving Bob Selph's little book titled, "What Southern Baptists believe about the doctrine of election" some years ago. He detailed a tremendous amount of history concerning our forefathers and the faith they held to. While I applaud the efforts of men like Dr. Aschol, Dr. Nettles, and others, I wonder if in the end many in the SBC should not simply pull out, let it implode and be separatists rather than puritans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have experienced the same thing in the local church and it seems that when a little leaven enters in it leavens the whole lump. Getting rid of it is next to impossible. You don't have to remind me that all things are possible with God. This I know. I'm just saying that even history bears out that there will more than likely be a clear break that will have to be made in the SBC between the Arminians and the Calvinists. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I can't see it any other way.

Hodge on Paedo Baptism

2007-05-29T06:18:00.000-05:00

In light of the recent posts concerning paedo baptism, I thought this little excerpt from Charles Hodge might be enlightening to the conversation. I added some comments and questions at the end.

In either view we are said to be cleansed (whether from guilt or pollution) by baptism. What does this mean? How does baptism in either of these senses wash away sin? The Protestant and scriptural answer to this question is, that baptism cleanses from sin just as the word does. We are said to be saved by the truth, to be begotten by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. This does not mean:
That there is any inherent, much less magic, power in the word of God as heard or read to produce these effects.
Nor that the word always and everywhere, when rightly presented, thus sanctifies and saves, so that all who hear are partakers of these benefits.
Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God is so tied to the word as never to operate savingly on the heart except in connection with it. For infants may be subjects of regeneration, though incapable of receiving the truth.
In like manner when the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin (Acts 22:16); or as uniting to Christ (Gal. 3:27); or as making Christ's death our death (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12); or as saving us (1 Pet. 3:21); they do not teach:
That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects; nor
That these effects always attend its right administration; nor
That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which he communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all unbaptized will perish.
These three propositions, all of which Romanism and Ritualism affirm, are contrary to the express declarations of Scripture and to universal experience. Multitudes of the baptized are unholy; many of the unbaptized are sanctified and saved.
How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism; though baptism without faith is as of little effect as is the word of God to unbelievers.
The scriptural doctrine concerning baptism, according to the Reformed churches is:
That it is a divine institution.
That it is one of the conditions of salvation. "Whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). It has, however, the necessity of precept, not the necessity of a means sine qua non. It is in this respect analogous to confession. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10). And also to circumcision. God said, "The uncircumcised male child-should be cut off from his people" (Gen. 17:14) Yet children dying before the eighth day were surely not cut off from heaven. And the apostle teaches that if an uncircumcised man kept the law, "his uncircumcision was counted to him for circumcision" (Rom. 3:26).
Baptism is a means of grace, that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, not upon all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor is it designed as the ordinary means of regeneration. Faith and repentance are the gifts of the Spirit and fruits of regeneration, and yet they are required as conditions of baptism. But if faith, to which all the benefits of redemption are promised, precedes baptism, how can those benefits be said to be conferred, in any case, through baptism? Just as a father may give an estate to his son, and afterwards convey it to him formally by a deed. Besides, the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed and reappropriated on every new act of faith, and on every new believing reception of the sacraments. The sinner coming to baptism in the exercise of repentance and faith, takes God the Father to be his Father; God the Son, to be his Saviour; and God the Holy Ghost to be his Sanctifier, and his word to be the rule of his faith and practice. The administrator then, in the name and by the authority of God, washes him with water as a sign of the cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ, and of sanctification by the Holy Spirit; and as a seal to God's promise to grant him those blessings on the condition of the repentance and faith thus publicly avowed. Whatever he may have experienced or enjoyed before, this is the public conveyance to him of the benefits of the covenant, and his inauguration into the number of the redeemed. If he is sincere in his part of the service, baptism really applies to him the blessings of which it is the symbol.
Infants are baptized on the faith of their parents. And their baptism secures to them all the benefits of the covenant of grace, provided they ratify that covenant by faith; just as circumcision secured the benefits of the theocracy, provided those circumcised by infancy kept the law. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is, the doctrine that inward spiritual renovation always attends baptism rightly administered to the unresisting, and that regeneration is never effected without it, is contrary to Scripture, subversive of evangelical religion, and opposed to universal experience. It is, moreover, utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Reformed churches. For that doctrine teaches that all the regenerated are saved. "Whom God calls them he also glorifies" (Rom. 8:30). It is, however, plain from Scripture, and in accordance with the faith of the universal church, that multitudes of the baptized perish. The baptized, therefore, as such, are not the regenerated.
The foregoing remarks are intended to show in what sense the Reformed understand this and similar declarations of Scripture. Christ purifies his church by baptism. That is the initiatory rite; which signifies, seals, and applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer's death. The apostle is speaking of the church, the body and bride of Christ, and of the effect of baptism on those who constitute that church, not of its effect on those who are not included in the covenant and are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.

This quote comes from Charles Hodge (1797 – 1878) in his commentary on Ephesians (pgs 320 and following). I am just wondering if it sounds as confusing to others as it does to me.

Let me ask some questions. For instance, where in the New Testament does it teach that “infants are baptized on the faith of their parents?” Where does the Scripture teach that the covenant is “ratified by faith”? How can it be said that baptism “secures to them [infants] all the benefits of the covenant of grace” and then add that there must be a ratifying in order for that to be “secure”?

Hodge goes on to state, “The baptized, therefore, as such, are not the regenerated.” So the question for me becomes, “Then why should we baptize those who are clearly unregenerate?” At least from the Baptistic standpoint we have a profession of faith by the individual, which we see all throughout Scripture, rather than by an individual’s parents on their behalf, which we never see in Scripture (Note: This statement concerns baptism, not circumcision).
Notice that he ends with this: “The foregoing remarks are intended to show in what sense the Reformed understand this and similar declarations of Scripture. Christ purifies his church by baptism. That is the initiatory rite; which signifies, seals, and applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer's death.” But can it be said of all who are baptized? Absolutely not, and he said that earlier. So it appears, at least to me, that Hodge really doesn’t show these “declarations from Scripture”, but rather follows after the Reformed “tradition” (yes, there are traditions in the Reformed community as well).

Finally, could someone tell me where in the Scripture baptism applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer’s death? I’m sorry, that sounds very Romanist to me, and I’m being gracious:)

Paedo-baptism 2

2007-05-13T08:30:00.000-05:00

Continuing on with posts concerning paedo baptism, we will look at Romans 4:11. In the passage we find the apostle arguing against those who would seek a works righteousness. Specifically he argues against circumcision. His primary objective is to demonstrate that Abraham was given a righteousness that was not his own before he was circumcised. The text says,

9 ¶ Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

The blessedness spoken of in verse 9 refers to verses 7-8. There we see that the blessedness is the forgiveness of sins, those to whom God does not impute their sin. So Paul is going to make his point by using the “father of all those who believe”, Abraham. It is crystal clear that Abraham is indeed justified by faith apart from circumcision. Paul says as much in verse 10. He also makes a point in verse 11 concerning those who believe who are not circumcised. Paul’s point is that though there are those who are uncircumcised, they still might have righteousness imputed to them because they would have the same faith that Abraham possessed.

We also note in verse 12 that those who were circumcised found righteousness the same way those who were not circumcised found it: by faith.

So, with this said, am I saying that paedo-baptists don’t believe this? Absolutely not. But here is where the inconsistency comes in, IMHO. Circumcision simply was a sign given by God concerning the promises He made to Abraham and yet those promises were made to him and affirmed to him BEFORE he was circumcised. My paedo-baptist friends will point here and say there is a correlation between baptism and circumcision. At least in this passage I cannot even begin to see that correlation. By this I mean that I don't see the passage tying the two together. The only thing I can assume that is meant by that is this: Since Abraham then circumcised Ishmael and Isaac and since they in turn gave that sign to their children and so on and so on, then we should administer baptism in the same manner, as merely a sign.

However, as a previous commenter pointed out, many in church history put far more emphasis upon baptism than a mere sign. They actually said it had salvific efficacy. If baptism has salvific efficacy, then I might want to ask those who believe that, “Why did Christ die?” This will come out more clearly in Colossians 2.

Now, the paedo-baptists I know of do not declare that baptism has any power to save, though some of them in their language seem, at times to indicate that, apart from clarification. Those I have spoken to simply indicate that it is a sign, just as circumcision was a sign in the Old Covenant, and that it points to the doctrine of regeneration, which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. However, they will then go on to say that this brings children of believers into the covenant community of the church. This I do have a problem with. Does it bring them into the covenant community in the same way that an adult believer who has professed Christ and actually been regenerated come into the “covenant community”? I don’t think so.

From the Baptist perspective, we don’t deny the picture of regeneration in baptism. We actually go further than that. We recognize that the Scriptures teach death in baptism as well.

Ro 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Only true believers are really identified in Christ’s death and thus ONLY true believers are identified in His resurrection. Therefore, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, only those who have been identified with Christ in His death AS WELL AS His resurrection should submit themselves unto baptism. The clear reading of the text seems to indicate that. I simply can’t understand, apart from assuming a silent mindset, which we are told that the Jews would have had about circumcision, that we should be baptizing infants.

Why would I say that this is “clear” concerning believers? Notice Romans. Paul uses the term “we” and identifies that we were buried with Christ and that “we” should walk in newness of life. In Colossians he uses the term “you” and indicates that the Colossian believers were raised with Christ. So it seems that baptism is simply the outward sign of the reality that one has both died and risen with Christ, not a hoped for event in the future.

I will next deal with the Colossians 2 passage.

Quick Update Pt. 2

2007-04-11T06:34:00.000-05:00

I received word from our attorney yesterday that our appeal was denied. Now pay close attention, lest you come into an encounter with Social Services. You would think an appeal would mean that you would actually be heard and that a basis would be heard concerning this matter. Not in Social Services (notice anything familiar about the initials of said organization? hint:Gestapo). Nope, we are not in a judicial matter hear, it is purely administrative. So our appeal was heard by a judge? NOpe. An outside party? uh uh. Anyone who could objectively look at evidence and hear testimony. Nada. It was looked at by the same organization that has accused us of neglecting our son, who by the way is crawling, chattering, eating well, and has tremendous strength in his legs!

All in all, we are at the mercy of DSS. They will determine when and IF we go to court. Please remember to pray for us that our conduct may be that which glorifies Christ and His gospel and that God may grant us grace in this matter. As soon as a court date has been set I will post that, but getting that will be diffcult for getting anyone from DSS to return a call is like pulling teeth.

A Quick Update

2007-04-08T19:16:00.000-05:00

We are still in Limbo concening our appeal. Our attorney has advised us to be patient that DSS is notorious for drawing things out over a long period of time. The woman in charge of the appeal will not contact me though I call and request it of her every week. We must continue to allow them in our home until the appeal takes place and then we will see whether it goes to a family court. More than likely it will, unless the Lord brings us into favor with the judge. He can do it, just as He brought Daniel into favor with those who were in authority over him and so we petition Him for this. Many wonderful brothers and sisters have encouraged us with letters and even some financial support. We are tremendously humbled by their love and if you read this and have even offered prayers for us, let me say on behalf of my family, "Thank you so much."

Indeed God is sovereign and we have learned much about ourselves (both good and bad) and experienced the loving hand of the Father working in our midst. Also, we have recently found out that the Lord has added to our number. We are now 10 B's in a hive. Yes, Denise discovered last week that she is pregnant again. We rejoice, though we realize that people probably think we are crazy (we didn't have to have 8 children to determine that:).

Please remember us before the throne if the Lord brings us to mind, especially Denise. The added stress is not good for the adults, much less the baby that grows in her womb.

By the way, I am toying with the idea of actually recording a few thoughts rather than typing them and offering them sort of like a podcast. There is lots of "free" time in my van, but it is so noisy, so this week my boss is looking to replace my van with a new quiet one or possibly.......could it be?.........a new truck (please please please). If so and the road noise is significantly minimized, then I will probably record thoughts each day entitled, "One for the road".

That's a quick update, I post more as soon as things change.

Understanding Paedo-Baptism

2007-04-08T19:13:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago our family was invited to spend the weekend (a much needed vacation) with a dear brother in the Lord, Jerry Johnson. Many will recall Jerry as the author of the Apologetics Group’s wonderful DVD “Amazing Grace – The History and Theology of Calvinism”. Jerry has been a great friend in the last few years. He has housed us on several occasions for the Apologetics Group’s Conferences and we have had many wonderful discussions of theology and books, as well as, shared in some business together.

During our past stay with Jerry we were able to relax on a beautiful mountain in Draper, VA right on the Blue Ridge Parkway. We drank lots of coffee, took it easy, watched a few movies, and discussed numerous theological matters. One of these topics was the subject of infant baptism (paedo baptism). This subject sometimes becomes lost in understanding the connection and also the disconnection of the covenants of the Bible. Let me make clear that my comments are not in anger, nor are they saying that those who baptize their infant children non-Christians. I do not believe that at all. However, I have not come to the conclusion that they are correct either. With that said, I wanted to be able to question Jerry regarding the reasoning behind coming to this conclusion. Jerry was more than willing, since he understood I was not trying to argue with him, but to understand his position. Therefore, I will try to lay out the position as I understand it. Note: I said, as I understand it, this way I will be able to be open for correction from any paedo Baptists who might read this entry. Please do not take this in any way as me trying to be inflammatory towards paedo Baptists, but I truly want to understand the position because should I be found in error, then I want to repent. As of this moment, I cannot turn into the path of paedo baptism.

First, I understand the paedo Baptist position to be consistent up to a certain point, that is from their perspective of how the covenant works. They see a continuity of the covenants, as do I. We both see one over-arching covenant and that is the covenant of grace. Historically, as you read many paedo Baptist authors their language does seem to imply baptismal regeneration, though, thankfully, at least orthodox writers do make the point of stating they do not believe in such a thing. Nevertheless, I have run across numerous statements that even in their context, seem to suggest that. I will provide some of those in a future installment.

We must keep in mind that while there is one over-arching covenant and that being the covenant of grace, there were numerous covenants throughout history between God and man. The covenant of grace is a covenant between God the Father and God the Son, with men being the beneficiaries. The other covenants include the Adamic covenant, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Old covenant, and the New covenant. In the New Covenant is the fullest expression of the covenant of grace. In it is the fulfillment of all of the promises that He has made because in this covenant comes the promise that He made and that is in the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, the issue we are concerned with requires that we understand the difference between the Abrahamic covenant and the Old covenant and the difference of these from the New covenant.

First there is a difference between the covenant God made with Abraham and the covenant God made with the nation of Israel at Sinai (the Old covenant). The major difference is two-fold.

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, while the covenant made at Sinai was conditional. God made promises to Abraham that were not dependent upon Abraham, but upon God. However, at Sinai, that covenant was accepted by the people and was dependent upon their obedience. Consequently, this is why this covenant has passed away
The Abrahamic Covenant is most clearly extended in the New Covenant, while the Old Covenant is made obsolete and ready to vanish away.

Here is where our dispensational friends get tripped up. They intermingle the two as though they are the same covenant and as Dr. John MacArthur showed in his recent attack against a straw man he called a-millenialism. Now paedo-baptists recognize the difference here between these two covenants well. But it appears to me that there is a melding of some of the thoughts behind the “covenant community” of Old Testament Israel and the “covenant community” of the New Testament. This is where I see a glaring inconsistency.

First, we will note that in the Abrahamic covenant we see that this covenant is completely dependent upon God. Abraham is simply the recipient of the promise of God. We find in Genesis 15,

12 ¶ Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.
13 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
14 "And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.
15 "Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
16 "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
17 ¶ And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.
18 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—
19 "the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites,
20 "the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
21 "the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

They covenant was completely dependent upon God’s own word. We find in Genesis 17 that Abraham believed the promise of God and as it was counted unto him for righteousness, there was also given to him a “sign” of this covenant, circumcision. Abraham, his son Ishmael and all the males in his house were circumcised. Later we discover in the Old covenant that all the males of the nation Israel would take up this sign of the covenant on the eighth day.

Now if one was not circumcised he was to be cut off from his people (Gen. 17:14). In the New Covenant, the paedo-baptist sees continuity between the covenants concerning this sign. That continuity is that the new sign of baptism, which identifies one with the Lord of the New Covenant, is simply a replacement for circumcision. They will reference such passages as Romans 4:11 and possibly their strongest argument comes from Colossians 2:11. We will take a look at these passages in the next post.

They believe, and their argument is really an argument from silence, that the mind of the first century New Covenant Jew would be that since baptism replaced circumcision that it would be natural for believers to baptize their children into the covenant community. I remind us, this “mindset” is argued from silence in the Scripture. I will attempt to show that the covenant community of the New Covenant is not the same as the covenant community of the Old Covenant. For in the New Covenant there are only believers, not unbelievers. All in the New Covenant community are the elect or the true Israel of God.

Now, much like our dispensational friends who want to go back to separating believers based upon ethnicity and end up promoting some fleshly appeal to the Jew for the future, I believe the paedo-baptist does something similar. They have carried the idea of the Old Covenant community into the New Covenant and therefore, they baptize their children based upon flesh (ie. They are their offspring). However, if they are to be consistent with the Scripture it would seem that they would baptize only the children of Abraham. And who might the children of Abraham be? The apostle Paul identifies them for us in Galatians 3,

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The children of Abraham should receive the New Covenant sign of baptism because they are of the same faith as Abraham and because they are Christ’s, not because they have believing parents.

New Label

2007-03-19T06:47:00.000-05:00

I wanted to throw this out and ask a question. During the Lordship controversy there were terms that were coined such as "easy believism" and "cheap grace". Mind you, at the time they made sense in light of what was being offered. However, are they really legitimate terms and do they express the reality of the "other gospel"? I think not, for the other gospel that attacked the true gospel, which really does call me to believe, made it so man centered that God really was an impotent God and actually unable to save apart from man. So was easy believism really belief? Was cheap grace even grace? Maybe we should follow the apostle Paul and simply call it another gospel, which is no gospel at all. What do you think?

R. C. Sproul's view of Faith Examined Critically

2007-03-07T20:33:00.000-05:00

I thought I might throw this critique of R. C. Sproul's view of faith out. It is done by John Robbins of Trinity Foundation. I found Robbins' critique to be clear and concise and serve as a warning to us of being carefully defined in our understanding and communication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have benefited greatly from Dr. Sproul's teaching, but would desire him to be more in the biblical text rather than philosophy apart from the text and I hope he will read this critique and repent. You can download it here. Let me know what you think.

Address For Help in DSS case

2007-02-21T09:04:00.000-05:00

Brothers and sisters,

I have been overwhelmed at the numerous emails from so many people that I don't know who are praying for us. I am extremely humbled by your love and God's graciousness. Many of you have asked could you help us financially since we are going to have to acquire an attorney. Our attorney is Dr. George Gaddis. He is a godly man and very skilled in DSS cases in SC and abroad. This will be an incredible amount of money. We will be sending him $2300.00 to start everything and since this will more than likely go to trial, we are very unsure just how expensive this will be. We have prayed that our Father will meet the need and I realize that money will not fall out of the sky, but God uses means. Please do not feel pressure to give. If you are unable, then if the Lord brings us to mind, please pray for us. But if you desire to help, you can send donations to the other elder, Tim Davis, at our church and these will be tax deductible. You may send them to:

Heritage Community Church
1627 Laurel Lane
Gastonia, N. C. 28054

I truly am humbled by the ourpouring of love and concern from brothers and sisters in Christ. I am much more comfortable being on the giving side than the receiving end. However, we are in desperate circumstances and are completely dependent upon God and His people. From the bottom of our hearts, Thank you and may God bless you all.

Tim & Denise Brown, Tori, Caleb, Hannah, Dakota, Tabitha, Hailey, & RC

What you need to know about DSS

2007-02-19T06:48:00.000-05:00

I promise this blog will not become about DSS:) However, I know many of you have children or are expecting children in the near future. I obtained this information from MassOutrage.com, where the owner seems to live in Massachusetts. I am posting this information here so that you will know exactly what we and, yes, even you are up against should someone report you to DSS. This is written by Gregory A. Hesssion J.D.

How to Fight False Allegations of Abuse and Neglect

I. THE SOURCE OF DSS POWER IS THIS: JUDGES CAN'T TELL DSS WHAT TO DO! THE DSS TELLS JUDGES WHAT IT WILL DO!
DSS is completely in control. Even judges can't reign them in.
This is one of the dirtiest and least known secrets of how DSS is able to destroy so many families, and the source of their power: DSS is in control, not the courts.
Ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided two cases back in 1995, Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602 (1995) and Care and Protection of Jeremy, 419 Mass. 616 (1995), the DSS has had almost complete control of all children in its custody. A judge will only interfere if DSS is committing what is ridiculously called an "abuse of discretion."
When does DSS abuse its "discretion" enough for a court to step in and stop them?
Generally, never. The Courts have become rubber stamps for DSS. Death, torture, broken bones, bruises, wounds, medical neglect, and other 'minor' problems caused by DSS do not seem to bother courts very much. However, if the parents pray, spank, or yell at the child, then they will authorize the DSS to take your children and give them to a family who cannot be told not to abuse them. Foster parents and DSS approved programs and institutions can usually abuse children at will, often with no consequences whatsoever. As long as it's their guy doing the abusing, nothing will happen.
Not only will a court refuse to stop DSS caretakers from abusing children, it will usually not mind if DSS is falsifying records, committing perjury, taking children on false pretenses, illegally stretching out a case for years, or demanding that a wife commit perjury by getting a false restraining order against the husband.
In other words, DSS is accountable to no one, and no one can stop them, unless the state legislature or a higher court steps in and changes the state of the law.
Well, can't I sue them?
As with all things in the strange world of "child protection", the DSS has been given a gift of protection from lawsuits, called "qualified immunity". That is a fancy name for being lawsuit-proof in most cases. Right now, until someone succeeds in getting a court to change the situation, DSS agents are immune from suits for all "discretionary" decisions.
"Discretion" is when they decide to do just about anything they want: to kidnap your child from you, to keep your child, to adopt your child out, to hurt your child, to emotionally manipulate your child, to stop your child from hugging you at visits, or just about anything else. Only when they violate a "clearly established" constitutional right can they be sued. That is almost never.
It is ridiculous, but the courts have continually protected foolish and biased social workers from any liability for wrongdoing. We are going to try to change this. See the section about our DSS lawsuit.
What are "clearly established" constitutional rights?
Technically, they are rights specifically listed as being protected in the Massachusetts or federal constitutions, such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
Parental rights are not specifically listed in the either the state or federal constitutions. However, parental rights are "reserved powers", which means that any power not specifically given to the government by the constitution belongs to the people. All powers, including parental rights, which are not mentioned in the Constitution, are kept by the people under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Because most courts now operate more by a political agenda than by law, they will often only protect 'enumerated', or listed rights. However, the constitution is not supposed to work that way. All rights are yours by natural divine law. The constitution does not create rights, but only binds down the government from interfering with them. The Massachusetts and Federal constitutions list several rights as examples in the Bill of Rights, and then basically say that if we forgot any others, they are protected, too.
However, most judges now believe that government creates and grants rights, rather than preserves existing rights that are bestowed by our creator, and which cannot be taken away. Thus, they will ignore your parental rights if it suits them.
Judges often merely explain rights away if they do not favor them politically, as they have done with gun rights, for example. They treat the rights protected under the constitution like an accordion - they expand certain ones that are in political favor, and contract others that are not politically correct.
Do parents have ANY rights?
Not really. The problem is that our founders never dreamed that anyone would ever think of intruding into families, so they did not write specific protections into our state and federal constitutions. They assumed family government would exist peacefully alongside state and church government. Now, when the rights of parents to raise children are being challenged, there is little protection available from courts against the savage predators in the DSS.
A parents' right to direct the upbringing of their children was never questioned until recently. Now, the state sees itself as the parent, and they let you have temporary custody of your own child, unless and until you do something the state doesn't like - then the child goes back to its true parent - the state. There is even a Latin lawyer term for this: Parens Patriae, which means, "father of his country". The Real Life Dictionary of the Law defines parens patriae as: "the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only entrusted to their parents."
Are you getting this? The state now owns your children, and entrusts you with them, until you do something politically incorrect, like home school them, spank them, pray with them, or otherwise try to keep them out of the hands of those who want to make them into obedient world citizens.
You have told me all that I CAN'T do. Is there anything I CAN do?
Yes, but there are no easy answers. Read on.
II. THE GRIZZLY BEAR (Adapted from material written by Mike Humiston at NationalOutrage.org)
A grizzly is a dangerous creature. They are arbitrary, vicious, and they are not afraid of you. Sound familiar? If you encounter one in the wild, you must be very careful. . .
Should I throw sticks and rocks and scream at him?
Only if you want him to kill you.
Then I should turn and run, real fast . . .
Only if you can run very, very fast.
Then what should I do?
Stand firm, don't show any signs of fear or anger, then carefully, quietly, back away.
The grizzly is the child welfare system . . .
But I thought somebody else's government was the Great Bear . . .
Indeed. Always be polite when dealing with caseworkers and the police. Always, always!
Why?
Because the police carry guns, for crying out loud! And because you are dealing with terrorists, and they have your children. If you argue with the caseworker or the judge, you will only antagonize them. Nothing you say is going to change their minds or make them quit twisting your words. So don't try. Don't give them words to twist. There's no use throwing sticks and stones at the grizzly.
What about running away?
If you can do so legally, then do so. If the state has legal custody of your children, it is illegal to take them and leave. If you're going to break the law, then as with the grizzly, you better be able to run pretty far pretty fast. There are people sitting in prison at this moment for "kidnapping" their own children.
Are you telling me to give up?
Absolutely not! We're telling you to be smart. Know your rights and control the flow of information, but do it with a smile on your face and with total graciousness. "I'm sure this treatment plan is okay, but I'd just like to have my attorney go over it before I sign it. I believe you when you tell me they're just routine, so I'm sure you don't mind if he just has a look before I sign." Remember, the guy who tells you don't need an attorney is the guy who has something to hide. Just because their forms are "routine" does not make them right.
III. WHAT A PARENT CAN DO TO FIGHT FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE.
Unfortunately, you cannot do as much as you would really like to do to fight DSS yourself, except to AVOID doing the wrong things. You can learn about many of those wrong things, and about DSS dirty tricks, on this MassOutrage web site, and the linked sites. However, even if you learned it all, that is only the beginning.
Knowing the things you can learn here, simply doesn't give you the whole scope of the process. Courts and lawyers have made it so complicated (probably to keep a lot of their buddies employed) that very few people even inside the system completely understand the process and all its legal requirements.
In sum, fighting DSS is so hard, so technical, and there are so many pitfalls, that you are better off to work with a good lawyer rather than try it yourself. There is just so much to fighting one of these cases, that it is about like doing brain surgery on yourself to try it alone.
So. . . .
1. Get a good lawyer.
The single biggest ingredient in fighting the DSS menace is to get a good lawyer. What is a good lawyer? Here is the list of qualities I would look for:
Hates the DSS;
Committed to parental rights over government power;
Knows the DSS law, regulations and policies;
Will stand up to DSS social workers and judges, not collaborate with them;
Is YOUR lawyer only, and is not being paid by the state;
Will work with, not against, your spouse's lawyer to get your kids back, if appropriate;
Respects you;
Respects the Constitution and other founding documents;
Does not think lawyers are God, and will work WITH you, not talk down to you;
You trust him and he trusts you. You are both going to take a blindfolded walk down the plank in the dark, so you better trust each other.
2. Work with your lawyer.
The most important thing you can do to get your children back, in addition to avoiding falling into any of the DSS dirty tricks, is work with your lawyer to help him or her get your kids back. How?
You can help review the DSS record, which is very tedious, to look for any evidence you can use against DSS. You can make a chronology, or a time line of all the major events so far, so that the lawyer can get a clear overview of your case. You can pay the poor guy, so he can endure the endless days and nights of attention to your case. You can be patient with the delays, knowing that it is not your lawyer, but DSS and the Court, who have caused them.
You can do everything he tells you in the way of counseling or drug testing or parenting classes, so that he can go back to DSS and report that you have been a good little boy or girl. You can clean up your act, if it isn't: Straighten up your house, your heart, and your life.
You can attend every visitation that your child's kidnappers allow, without fail, even though they will cancel the visits any time they feel like it for any selfish reason. (Irony - they often cancel to care for their own child). You can smile (though gritted teeth) at your child's captors, and work with them. Never, never show your anger, even though the social worker may deserve to fry in the lowest part of Hell.
Listen to your lawyer. Trust your lawyer. If you can't, get a new one. Even if you have a state appointed lawyer, due to lack of finances, fire him if he does not work for you. If he is laughing it up with DSS, fire him. Most lawyers who do this work actually like DSS because they get a lot of work from it. Me - I'd be very happy to be put out of the DSS business tomorrow, if they were abolished.
IV. ANY MORE ADVICE?
What about the Government School? Can they get my children there?
They sure can. In fact, it is the preferred method. No pesky parents. Only sympathetic statists who embrace big brother and believe that the government has the best interest of the child at heart, as opposed to the parents. Government school, you say? Is that a PUBLIC school? Yes, and it is financed by, supported by, and run by the same government who wants to steal your children.
If they have any suspicions about your home whatsoever, the DSS agents will come to your child's government school, all smiles, and take your children aside. They will use suggestive and coercive techniques, and get "disclosures" about what goes on in your home: things like spanking or other discipline, prayer in the home (that is now 'abuse'), yelling or arguments between parents (that is now 'domestic violence'). Since this is done alone, no one will be able to fight the DSS agent's lying version of the "abuse" that they will coerce out of the child.
If I can't trust the government school, who can I trust?
No one but your own private lawyer, as stated above. The government has a snitch network of so-called "Mandated Reporters" everywhere a child is likely to be. Nurses, doctors, school counselors, police, dentists, therapists, teachers, day care workers, and many others MUST report anything they think is suspicious, or risk a big fine.
They have manipulated these former helping professionals into becoming snoops for the "Central Party Committee". These people used to be able to help folks in trouble. Now, if you go to them, they will turn you into the DSS. The authorities have beat them into submission, and most of them now have the attitude of : When in doubt, report.
At this point in our history, only your lawyer can keep your secrets, by law. Everyone else is a snitch. Tell them to no one else.
What should I do, then?
GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT of the government school, and do it now. That is the major pipeline through which the DSS steals children from families. If you are taking government aid of any sort, get rid of it, if you can.
If you decide to compromise your family by keeping your children in danger there, then at least teach them that if some DSS agent comes to talk to them, that they demand to have their parents present before answering any questions.
Teach your children the sanctity of the family. The schools are teaching your children to rat on you. Teach your children the other side, the danger to which they expose your whole family by reporting you to the authorities. Teach your children that dozens of children have committed suicide while in foster care. Hundreds have died. Thousands have been tortured and abused.
Teach them that they have the right to remain silent, and if they choose not to remain silent, each and every word they say will be used against their mommy and daddy. Love them, love them, love them.
Teach your children this: "Kids, this is our family attorney, Mr. Smith. He is our family's only attorney. He is the only attorney that we talk to. If somebody else comes to you and says he is your own attorney (e.g. the DSS agent, or guardian ad litem) anything you say to him will be used against our family."
One of the best things you can do is buy and read Suzanne Shell's book, Profane Justice. It can be ordered for $15.00 by calling 1-800-447-3081, ext. 7794, or write to: Sage Wisdom Press, P.O. Box 75863, Colorado Springs, CO 80970. Forewarned is forearmed.
What about real child abuse?
Real child abusers should go to prison. And the traditional due process protections of criminal law are more than enough to separate the true abusers from the falsely accused. Just because O.J. was acquitted of murder does not mean we should dispose of all due process. Likewise, just because some abusers will get away does not mean we should take away all children.
[Compiled from numerous sources.]

A Great Exhortation from 16 Centuries Ago

2007-02-18T20:25:00.000-05:00

This morning in our fellowship I was greatly encouraged. First, in our responsive reading we read from Psalm 109. If I have ever truly believed in imprecatory prayers it is now. I truly believe that everyone there sincerely prayed this Psalm before the Lord today. Then our fellowship gathered around us and prayed for us.

Do not keep silent, O God of my praise! 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful Have opened against me; They have spoken against me with a lying tongue. 3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, And fought against me without a cause. 4 In return for my love they are my accusers, But I give myself to prayer. 5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good, And hatred for my love.

6 ¶ Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand. 7 When he is judged, let him be found guilty, And let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless, And his wife a widow. 10 Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places. 11 Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder his labor. 12 Let there be none to extend mercy to him, Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out. 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD, And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. 15 Let them be continually before the LORD, That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth; 16 Because he did not remember to show mercy, But persecuted the poor and needy man, That he might even slay the broken in heart. 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come to him; As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him. 18 As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment, So let it enter his body like water, And like oil into his bones. 19 Let it be to him like the garment which covers him, And for a belt with which he girds himself continually. 20 Let this be the LORD’S reward to my accusers, And to those who speak evil against my person.

21 ¶ But You, O GOD the Lord, Deal with me for Your name’s sake; Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. 22 For I am poor and needy, And my heart is wounded within me. 23 I am gone like a shadow when it lengthens; I am shaken off like a locust. 24 My knees are weak through fasting, And my flesh is feeble from lack of fatness. 25 I also have become a reproach to them; When they look at me, they shake their heads. 26 Help me, O LORD my God! Oh, save me according to Your mercy, 27 That they may know that this is Your hand—That You, LORD, have done it! 28 Let them curse, but You bless; When they arise, let them be ashamed, But let Your servant rejoice. 29 Let my accusers be clothed with shame, And let them cover themselves with their own disgrace as with a mantle. 30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; Yes, I will praise Him among the multitude. 31 For He shall stand at the right hand of the poor, To save him from those who condemn him.

Second, came during my study of Revelation 8. In all of Revelation we see the sovereign hand of God in protecting His people from those who seek their harm and pouring out judgment upon the wicked who oppose His people. During that study I was struck by this quote from Augustine who addressed pagans who claimed that God had failed to rescue His people from their enemies:

: “The whole family of God, most high and most true, has therefore a consolation of its own – a consolation which cannot deceive, and which has in it a surer hope than the tottering and falling affairs of life can afford. They will not refuse the discipline of this temporal life, in which they are schooled for life eternal; nor will they lament their experience of it, for the good things of life they use as pilgrims who are not detained by them, and its ills either prove or improve them.

As for those who insult over them in their trials, and when ills befall them say, ‘Where is thy God?’ [Ps. 42:10] we may ask them where their gods are when they suffer the very calamities for the sake of avoiding which they worship their gods, or maintain they ought to be worshiped; for the family of Christ is furnished with its reply: Our God is everywhere present, wholly everywhere; not confined to any place. He can be present unperceived, and be absent without moving; when He exposes us to adversities, it is either to prove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return for our patient endurance of the sufferings of time, He reserves for us an everlasting reward. But who are you, that we should deign to speak with you even about your own gods, much less about our God, who is ‘to be feared above all gods? For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the LORD made the heavens’ [Ps. 96:4-5] .” Augustine, The City of God, i.29

It is truly good to know that our God cares for us and has appointed us, not for wrath, though there may be trials and tribulations (these He has promised), but life and salvation. To Him be the glory forever and ever! Amen.

Finally, in our study of Galatians we covered 2:11-21. In speaking about Paul confronting Peter about not being straightforward about the gospel we spoke of our emotions (a disturbance of the intellect) determining our actions rather than our minds (knowing and understanding the Word of God as to what is right and what is wrong). Quite often, if not always, our sins are a result of us being led by our emotions rather than our minds. It seems Peter faced the same thing. He felt the pressure of the Jews, rather than doing what he knew to be right. We spoke of the fact that though Peter may have not said with his mouth anything about being a Jew to be justified or being circumcised to be justified, his actions betrayed the gospel. After all, Peter was given divine revelation concerning the gospel and the fact that there was now no longer the ceremonial uncleanness spoken of concerning the Gentiles. Paul addressed it and openly and publicly rebuked him for it, because his actions had compelled others to follow him such as Barnabas, a great evangelist of the church. God really did open my eyes to my own situation and once again I was repenting. I do not want the gospel to be maligned or distorted in the circumstances we are facing now. May God grant us the power of His Spirit to be straightforward concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ.

DSS Update 2-7

2007-02-17T08:19:00.000-05:00

Before launching into my thoughts concerning paedo baptism, I wanted to give an update. Well friends, I have seen the face of DSS and it is ugly. It has been beaten with several ugly sticks. Every branch on the ugly tree was hit. It’s mother, or I should properly render it, father is ugly. I attempted to be forthcoming and give DSS a chance to prove to me they really were doing their job and nothing more. However, in just one day they have shown me that they are incompetent, unable to answer the simplest of questions without turning the tables on me and threatening legal action, and a clear practice of deception and above all a show of cowardice.

Denise and I are currently listed as “indicated”, which basically means that we are found guilty by these people. Mind you, they are an entity that has immunity. That’s right. They seem to be able to violate your constitutional rights, jump to huge leaps of illogic and proclaim that you are guilty. What is so ironic in this situation is twofold: (1) Those investigating us have small children that they neglect everyday, when they come to work for DSS (either leaving them at daycare or with someone else rather than caring for them as parents, while I try and make provisions for my wife to be at home with our kids (which DSS is in fact disrupting). (2) While the doctors at CMC who reported us (and they have to do this by law, go figure) go about their merry lives, they did absolutely nothing for my son. Did you get that? Nothing. Even the doctors now who we are made to see claim he is unhealthy because he doesn’t fall on a curve somewhere on their chart, yet CMC says there is no medical reason for this. So when I ask can he be healthy and small, the response is “No”. The answer given is, “Because he doesn’t fit on our chart.” And yet he continues to gain weight and be alert and mobile and happy. If this is such a life threatening issue and the child is in danger, then why wait 2 weeks in between visits? Shouldn’t he be admitted somewhere that can find out what is wrong as soon as possible? See?? Incompetence. So we are now in hold mode until our attorney files the paperwork.

Please pray for us. I realize this is a sovereign work of God. I know His hand is in it. And yet there is both a righteous anger in me at what is being done to us in the name of “it’s for the best interest of the child”, and also I confess some fleshly anger. I realize that my sinful desires are not justified because of the sins of others. It is unacceptable and I have repented several times. Pray that my repentance might be genuine and that I would indeed honor the Lord. Please pray for Denise as well. It has been very hard on her being accused of such things. No one loves her children like she does and to be told that you are basically guilty of not loving your child because you don’t take them to the doctor for “well visits” is simply outrageous. Please remember R.C. as well. He is the one caught in the midst of all of this and unless something can be done legally, then we will probably have to have him endure some very uncomfortable procedures in order to demonstrate that DSS has absolutely no idea of what they are doing.

Brothers, thanks for your prayers and words of encouragement.

Dissing Dispensationalism 8: The Final Post

2007-02-07T21:22:00.000-05:00

Ok, this will be the final response in regards to Dan’s post on dispensationalism.

21. "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Corinthians 1:20a). As if there's a dispensationalist that disbelieves this verse. I'd suggest that it's the decoder-ring set that disbelieves it. Dispensationalists believe that Christ will make good on all the Trinity's promises, as He carries out all the will of the Father, and is King of the mediatorial Kingdom. It's the CT's who would turn this verse to "For all the promises of God find their 'Ha-ha, fooled you!' in him," or "For some of the promises of God find their No in him."

Ok, this is a cheap shot. If you are going to slander CTs by saying “ha-ha fooled you”, then please provide the evidence and then respond to the material and the interpretation laid out from that. But don’t put words in their mouth. CTs do not say that God has fooled anyone, nor do they say that some of the promises of God are no in Him. Let’s actually hear a quote from a reputable CT theologian (tick, tock, tick, tock).
What is with the decoder ring thing? What Phillips fails to deal with is the fact that the New Testament, because it is progressive in nature as to its revelation, gives us the proper understanding of such things as Jew, Israel, the elect and the realities promises in types. From the dispensationalist point of view, they would rather hold on to the shadows and picture books, as it were, and not move on to the reality and true grammar and language. Thus, this becomes a problem when they attempt to understand the two covenants. Many, but certainly not all will actually state that Old Covenant believers actually merited God’s favor to some point through their obedience! They fail to see the continuity throughout all of Scripture which sees anyone who is saved is saved in the covenant of grace. With that said, I don’t think Dan falls into this category. He is Calvinistic for goodness sakes.
Finally, the fact that Dan tries to make Christ have two different kinds of kingdoms is simply a stretch here. I never read in Scripture where Christ spoke of two kingdoms that He was to rule over. If you ask me, this is where the decoder ring is needed, because you don’t find it in the Bible. Jesus simply spoke of the kingdom that was His and that it was given to Him by the Father and that it was from above.

22. Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. Sigh. Maybe if this is answered for the 950,000th time, it will go away? This old corker has been responded to and documented more times than a department-store "Santa" has said "Ho ho ho."
So what, exactly, are we talking about? Oh, you mean like this? "Grace offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation -- as it is in the covenant of works --, from the curse of the law, and from the law as an extraneous power." Oh yeah, that's bad. What rotten dispensationalist wrote that? That "rotten dispensationalist" Louis Berkhof (ST, p. 291). Allis and others have made similar statements that, isolated, sure sound like offers of two methods of salvation. Statements capable of misunderstand and misrepresentation are not the sole provenance of dispensationalists. Golly, it'd be nice to wake up tomorrow to a world in which I can focus on the text, and not constantly see the discussion derailed by red herrings like this one. Could there be a reason why anti-dispies don't want to do that?

Actually, that’s not the point Dan. Neither would the quote you cited bear that either from Berkhof. Classic Dispensationalists do hold to two means of salvation. For instance, though many people nowadays count Dave Hunt as completely out to lunch, he would readily point to the fact that there is merit in law keeping or obedience in the Old Testament. Those of the Darby kind readily point to such things as well. As with any view, there are those who are conservative and those who are very liberal, so while there are those like Dan who would fight that tooth and nail, there are those who would easily embrace that.
Second, there are many both dispensational and not who would see two means of salvation and this comes out clearly in discussions that surround the death of infants, mentally incapacitated and also those who have never heard the gospel. Somehow, there are those, and the only ones I’ve talked to are dispensationalists, who would hold that all in the first two categories will be saved (SEE Safe in the Arms of Jesus by MacArthur (a dispensationalist). Clearly this is not the difference of Israel as nation under the Old Covenant and Israel as the Church in the New covenant, but the point ends up being the same: there is not the comprehensive understanding that throughout Scripture there is One overarching covenant and that is the covenant of grace. This covenant was not instituted in the Garden, nor at Sinai, nor specifically at the cross, but in eternity between the Father and the Son. This covenant was ultimately shown to men in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. All of the elect in the past, present and future are in this covenant, whether Jew or Gentile.
So, to this argument, Dan may disagree, but if he is honest, then he must concede that there are many dispensationalists who do hold that God has a different covenant TODAY with national Israel (whatever that actually is and in dispensationalism, it is actually the nation we call Israel) than he does with the True Israel, the church.

23. "Hey, I'm a CT/amill/postmill/preterist whatever, and I use grammatico-historical exegesis on everything!" Suuuuure you do, Bunky. And I'm a muscular, slim 25-year old published author with multiple doctorates who pastors a successful church and teaches in seminary -- plus I have a full head of hair! It's really more than just a river in Egypt for you, isn't it, brother? When you tell me that Israel is the church, that only the prophetic curses have realtime fulfillment, but that the prophesied blessings are all spiritualized, you and G-H exegesis have long since gone the way of the Beatles. CT is your Yoko.

So, Dan, I wanna hold your hand as we look at this claim you are making as we take a ride in our yellow submarine. Now while I might let you Drive My Car, I can’t stand by and let you broad brush the entire CT community with such language. For instance, I will readily admit that there are some who do take the view that you present. However, I find them to be in the minority, especially among conservative CTs.
There is no question that God poured out the exact curses He said He would in the Law upon Israel when they departed from Him. This was proven many times in the Old Testament, such as in the prophecies that Jeremiah revealed, Ezekiel spoke of and Daniel actually saw, not to mention the fact that ultimately God brought His judgment down upon Israel in 70 AD in finality concluding and bringing to an end the specific promises of that nation’s apostasy. With a Little Help from My Friends I’m sure we could pile up enough evidence to make this quite clear.
When Jesus comes in Matthew 5 and lays out the heart of the Law again, (NOTE: Jesus did not bring a different Law. He brought the same Law. While Moses delivered the Law to the people, it was God who gave the Law. Therefore, if we say that Jesus brought a different Law, wouldn’t that imply that there is some disunity in the Godhead?) then weren’t the blessings clearly outlined?
The problem is this crazy idea of “literal interpretation”. Literal by what standard? Maybe The Two of Us could Come Together and hash this out a bit. This is the biggest hurdle that people have, in my opinion. Let me give an example of the literal interpretation. Anyone reading in the Old Testament who came upon the words, “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness” would have simply took this to mean that God was speaking of the nations that sprang from Jacob and Esau and that would be correct. However, the inspired apostle uses the CT method of interpretation and quotes the passage in favor of individuals. Now Dan is a Calvinist and readily agrees with the apostle Paul. However, is he being literal? I’ll leave that to be decided by the reader.

24. Dispensationalism divides the people of God. Wait -- isn't it complementarianism that does that? The Bible says, "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) , but complementarians teach that men and women are still distinct, even though they're in Christ, and have distinct roles. Calvinists/Reformeds tend to be complementarians, yet they affirm that men and women are distinct in Christ in one way, yet they affirm that they are one in Christ, in another way. Isn't that a contradiction? "But-but-but," sputters a Reformed complementarian, "that's stupid! You can be distinct, and yet one! Look at the Trinity! The Persons are distinct, yet they are one God! They have different functions, and there is an economy of relations, yet they are one! That's an inane criticism!"
Oh, I totally agree. It's inane. It's stupid. It's lame. So... why do you go for the same inane, stupid, lame line of reasoning when it comes to Israel?
I just keep wondering why the same people who have no trouble understanding why men and women can be distinct and yet one, fall all apart into hysterics and start doing horrible things to the Bible when it comes to Israel. Why can't Israel have a certain and sure ethnic future (as God promised, in the starkest and most undeniable terms, about a gazillion times), and yet be part of one people of God? Why do we have to turn God into a liar and a promise-breaker (see Jeremiah 31:35-37), in order to salvage some preconceived construct we made up?
Having said all that, I don't think it's fundamental to dispensationalism to make divisions as stark as some pioneers did, as if Israel's eternity is 'way over there, and the Church's is right over here, and never the twain shall mix. I don't tend to think that way, myself.

I think this is where Dan cannot see who Israel actually is. Paul spells it out plainly in Romans 9 that all who are of Israel are not Israel. The true Israel is the elect people of God. Those who were of national Israel but rejected God and were not Israel, but rather members of Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Babylon. They were apostates, and from the beginning when they left Egypt the unbelievers were cut off from their people, not a part of them. My question to Dan would simply be this, “What is the purpose of these promises to a geo-political entity today that calls itself Israel, but is completely apostate in biblical terms to the true God?”
Again, Dan simply misses the point of Jeremiah 31. Besides, did God make that covenant there with every single individual of the house of Judah, or was He referring to the house of Judah in the light of election? Interestingly enough, Gentiles are included in that covenant in the New Testament. I wonder if Dan thinks that Gentiles become ethnic Israel and are also recipients of that little sliver of land in the Middle East. I like to think of the words of Christ, that not a sliver of land is our inheritance, but the earth is.
As for his final comment, I don’t know what to say. It sure sounds like he makes a pretty big and stark division. He may see some mixing, but it is extremely small from what I hear.

25. Dispensationalism fails to see Christ in every verse of the Bible. Again with the being-more-spiritual-than-God sin. This is maybe one of the most damaging Reformed traditions (in the worst sense of the word): the insistence by some of putting perfectly innocent texts on the rack, and torturing them until they scream "Jesus!" This turns God into a Clintonesque, smooth-talking trickster. He fools His audience into thinking He's talking about Israel, but He's really talking about something they couldn't have conceived of. He offers them an egg and some bread, and then gives them a stone and a serpent. "I promise to bless you, I swear it. {Later} Oops, presto! Not really you at all! Someone else! But I do have a dandy curse just for you -- and this time, I really do mean you!"
Christ is indeed all over the Bible, directly or indirectly (Luke 24:27, 44, etc.). But to insist that a text is unworthy of God if it really talking about what it seems to be talking about is (A) to adopt a suicidal hermeneutic, (B) to make God into the worst unethical bait-and-switch salesman, and (C) to pour shame on the very hermeneutic of Christ and the apostles. If we abandon Scripture to adopt this hermeneutic, we invalidate Jesus' constant refrain to His enemies:
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)
If this decoder-ring hermeneutic were true, his enemies could justly and correctly have replied, "There is no way we could be judged by Moses' writings, or the prophets. God said 'Israel' and meant 'not ethnic Israel at all, but the Christian church.' He named cities, but didn't mean them. He promised full national restoration in the most specific terms, again and again, but never meant it. All His threats He meant exactly as He said them, and all His promises meant something totally unrelated. So no, Jesus, Your teaching turns revelation into obscurement, and gives us a perfect, bona-fide excuse for rejecting You. God didn't give us the right decoder-ring when He put out the garbled, encrypted code. It's not our fault."
Of course this is nonsense. Christ and the apostles treated the OT with full respect. Bethlehem meant Bethlehem, a donkey meant a donkey, Jerusalem meant Jerusalem, Israel meant Israel. It was because the OT was to be read as outlined in point #10, above, that Jews (and everyone) could then (and now) be held guilty before God: because they rejected the plain and clear sense of the text. What was bad for them is bad for us.
God forbid we "honor Christ" in theory by dishonoring Christ in practice.
This is the hermeneutic God saved me from in saving me from the cult of Religious Science, decades ago. We did the same thing, always finding "deeper meaning" that was in fact opposite meaning to texts we simply didn't like, because they didn't fit into our system. By the grace of God, the folks I'm criticizing don't do it to Christological, soteriological, or other passages. Only to prophetic passages. If they did the same across the board, they'd not be Christian.
It is not dishonoring to Christ to believe that He said what He meant, and meant what He said. The reverse is what dishonors Him, no matter how honorable the intent.

You know what Dan, there are some who do just that, but I don’t hear from them that often. Most will simply allow the New Testament apostles to interpret the Old. I wonder why the apostle Paul, an ethnic Jew, didn’t put hope in a future national geo-political revival. I wonder why the apostle Peter, an ethnic Jew, didn’t put hope in future land promises. I wonder why those of the early church who owned lands that were rightly theirs didn’t hold onto it because it was theirs by divine promise. I wonder………hmmmm. I really do think it’s because those things are yes in Christ and I as a Gentile believer have a yes in Christ and it is not to a piece of land, but to an inheritance that is incorruptible, kept in heaven for me by Christ Jesus. The New Testament apostles do not go the way of dispensationalists. If they were dispensationalists then they would hold up your mantra, but they don’t.

I welcome any additions. I hurriedly put this together to get it off my plate and move on to some other things.

Tagged

2007-02-03T08:54:00.000-05:00

Ok,

So I'm back now and I'm already getting picked on:) JK. Nathan issued the tag this time and I found it very interesting. Well there were three books equal in distance from me and yes, all three are being read by me currently. They are Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology (I'm actually trying to use this as devotional material, go figure), Life and Letters of "Stonewall" Jackson by His Wife, and The Reformation Study Bible.

Rules are as follows:
1. Grab the book closest to you.

2. Open to page 123; go down to the fourth sentence.

3. Post the text of the following three sentences.

4. Name the author and book title.

5. Tag three people to do the same.

Here are my quotes, first from the Word of God:

In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

I'm sure Nathan will appreciate that verse after our discussion the other day:)

From Reymond:

But how can we, on these grounds, continue to think of ourselves as significant persons? Why is it not now, on these ground, just as appropriate to think of ourselves as a mere "accident of nature" (as did Sir James Jeans in his The Mysterious Universe) or as "the gruesome result of nature's failure to take antiseptic precautions" (as did Sir Arthur Eddington in his New Pathways in Science)? And why is it not just as appropriate to regard the elephant as a more advanced stage of the evolutionary process since it has a thicker skin than man?

From Jackson:

I have more than once bowed down on my knees, and thanked our kind and merciful Heavenly Father for the prospect of restoring you to health again. Now, don't get impatient, and come off before you are entirely well... Yesterday Doctor Junkin preached one of his masterly sermons on the sovereignty of god, and, although a doctrinal discourse, it was eminently consoling; and I wish that you could have heard such a presentation of the subject. To-day I rode your horse out to your lot and saw your laborers. They are doing good work.

This is from one of Jackson's letters to his wife dated May 7th, 1859.

I will tag Hank Hilliard and Andrew Lindsey. I couldn't think of anyone else to tag.

Things as of late

2007-02-01T17:06:00.000-05:00

Well, here I am for my few posts this month, LOL. I guess this will help a bit and get the bloodhounds off my trail that Gordon sent out. Thanks brother!

I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know that things have been a bit hectic around here lately. To make a long story short, all of the kids came down with something just before the end of the year and were sick for several days. R.C. caught it and was just as sick as they and lost a couple of pounds. He was small anyway, and so my wife took him to the doctor. The doctor then proceeded to recommend he be admitted to the hospital, which I thought was ridiculous and for every reason they gave that he should be admitted, I responded with the reasons for their judgment. Ultimately, we decided to allow him to be admitted. I felt as soon as his appetite came back he would be fine.

We admitted him thinking they would immediately start I.V.s and such, because they were talking about him dying, which really upset Denise and frankly just made me mad. They did absolutely nothing for him in the hospital and made us stay there from Thursday till Monday. That Friday, he got his appetite back and was the old R.C. in no time. Several case workers stopped by and the hospital reported us to DSS. Now we have a self pay bill in excess of $4000.00, DSS investigating us and several nurses coming by the house to weigh R.C. for about $125.00 a pop. I put and end to that last one the other day Anyway, in all of this, I am reminded that even though I was aggravated and Denise was afraid, that our God is sovereign. Mind you, at first, I was purely aggravated. I was not spiritual by any means.

However, God graciously brought a highly esteemed lawyer from our state, who argues at the Supreme Court level, and is also a very godly man to our acquaintance for some good advice which we took. So far we are waiting to hear the results of the investigation, but I feel pretty confident that things will go well. This presses upon me to believe and live the doctrines I preach and teach. Therefore, I can count all of this as God working it together for our good and His glory (Rom. 8:28), yes this is part of the all things

Of note also Denise and I celebrated 12 years of marriage Sunday. She is the most wonderful and beautiful woman in the world and can you really believe that the Father would bless me with such a bride? Unbelievable, but true: He has. We actually got to celebrate by going out to the Olive Garden, and we indulged quite a bit as well We dived into two appetizers and two entrees……….I was very close to sinning at that point.

We also spent the past weekend with Jerry Johnson (from the Apologetics Group) and his wonderful family in Draper, VA. We enjoyed seeing the snow fall as we drove up and really took in some great fellowship and relaxing there on the mountain. I also received a copy of Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology from him for my birthday and a copy of The Coming of the Kingdom by Herman Ridderbas, as well as, began reading a copy of Gordan Clark’s work A Christian Philosophy of Education. We also engaged in some very beneficial discussion of the covenants and the issues regarding paedo-baptism for which I am profoundly thankful. I may post on that in the future.

With that said, I hope to get back to posting a bit more. I haven’t been online as much since all this started and that has not been a bad thing However, I see that my name still comes up in discussions, usually by the Incrediblogger himself. Anyway, I thought I would take the time and let you all know what was going on just in case you might get worried. Be on the lookout Gordan, I am going to change the photo in the near future. I think the Jack Bauer look will be appropriate

You want me to do what???

2006-12-08T08:36:00.000-05:00

OK,

I know that most of the time there is serious stuff on here, but I got this from my boss this morning and nearly fell off the chair at the sight of this dog's face. This is truly hilarious! Everyone have a great weekend!

Revelation Seals - Gospel Comparisons

2006-12-03T07:09:00.000-05:00

Revelation Seals Gospel Comparison

I told Hank I was going to put up a short comparison of the seals of Revelation with birth pangs spoken of by Christ in the Gospels. This comparison is taken from the book by David Chilton titled, Days of Vengeance. I would love to have some interaction with this chart if there is disagreement.

Revelation 6
1. War (v. 1-2)
2. International strife (v. 3-4)
3. Famine (v. 5-6)
4. Pestilence (v. 7-8)
5. Persecution (v. 9-11)
6. Earthquake; De-creation (v. 12-17)

Matthew 24
1. Wars (v. 6)
2. International strife (v. 7a)
3. Famines (v. 7b)
4. Earthquakes (v. 7c)
5. Persecutions (v. 9-13)
6. De-creation (v. 15-31)

Mark 13
1. Wars (v. 7)
2. International strife (v. 8a)
3. Earthquakes (v. 8b)
4. Famines (v. 8c)
5. Persecutions (v. 9-13)
6. De-creation (v. 14-27)

Luke 21
1. Wars (v. 9)
2. International strife (v. 10)
3. Earthquakes (v. ha)
4. Plagues and famines (v. llb)
5. Persecution (v. 12-19)
6. De-creation (v. 20-27)

Along these lines, my friend Gordan has posted his perspective in regards to the first four seals of Revelation from the historicist position.

Dissing Dispensationalism 7

2006-12-02T08:25:00.000-05:00

Continuing with the dispensational post from Dan Phillips.
15.

I know some big names who used to be dispensationalists, and aren't. Really? I know some big names who used to be Christians, and aren't. I know some big names who used to be Calvinists, and aren't. Besides, when I hear a guy like [big vaunted amill expert "ex-" author] open his mouth on the subject, it's easy to see why he's an "ex." No evidence of a clue about dispensationalism in what I see him saying now.
When Peter, all full of himself, tells Jesus "We have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:69), Jesus replies, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil" (John 6:70). I take it that our Lord saw Peter as relying on the consensus; so Jesus throws back at Peter, in effect, "...and what if your consensus becomes a consensus of one? What will you do then?" When Judas left, was Jesus less the Messiah and Holy One? (To be clear, my only point in this is that the issue is the Word and truth and what I, myself, do with it, and not how many are voting for an interpretation of it. Some -- in fact, I'd say most -- of the finest, holiest men and women who ever cracked a Bible were not dispensationalists.)

Yeah, this is another silly argument against anyone. However, I am always interested in what it is that changes a person’s thinking that they leave a certain belief system for another, not just dispensationalism. What does get me here, though, is those finest, holiest men and women, from Dan’s perspective evidently lost total faith in the perspicuity of Scripture when they chose to go down the road of non-dispensationalism. Ironic isn’t it?
I am in total agreement with the statement regarding the individuals responsibility to the Truth and the Word. As I stated in a previous post, let God be true and every man a liar, even if that means me.
16.

Dispensationalism is divisive. Just what Arminians say about Calvinism. I don't care from divisive. Everything Biblical is divisive to someone. My only concern: is it Biblical?

And to this I offer a hearty “Amen!” and that in the literal sense However, it is divisive in a way that Dan didn’t mean it. See, I can tell the difference between what is literal and what is not. It is divisive in how it divides up the people of God. See the previous posts for that interaction between the Church and Israel. Specifically not that glaring passage in Ephesians 2 and following (emphasis mine)
11 ¶ Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh——who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 ¶ For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
1 ¶ For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.
What dispensationalism does is make a future where the work of Christ and the gospel of Christ, in fact, tear these two apart again. Not only that, but they want to erect a real literal Temple, in spite of the fact of what the New Testament calls a Temple. Something that they do fail to realize is two things. The Temple was part of the old covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant, and the writer of Hebrews tells us that the old covenant was put away in order to establish the new (Heb. 10:9). Second, if this Temple were to be built in the future, since classic dispensationalists would hold to animal sacrifices being instituted, would there also be a veil re-erected? What would that imply? Isn’t that a complete undoing of the work of Christ and the gospel?
17.

Dispensationalism is defeatist. Dispensationalism is just what you are when you treat all the Bible respectfully. That's defeatist? Let's see: man cannot solve his own problems, Christ must deliver His saints personally, must personally come in power, grace, and glory to set up His kingdom, human sin and rebellion are shown to be absolutely inexcusable, and Christ reigns forever to the eternal glory of the Triune God. Hunh. Sounds like Calvinism to me. But then again, happy-face Christianoids think Calvinism is defeatist. Guess there's a little Pelagius in everyone, eh?

Well, I have to say, that this charge also comes to some of the a-mil crowd as well. Uh, Bunky, LOL (JK), I am not dispensational and I treat all the Bible respectfully. So stop it. Just stop it. That isn’t a valid argument from Dan either.
I agree with part of his statement (ie. Man cannot solve his own problems, Christ must deliver His saints personally). The next part is only partial. I do believe in a time when history will end and we enter the eternal state and the kingdom is delivered up to the Father according to 1 Corinthians 15, but come on Dan, if you are literal here, then surely you would recognize the apostle Paul’s words from Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. Now what kingdom is this? Is it yet future. Does the Son not have his kingdom? Was Paul and all believers not translated, past tense, into this kingdom with Christ as our King? What is this future setting up of “His kingdom”? That kingdom has been established and Christ will reign till all His enemies are put under His feet and then He delivers the kingdom up to His Father. If we take 1 Corinthians 15 literally, we do not come up with your scenario.
He then says, “human sin and rebellion are shown to be absolutely inexcusable.” So do we have to wait for this future kingdom for that to be shown? I thought that was shown in the garden and for that matter every day as Paul stated in Romans 1 that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness. We don’t need a future kingdom to show us that.
Christ reigns forever? I thought that kingdom, from the dispensationalist’s point of view, was only a literal 1000 years.
That is not Calvinism. Nor is it a bit of Pelagianism. The only way defeatist can truly be given to the dispensationalist is if indeed they are the types like we witness in the “popular” dispensational culture who are every second thinking they are seeing biblical prophecy fulfilled and are ready to throw in the towel and jump to the clouds. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am quite happy to go be with the Lord as well, but as long as He keeps me here I am quite happy to be here for that is a blessing as well and I take that promise to children obeying their parents from Ephesians 6 as a literal blessing so my time on earth is great, whether in tribulation or not. The point is, Paul was the same way and saw living as unto the Lord and going to be with the Lord as even better, but he did not think being here was terrible.
18.

Dispensationalism is fatalistic. Funny criticism, coming from Calvinists. If Calvinism is not fatalistic (and it isn't), neither is dispensationalism.

Yeah, I think I agree on this point too. Of course, I have not heard this argument, as well as, many that Dan presents here. It is amazing though how this could be a valid argument since usually, but not always, such as in Dan’s case, dispensationalism comes from Arminians. As a matter of fact, it’s roots are in Arminianism (ie. Darby, Scofield, etc.).
19.

Dispensationalism is escapist. Hm, I hear a similar complaint about the Gospel all the time. "So let me get this straight: you sin and sin and sin, and then just believe in Christ, and it's all gone? But some humanitarian who isn't a Christian goes to Hell? How convenient." Viewed from one angle, yep: salvation is convenient. More than convenient, it's glorious, it's stupendous, it's amazing. When you think of all that Christ accomplished for His people on the Cross, all He rescued us from, and delivered us to -- yep, pretty darned convenient.
The pre-tribulational Rapture is small potatoes compared to that great salvation, a fortiori. It's hard to understand shrugging at God's hot fudge sundae, but then carping when He reaches out to place a cherry on the top. Compared to the deliverance from Hell in which all Christians believe, deliverance from the great tribulation is just really nice of God. But certainly not non-credible, on the lame grounds that it is "escapist." What kind of criticism is that from a professedly sola Scriptura guy, anyway?

I would say that you first must prove the pre-trib rapture and honestly I just haven’t seen it. I bet it’d take one of those long books by Dr. So and So that Dan mentioned to actually convince someone of it, since you can’t derive it from any passage of Scripture in its immediate context.
In light of Jesus’ prayer in John 17, it does seem very interesting how this would all fit together. There Jesus prayed,
"I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
Maybe, we should make a distinction between dispensationalists and hyper-dispensationalists. In all honesty, I know dispensationalists that are truly “escapists” and I know some who are not, though when you get them started on the pre-trib rapture stuff they might cross the line
I give a hearty “Amen!” when Dan references the great salvation that Christ won for us. There is not doubt that is where our focus is and should be upon, but Dan cannot tell me that those out front in the popular dispensational arena, such as Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, Thomas Ice and others are doing that. Dan maybe doing just fine concerning that, and for that I am thankful.
20.

Dispensationalism teaches a false offer by Christ. This is yet another one of those oft-heard criticisms that is amazingly ironic to hear from Calvinist lips/pens. It is precisely the criticism Arminians of all stripes make of Calvinist evangelism. "You're telling this non-elect guy that if he believes in Christ he'll be saved, even though he'll never believe and never be saved, because he's not elect." We Calvinists reply that the offer is absolutely genuine: if the man repents and believes, he will be saved.
So was the presentation of Christ to Israel.
I genuinely wonder, since such otherwise-smart people keep making this stupid criticism -- what do you think would have happened if Israel had, en masse, repented and believed in Christ at the First Advent? Nothing? Nothing would have been different? What if Adam had never sinned? What if Noah had swatted those two mosquitoes? What if, what if, what if?
I've got another. What if we left off the what-if's, and contented ourselves with the text of Scripture? Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be Reformed?

Ok, here Dan does not give a good response to what I think I understand is the argument. I think he means to say that there are those who say that dispensationalists say that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel at His first coming and that if the nation had received Him as King then there would have been this geo-political establishment that dispensationalists want. This is implied in the term offer.
The problem is at what point does Jesus offer such a kingdom? It is true He is was and is King, but even before Pilate He reiterated the fact that His kingdom didn’t derive its authority from this earth. It is not a carnal kingdom. When the people came to make Him King, He rejected that (Jn. 6:15), not the other way around. As I pointed out in my post on Psalm 2, God never stopped being King of Israel when they asked for a human king. This should be understood here as well. Jesus did not need the permission of the nation to be King.
Dan, rightly uses the word presentation when referencing Israel. We need to understand this. Just as Gordan Clark was hit with this concerning the presentation of the gospel over half a century ago, we should be clear on this as well. Christ was presented to the nation Israel as King. Their rejection of Him didn’t keep Him from being King and it didn’t keep the kingdom from coming either! The same is true with the gospel. The gospel is not an offer in the sense that we use the word. Though those who wrote the confessions used the word, they had the idea of presentation, not a cordial “will you or will you not?” The gospel is a command.
As to the comment in regards to “what-ifs”, that has been my sentiment for so long that I am in total agreement with it. It is amazing the even well meaning Calvinists often bring this into the equation as though it will have any bearing upon anything. There are not what ifs. There is only what has happened, what is happening and just as in both of those things, the sovereign God of history has determined what will happen in the future. SDG

Dissing Dispensationalism 6

2006-12-01T07:14:00.000-05:00

Next up from Dan’s post.

It isn't a spiritual hermeneutic. Gosh, this one's such a hanging curveball. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Where to start? First, take off that "Plato is my homey" T-shirt, so we can talk. Oops, didn't see that "The Docetists are my crew" T-shirt underneath. Off with that too.

So, tell me: the resurrected body of Jesus -- carnal? Or spiritual? I'll play the Jeopardy music while you look up 1 Corinthians 15:44f. (Hint: God made matter. He's really okay with matter. Matter matters. Sin ruined matter, the regeneration will redeem it.)

Finally, if none of that helped you out of your decoder-ring quagmire, this thought: try not to be more "spiritual" than God, 'kay? When God said Messiah would come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), He knew it meant "house of bread" -- but He meant the city anyway. I imagine what a CT would have done with that, before fulfillment: "What God is really saying would have been perfectly clear to the Jews. It was symbolic. Messiah would come from 'the house for bread,' from the storehouse of God's spiritual nourishment, and He would give life, as bread does. Those wooden literalists who look for fulfillment in an actual city are perverting the Word to their carnal imaginations."

Trying to out-spiritual God is really stupid.

Do I get to use the Bunky name here?:) JK. Look, obviously there are those things which are carnal and those things which are spiritual. Simply put let’s recap those others that are spiritual though they were spoken of with carnal language. Remember those? The temple from John 2, the new birth from John 3, the living water from John 4, John 6 the bread come down from heaven. In every one of those passages the hearers thought just like Phillips, but in everyone, they were wrong.

Spiritual hermeneutic is not the issue here. Literary hermeneutic is. For those who understand this is where we get the term literal from. When we speak of something literal, we don’t mean normal, we mean words used in the natural context of the kind of literature read. For instance, most of us clearly understand that when we read poetry, we would read it literally, right? Of course, but in that literal reading, we would understand the use of symbolism and imagery. I am not saying dispensationalists don’t do this, but there are times when they cannot see in apocalyptic writings that imposing a literal interpretation that doesn’t go with that sort of literature brings about all sorts of problems.

Is out-spiritualizing God the real issue here? Of course no one is even trying to do that. I don’t know of any a-mils or post-mil theology that views matter as evil, sin tainted, but not evil in and of itself.

10.

Dispensationalists are antinomian. Bologna. I'm the former, and yet I'm not the latter. (In fact, gutless-gracers say I'm a legalist.) Makes just as much sense as saying amillennialists are Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholics are amillennial. Not only is there no necessary connection between dispensationalism and gutless-grace insanity, but the very hermeneutic that produces dispensationalism also deals howling, shrieking death to antinomianism.

While I do know some dispensationalists who are antinomian, I also know some reformed folks who are also, at least in my opinion. This again is not a good argument against dispensationalists in general. This would be specific to the person.

11.

We should interpret the Old by the New. In itself, fine. Show me where the New says the Old is a lie, a fake, a trick -- because that's what replacement theology makes it. What I read in the New Testament is Jesus Christ severely blaming unbelievers for not accepting what's there in plain sight (Matthew 16:1-3; Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47). I don't see Him saying, "I really can't blame you for not seeing this -- who could have? It was totally hidden from everyone!"

One hears, "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed." Given the interpretive violence some folks do to the Word, a more appropriate version I've heard might be, "The Old is by the New restricted; the New is on the Old inflicted."

What is this about replacement theology? Where did that come from. Has he really read CT? I am sure he has. This sounds like some Arminians who attack Calvinists to me. Change what the CTs actually say and then “Gotcha!” That’s not to hard to do. There have been several statements already that I could have done that with Dan’s words, but I don’t think that would be fair to him. His lack of understanding our position concerning the differences in the nation of Israel and the Church and the identical nature of the spiritual Israel of the Old Testament with the Church of the New Testament is simply disappointing.

As he responds to the words of Christ and I agree with part of his point. He fails to also take into account these words from Matthew 13,

"13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ 16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 "for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Seems to me Dan should take that into account.

12.

You can't take everything literally. Do you mean that literally? Of course you do. {pause}

See number 9 response here. BTW both sides do thisJ

13.

Dispies are over-literal. Have you actually heard a dispensationalist lay out his hermeneutic? People who offer "over literal" as a seriously critique of dispensationalism have seemingly never read a book dealing with hermeneutics, written by a responsible dispensationalist. Try this for an interpretive principle:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, take every word in its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental and axiomatic truths, clearly indicate otherwise

It's a totally dispensational hermeneutic, and it's an equally dandy Reformed hermeneutic -- or should be. There's quite the chasm between saying "Of course God isn't literally a 'rock'," and saying "Mount Zion -- oh yeah. Has to be the universal Christian church!" Dispensationalists are what all Reformed folks would be, if they were consistent in their hermeneutics.

Well, I’ll give him a C for effort here. The problem comes in the principle itself with that word literal. Again, I wonder how Dan would handle passages that are apocalyptic, even in the Old Testament which seem to speak to the utter destruction of the world, when in fact just a particular nation is being addressed (ie. Babylon). What does he do with passages in the New Testament that clearly spell out the interpretation of Mt. Zion or the New Jerusalem. I mean, I continually come back to this: Why would someone continue looking backwards towards the carnal, when the spiritual reality, interpreted for us by the inspired apostles tells us this? I simply don’t get it.

14.

I think Hal Lindsey is stupid, and I like to make fun of him. Really? I think Harold Camping is stupid and, well, he is pretty easy to parody. Is this helpful?

I completely agree with both of these commentsJ And no, neither one is helpful.

Dissing Dispensationalism 5

2006-12-01T07:11:00.000-05:00

As you can see these are short comments, because as best I can see it, there really isn’t any meat to get into here. But Dan was complaining that no one actually addressed his points, so I am giving it a try. If you don’t know or haven’t seen the his post, you can find it here.

But the Reverend Doctor Professor _____ wrote a 600-page book destroying dispensationalism! Yeah. Have you ever noticed that it takes an awful lot of very detailed, sophisticated argumentation to "prove" that a passage doesn't mean what it says? If we're talking about the meaning of yom in Genesis 1, I can say "It means a day" in four words -- but it'll take hundreds, or even tens of thousands to "explain" that yom doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to mean. Once, I was asked if I could explain what a prophetic OT passage meant. "Sure," I replied. "Means what it says." That was my complete answer, and everyone knew exactly what I meant by it. Ohh boy, but that ticked off a guy whose obnoxious new girlfriend was Covenant Theology. But you know, before I was a Christian, I was in a cult whose answer to every uncongenial passage was, "We have to look for the deeper meaning." Funny how the "deeper meaning" was always the precise opposite of what the passage said, and exactly in harmony with what our cult believed. I left that sort of gameplaying behind with my conversion, and anything that even smells like it to me, smells.

I agree with the first part. Just because someone writes a long book about something doesn’t mean he has accomplished the task he set out to do.

And, yes, I’ve heard that argument before from those against Calvinism too. That doesn’t make the point. While I certainly wouldn’t use the specific argument he addressed, I do think it rather arrogant to deal with the claim on such a level. First there are greater minds than both of ours and to push aside a valid response, such as Dr. So and so’s book on the subject without fully dealing with it is just ridiculous. I wonder how much Dan has had to take steps and long talks to engage those who are opposed to him concerning Calvinism. I’m sure, if it’s like the rest of us, it takes a long time and lots of illustrations and Scripture and metaphors and so on. This doesn’t mean the texts don’t mean what they say.

No one, as far as I know, is looking for a “deeper meaning”, so don’t lump CTs in with that. BTW, speaking of cults, I can point to almost every cult there is in America (Mormon, JW, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.) today and at their heart they have a form of dispensationalism. That is not an argument against dispensationalists, but it is a glaring contrast of the impact that the theology spun out, which coincidentally all these groups, minus RCs, came about at just after the rise of dispensationalism. Hmmmm. I smell a rat!

Speaking of game playing: the whole idea behind a future Tribulation with a pre-trib rapture is rather spurious, don’t you think? Try actually pulling that out of a text in its context. It will never happen.

You can't prove all those dispensational distinctives and prophetic features from the New Testament alone! Um, Bunky? Three words? "Plenary verbal inspiration." Dispensationalists do what all Reformed folks say they do: they believe in the whole Bible. Sort of got that idea from Jesus. So, just as no Reformed guy worth anything would accept such a demand as "Prove sovereign-grace election solely from 1 Chronicles 1:1," so no dispensationalist who believes in the principles of the Reformation should rise to the demand, "Prove every detail of your system from 1/3 of the Canon!" There is no passage that teaches everything that every other passage teaches. If so, God would have inspired a Bible with one verse.

Or perhaps a better statement would be that God did inspire a Bible with one verse. It's just a really, really long verse. And so, no believer in Reformed principles should indulge in trying to impose such a faulty premise. It's simply not Reformed to do so.

First, let me say that I completely cracked up at the “Bunky” line. That was too funny.

However, maybe Dan would like to comment on Psalm 2:7-9 and ask if it means what it says it means. Of course, I believe it does mean what it says it means. However, it would take some explaining for some who would not understand how it is used, such as MacArthur, who Andrew Lindsey pointed out sees this “begotten” part as the incarnation, rather than the apostle’s view which is the resurrection. Again, the problem that I see is that while he is saying the Bible is “one really, really long verse”, he in fact, does separate it out. The issue for those of us who are not dispensational is this: The New Testament interprets the Old Testament (or at least I speak for myself). This is because of the fact that the Old is the shadows and pictures and the New is the fulfillment of those things.

In reality, some things were not fully revealed in the Old Testament, thus the reasoning behind shadows, pictures and allegory and then in the New Testament we see that revelation in fulfillment. Dan then gives us the argument concerning plenary verbal inspiration. I certainly agree with the point he makes concerning interpretation or proof from only a section of Scripture. The problem is not as simple as he makes it though. The issue being brought up is that the NT affirms the promises fulfillments in Christ, not a geo-political entity.

While I understand his point and how it would go against the argument he stated, I don’t understand how it would addressed real questions in regards to what the New Testament affirms specifically against dispensationalism that I would raise. Therefore, if the NT denies to the dispensationalist their interpretation of the Old Testament they would do well to abandon their interpretation, no matter how much they cry foul.

Dissing Dispensationalism Review 4

2006-11-30T07:05:00.000-05:00

Next up are three of the arguments from Dan’s post.

4. So many dispensationalists are goofs. Sure they are. I'll tell you another truth: so many Covenant Theology types are goofs. So many amills are goofs. So many Trinitarian inerrantist monergists are goofs. In fact, so many Christians are goofs. Better quit them all, right? Just become an amorphous nihilist? Oh, wait -- lots of amorphous nihilists are goofs, too. Guess I'll just have to exercise my priesthood, and think for myself, under God -- like He says I should (John 12:48; Hebrews 4:13). Next?

Don’t we all agree on this one? There are many goofs in all camps. As a matter of fact, this author can get goofy at times tooJ

5. Dispensationalist writers have made false predictions. First, let's be more accurate. Since another thing to love about dispensationalism is that its advocates also affirm the sufficiency of Scripture, they tend not to be Charismatic, and so they don't fake "prophecy." Therefore, they don't make faux-supernatural predictions, as if they were prophesying. But it's true: some have said "I think X Bible teaching means that Y will happen," and some have been wrong.

Now to this there is some truth here. Many well respected dispensationalists say what Phillips says that they say and use the words or phrases such as “think” or “possibly could be”. However, there are many of the popular, and I use that word in the sense of those who have a very loud voice via media, who clearly are loudly declaring certain things to actually come to pass, and I might add that all of them eventually lead us after a God we have not known through various other perspectives on the person and nature of God.

I could probably cite numerous folks like Hal Lindsey, the Lalondes, Van Impe, La Haye and others who have done this. Really, though Dan in all honesty, these men do become the voice of dispensationalism to the nation, whether you or I agree with that or not.

Second, this game is a cheater's delight. Since the decoder-ring set spiritualizes all unfulfilled prophecy (except the bare fact of Jesus' eventual return) into shapeless goo, they have no specific predictions. No specific predictions = no falsifiability. So when you don't say anything is going to happen in the real world, you'll never be wrong. That's a coward's victory.

And this is simply an uninformed comment from Phillips. If you go to the comments section and actually read questions that were offered to him concerning specific passages, he basically shrugs them off and then launches into sarcasm and that perspicuity issue, which is not an issue in this discussion. When Nathan or I asked questions regarding the enthronement of Christ from the Old Testament Scriptures, which the New Testament apostles said were fulfilled in Christ, then he would simply ignore what was actually said, or he would not deal with the whole of the prophecy. I must ask, is that literal? Absolutely not.

I give a lot more credit to the man who expects to see prophecy actually fulfilled in history, and makes a tentative but well-reasoned application that doesn't come to pass, than I do to the counsel-of-despair man who throws prophecy in a blender, reduces it to paste, and then mocks those who don't follow suit.

counsel of despair man?? What on earth is he talking about? This is simply filler for his response here. He knows better. Are we as those who see fulfillment in Christ and His church “counsel-of-despair men”? I certainly am not. I am very optimistic that Christ will not only conquer at the end, but actually conquered at the cross, in the grave, in the resurrection, at the ascension, at the destruction of the old system, and all throughout history has been conquering as His wonderful gospel is proclaimed and will continue to do so and His church will prevail until He comes again.

And no, that is not throwing prophecy in a blender. Obviously we see many different passages that speak of the same fulfillment, but don’t we also see that with many of the shadows and pictures of the Old Testament concerning Christ? Of course we do, but we would never fault a dispensationalist and say he was just throwing all those in a blender and voila! Baked a cake from it. That is just a bad argument.

They are like the modern Charismatic counterfeit of "prophecy," whose perps hide under generalizations so vague that it is impossible to prove them wrong. Zero points for credibility.

Now this one gets under my skin. He has yet to really interact with any arguments from non-dispensationalists that I’ve seen. He has tried to give different words so that those of the dispensationalists, “who expects to see prophecy actually fulfilled in history, and make a tentative but well-reasoned application that doesn't come to pass” don’t actually fall under false prophecies or false teaching. However, I think we can distinguish from the wackos in the dispensationalist camp and the more responsible men. Yet, as far as I know, they are all looking for a national restoration of the Old Testament Israel and by that they mean with ethnic Jews. Brothers, I don’t know how I can say this nicely: That is false. That is wholeheartedly false. It takes everything that Christ accomplished and turns back the clock. Notice when dispensationalists write that they have to go back to types and shadows. They erect temples, institute sacrifices and various other Old Testament symbols are resurrected in the presence of the Christ! They cannot see what they are doing when they do this. They even break up the people of God. They reverse what Christ did between Jew and Gentile. He made them one with no distinction. Ephesians 2:11 and following point out as much. But the dispensationalists have said and at their heart this is what the system is: divide the two the Church and Israel. Again, I must clarify that the Church is not a national, political, geological entity like national Israel, but Paul makes the point in Romans 9 that the true Israel of God was within the national Israel of the OT and in Romans 11 the Gentiles have been grafted into that Israel. With that said the Scriptures clearly refer to the church as a holy nation and a called out people (holy). The church is simply the fulfillment of those promises in Christ and no the Jews aren’t excluded, they along with Gentiles are incorporated into one man (Eph. 2:15). Dispensationalists see a future where that one man will be cut in half, thus going against clear NT teaching and the work of Christ stated in that very passage.

Isn't it ironic? Jesus faulted His generation for not looking for the fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 16:1-3). These oh-so-sophisticateds fault those who do. Thus, they have deftly turned that vice into a virtue.

Yeah, and even more ironic was what they were looking for Dan. They were looking for fulfillment the same way you are, in a geo-political kingdom with all of their Old Testament types and shadows still intact. There’s irony. Again, those same people were chided constantly for that type of interpretation of Scritpure.

6. The best scholars hate dispensationalism. Depends on what you mean by "best," doesn't it? I keep hearing that the best scholars hate the Bible. The best scholars hate Calvinists. The best scholars hate Christ. If you've been around academia much, and surveyed its shifting sands, you'll know at least one truths: scholars are just as subject to peer pressure as anyone. Sometimes even more so. I'd say I've not seen too many Profiles in Courage in academia. So go back to #1.

Again, this is a bad argument against dispensationalism. Sticking to the text is the best argument when what we are dealing with is the text. By this I don’t mean that we can’t quote someone from the past or present when they say something much more clearly and concise than we can. We should do that. But to argue like that is just ridiculous. We wouldn’t want anyone to argue against our position like that.

Dissing Dispensationalism 3

2006-11-29T06:40:00.000-05:00

Ok, This is the second point from Phillips post on dispensationalism. Phillips says,

2.

It's new. Sorry, must have missed the memo -- when was the last truth gleaned from the Bible? I knew the Canon was closed to addition; I didn't realize it was closed to study as well. Funny that anti-dispensationalists would effectively relegate Psalm 119:18 to a different dispensation.
And, while we're at it, tell me again -- how old are the five Sola's as a formulation? How about the acronym TULIP? Um, Covenant theology -- when was that systematized? And what was the chief objection raised to Luther by learned Roman doctors at Worms? Or go way back, fifth century -- how old is the doctrine of the Trinity now? "Old as the Bible," you growl? I totally agree. Same for dispensationalism.

Here, Dan makes an excellent point. Dispensationalists see their view as old as Scripture itself, just as everyone else who seeks to formulate an understanding of what is said in Holy Writ.

With that said, as a system, it has only taken shape in the last 180-200 years. That does not make it untrue, just because it’s new and that is not a valid argument against it, but it is one that should cause us to examine it closely. As a matter of fact, I would say that many of the principles of dispensationalism were held by those of the first century who did not understand the first coming of Christ. They were so segregated as far as Jews and Gentiles that they could not even see that Gentiles would even be included in the kingdom. They saw them as beneath them. Jesus demonstrated as much in His parable of the Good Samaritan. These tended to see the promises of God being dependent upon their ethnic descent. Though many dispensationalists won’t actually come out and say it, they end up making the point that there will be physical descendants of Abraham who are saved because of that, though I am sure Phillips would not hold to that view.

Psalm 119:18 relegated to a different dispensation? I’m sorry I don’t get that at all. Maybe I have not been well read enough to understand Phillips’ remarks here. If he means that many writers speak of the gospel opened up in the Law, then fine. I have no problem with that. What else are we to see from the Law of God? It is holy and just. It reveals to us our utter sinfulness and in the broad scope of the Law we see the imagery of Christ and His work (His perfect active obedience to it), so what is the problem with that? Why is it relegated to another dispensation?

3.

It's not Reformed/Calvinistic. First, some shocking news: my goal in life is not to be judged as perfectly Reformed or Calvinistic. (I'm hopeful that brother Hendriksen, now with the Lord, would concur.) When I stand before the throne, I don't expect the Lord to say, "Let's see... how Reformed were you?" Anyway, maybe someone can point out where Calvin (or Luther, or Knox, or Zwingli, or Owen) maintained that, after he himself died, nothing remained to be learned, because he/they had been perfect in all his scholarship and thinking, and had exhausted every last bit of truth from the Bible. I can't think that these great men imagined that they had mined every last grain of ore from the vast Biblical treasury, leaving us today only to visit theological museums, or reminisce about how great it must have been to live when the Bible still had more to teach, and we had more to learn.

Hm. "Calvin the Apostle." Don't like it.

One last thought on these first three. If these are really big, determinative factors -- they have been, to a great many of dispensationalism's bitterest critics -- then it seems to me that we owe Rome an apology. In that case, we agree with Rome that we dare not directly delve into Scripture for ourselves. We agree with Rome that we need a Magisterium to filter Scripture for us. Like Roman Catholics, we're not allowed to see anything in Scripture that our (Reformed) Magisterium tells us isn't there; and with Loyola, we should say that white is black (and Israel is the Church), if Mother (Reformed) Church tells us so.

Ok, I totally agree with these comments and frankly there are times when I think some reformed folks simply would drink the kool-aid if certain idols that they have erected offered it to them. This would actually go hand in hand with his opening comments to this post.
However, it is the last point that gets me. Again, go back and read my posts concerning eschatology so far and you will find that I didn’t come to the understanding of the true Israel of God being the Church and vice versa by reading Reformed idols. Is there a distinction between the nation Israel and the remnant, which is the true Israel (according to the inspired apostle Paul in Romans 9)? This is not replacement theology. It is simply understanding who the Israel of God is: it is all of the elect.

BTW, I don’t like Calvin the Apostle either and I’m sure he (Calvin) would concur.

For those who are just joining, the post can be found here.

25 Stupid Reasons For Dissing Dispensationalism Review 2

2006-11-28T19:44:00.000-05:00

This is the second installment, though it’s actually the first concerning Dan Phillip’s post on Dispensationalism. He starts the post out with some comments in general.

It's just not "cool" to be dispensationalist, anymore. The system had particular prominence in the seventies and beyond, which excited a lot of envy and resentment among the non's ("Hey, what about us?"). So they produced a lot of sourpuss, wanna-be literature, trying to take back every area that dispensational writers had held.

They haven't fully succeeded. This really irritates them, because many of them still think that dispensationalists are unsophisticated knuckle-draggers at best, or heretics at worst. It's like listening to evolutionists talk about the Great Unwashed, who they see as too stupid to agree with them, still boneheadedly clinging to inane creationistic notions. They alternate between sniffing in disdain, and wondering why their outreaches fail to penetrate their foes' Stygian darkness.

But anti-dispies have succeeded with some folks, more (I think) through image than substance. They have convinced them that it isn't cool to be a dispensationalist.

Particularly, it's not cool to be Reformed and dispensationalist. In responding to a letter of mine about something entirely different (the problem of evil), decades ago, the great commentator William Hendriksen slapped me down something fierce. I had made the mistake of mentioning in passing that I was a Calvinist, and a dispensationalist. The great man told me you can't be "100% reformed/Calvinist" and dispensationalist. He told me to read this and that book, and not to write him again until I was 100%. As I recall, he even suggested that this doctrinal error lay at the root of my problem with evil.

Yet stubbornly here I am, still unrepentantly both, and still for the exact same reason: when I consistently apply the hermeneutic that God used to save me, I end up Reformed... and dispensationalist.

Now for the most part I am in agreement here with him concerning how many view dispensationalists. They look at them as unlearned and unsophisticated. I however, do not. There are many dispensationalists who I greatly admire such as John MacArthur and Phil Johnson. However, dispensationalists receive this kind of treatment because of those who are simply “out front” and more popular. This cannot be denied.

Hendriksen is completely wrong about what he said to Phillips. However, he probably would say the same thing to me since I don’t believe in infant baptism, therefore I’m not Calvnistic or totally reformed. On that last point I would concur, I am in the process of reforming.

No one can deny the great contributions that many dispensationalists have contributed to the church. However, I would also make mention of the fact that their dispensationalism has also been of great concern in both theological and practical matters. Some of these I have made mention of before. So understand that we are dealing here with the message and not the messenger. With that in mind, let’s look at the first point he makes. I’ll put my comments in blockquote.
1. All of the coolest guys are amillennial/"historical" premill/covenant/whatever. I suspect this is the real reason many adopt amillennialism. They want to be just like Augustine, or Calvin, or Owen, or Packer or Waltke or Whoever, or any of all those cool guys. It's just so cool to be cool. I'll admit it -- I've felt that pull. Just give up, give in, join the RHRG (Really Hip Reformed Guys). Then when they mock and make fun of people who still take all of the Bible seriously, it'll be okay. You'll be on the giving end, instead of the receiving end!

Uh, eh, what??? I certainly didn’t come to my conclusions from reading really hip reformed guys on the subject. I came to the thinking that I have through exposition. While I admit, there have been some writings that have aided that, the questions I raised came from Scripture, not the other way around. True, some may be in that camp, but not I.

Take all of the Bible seriously?? Come on, you can do better than that. I don’t know of whom he is referring. Are any of the guys he cites not taking all of the Bible seriously? Or is this simply a silly charge like the “perspicuity” charge towards the guys at Fide-O? I'm sure the dispensationalists, as well as, the non-dispensationalists are taking the Bible seriously.

Plus, prophecy doesn't require hard work anymore. Just shrug and say, "Jesus. The church. Whatever." Here, I'll show you:
o Mount Zion to be made the capital of the earth? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."
o Israel to be fully restored in spite of all her sins? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."
o Wars and conflicts such as have never happened, followed by unprecedented deliverance for the nation of Israel? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."
o Eight chapters of detailed prophecy about a temple such as has never yet been built? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."
See? Cool!

See? Ridiculous. See? Superficial. See? No real interaction with how those passages are actually interpreted. That seems to mock people who have tried to actually interact with the text and see their fulfillments rather than deal with the arguments, and with that I have a few questions of my own:
1. Who is spoken of as the Israel of God in the New Testament?
2. Who are those restored unto God in spite of their sins in the New Testament? BTW, these are also called the Israel of God.
3. Wars and conflicts followed by unprecedented deliverance for the nation Israel?? Does any dispensationalist really believe that? After all don’t they believe that many if not most of the nation they claim with be slaughtered? And then they still have the audacity to say that “ALL Israel” will be saved.
4. Ezekiel’s Temple? Well, again, we might want to see the distinction between the two temples of the New Testament and also I might throw in the fact that towards the end of the Book of Revelation, chapter 21, we are told that NO temple is in the New Jerusalem, which, by the way is the Church, the Bride of Christ (see vss. 9 and following of that chapter), but the text says,But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

And I'll also say that it's largely true that the coolest have been, to say the least, non-dispensationalists. Most of my greatest theological and otherwise-Christian heroes were not dispensationalists: Machen, Spurgeon, Calvin, van Til, E. J. Young, and on and on.

On this we agree.

But then there's that little principle that I also gained at my conversion, and that has saved my spiritual life countless times. I'm a Christian because of Jesus. My judge is God, my rule is His Word. Other believers (dead or living) are important, but not all-important. My business is with God's Word (Hebrews 4:12-13). This focus has kept me Christian through countless instances of treachery, hypocrisy, betrayal, malice -- and I'm not about to leave it when it comes to formulating my theology.

Again, on this we agree.

But if you're going to let peer-pressure mold your theological system, you had best not think too deeply about John 7:48 ("Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him?", the Pharisees snort). No, you'll have to embrace your inner approbation-lust, and ignore the fact that it is the opposite of God-centered faith ("How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?" -- John 5:44).
Especially try not to think of your Reformer heroes. In their day, all the coolest guys were Roman Catholic.

Again, I agree. But again, this first point, is simply mocking with no real substance. There are other arguments. I simply wouldn’t buy this kind of argument from non-dispensationalists anymore than dispensationalists, but I find Phillips arguments not compelling. Not only that, but he falls into the very kind of interpretation that those of Jesus day fell into concerning this issue. With that said, please don't anyone take it that I'm saying that Dan is a Pharisee. I am not. I am simply saying regarding dispensationalism, he is in fact imploring the same hermeneutic that the Pharisees and those during the ministry of Christ held to and were constantly being corrected for.

Again, Dan's post can be found here.

25 Stupid Reasons for dissing Dispensationalism Review

2006-11-26T18:16:00.000-05:00

Ok, I know I promised a continuation of Matthew 24, but I got sidetracked while reading Nathan’s latest post and then being directed over to Dan Phillips post on Dispensationalism. I can’t help it, but for some reason when I read Dan’s stuff, sometimes it just seems that he’s trying to get under people’s skin, maybe it’s just me. Anyway, many times I am in agreement with him on subjects that he writes on. However, this post of his will probably be one thing that I will have to critique, for in it is good material from the author to refute. With that said, I want to be clear that the issue concerning my previous post on Psalm 2, in my opinion is the death blow to Dispensationalism. As soon as it has been proven that Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, as well as, the Davidic covenants, then all the other stuff goes right out the window. This is the definitive issue brothers on this subject. So, I am sorry to run rabbits, but it seems appropriate, at least for me to do so. This first post will simply place my response to just a couple of the arguments he made in regards to Acts 15 and claiming people don’t believe in the perspicuity of the Scriptures, which I thought was the silliest argumentJ Here’s my response.

Dan,

I was linked from Nathan's blog and read the comments. There is much I would like to respond to. However, I am pretty much taking my time doing that over at my blog via some exposition:)

This last comment, and I don't know who Ruben is:), that you made concerning Acts 15, you made mention of Johnson's quote. The problem as I see it is precisely what you cited. No where in that passage is anything remotely like a "nod to the Jewish faction, assuring them that the nation will have the promised future." As a matter of fact, nothing of the Jewish nation is even mentioned. Simply a mention of the tabernacle of David and this rebuilding is so that the Gentiles may seek the Lord. Surely this would be referenced in other NT passages where the church is spoken of in such terms (ie. Eph. 2:21; 1 Cor. 6; Rev. 3:12). Of course in these passages the believer as well as the church is spoken of as the temple of God. The term used in Acts 15 denotes the movable tabernacle. In either case, the nation is not in focus.

This leads to part of the problem I see where you say others are denying the perspecuity of the Scriptures. Were the Scripture unclear to the Pharisees and disciples during Jesus' time concerning the nature of the kingdom??? It seems their "literal" (and I use that lightly) reading of Scripture led them to the wrong concclusion. Jesus seems to constantly be correcting them in regards to a "physical political kingdom" (see Luke 17:20,21).
Maybe somehow the words of Christ were unclear when He stated,

Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."John 2:19

Yet those around him believed he spoke about the standing temple and not the temple of His body. If you were standing there would you have assumed He spoke of His body? In regards to that several passages that dispensationalists claim are somehow future, such as the reign of Christ from David's throne are simply shot down in the face of apostolic New Testament statements. I point this out in a recent post on Psalm2. There is no reason to assume that we are waiting on Christ to come to a throne in the middle of the desert to reign from earth when He already is seated at the right hand of His Father (Mr 16:19; Ac 2:33; Ro 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 10:12; 1Pe 3:22) till all His enemies are put under His feet (1Cor. 15) and already has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) and is currently ruling the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 3:27). If this is indeed the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and I believe it is since the inspired apostle Peter says so in Acts 2, and I quote,

25 "For David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. 27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’ 29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."’ 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

This has been fulfilled. Now I ask anyone in the forum, what is not clear and literal about that passage??? If that is true, then at its heart dispensationalism's foundations crack. Respectfully submitted.

For those who may come here and are dispensationalists, you are welcome to comment. I have no ill feelings toward dispensationalists, unless they are the simply wacky kind (Lahaye, Van Impe, Lindsey, etc.). Please take these comments in the tone they are given and that is that we may arrive at the Truth and a love for it.

Many thanks to my brothers and Happy Thanksgiving!

2006-11-18T19:02:00.000-05:00

Wow! So it’s been over a month since I’ve actually posted anything and look….the world still turns! This just goes to show that the world doesn’t revolve around me:) Well, I have been extremely busy and out of town a lot, not to mention involved in study for Revelation at our church. Recent comments over at both Nathan’s blog and Gordan’s blog have challenged me and have aided in some of my understanding of eschatology and for that I am very thankful. Many thanks to Hank as well, who has made time for me with several calls and I have always come away very edified.

I would recommend a reading of Nathan’s latest post on Matthew 24. Thank goodness I had not gotten that far in my posts and had to retract something, LOL. It has been beneficial to see what he shared, though I would still, at this point, hold to what I have posted thus far from Matthew 24. I will probably take some of his thoughts in the future and present them a little more fully, after all, he posted the entire chapter in one post! OK, ok, he’s not a MacArthur (expositional dump truck)………….yet, but I do believe that God is using him tremendously now and will continue to do so in the future.

In regards to this issue where I have been corrected, there is one thing that I want to let all of my 4 or 5 readers know and that is this: we are men and at times we can be wrong. Therefore it is good to be correctable and patient in our dealings with one another. For those, my brothers, that I cherish for God’s using them in my life, I genuinely say, “Thank you for earnestly contending for the faith and the truth. Thank you for helping me in my understanding of God’s Word. Thank you for your patience with me. Thank you for your persistence in your own understanding of the Word.”

There are many pastors today who cannot stand the thought of being corrected. They somehow will give lip service to the fact that they don’t know everything, but practically they seem oblivious to the idea. I say, “Let God be true and every man a liar”. With that in mind, I will hopefully post some things this week in continuation of Matthew 24, as well as, some Stonewall Jackson quotes from a book we've been reading.

As a bonus, I'm throwing in a little Thanksgiving treat for you all, the picture of the kids. Last year the kids were all Pilgrims, this year Denise made them all Indians. I know, I know, the boys should have used bow and arrows, but I think muskets were available then, LOL. Also, Dakota celebrated his seventh birthday on the 12th (and yes, my wonderful esposita made that great looking spider-man cake) and also it seems that Ms. Hailey has been wearing herself out as of late, so much so, that she simply passed out in the middle of driving. I hope this isn't a sign for the future.

Psalm 2 - The King takes the Throne

2006-10-11T20:57:00.000-05:00

Ok, I had typed out most of my post for Psalm 2 and somehow have lost it. How can that happen? Anyway, in God’s Providence, I am doing it again. Of course, this time it will be on the road, which is sometimes a better time to do it. My boss and I are traveling to Raleigh this morning so I should have about 3 hours or so to do it. I hope it is edifying.

As I begin, I just want to note that Psalm 2, though many would see it as being fulfilled in some future millennium, is clearly presented in the New Testament as being fulfilled in Christ’s first coming and in fact in His resurrection and ascension. With that in mind, let’s look at the text and see how the apostles interpret this incredible passage regarding the King.

1 ¶ Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us."
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."
7 ¶ "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’"
10 ¶ Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

The first passage that comes to mind is the words of Luke in the book of Acts. There he records the words of the church as they respond to the report of Peter and John. This is that declaration,

24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them,
25 "who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ.’
27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together
28 "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Notice that these quote the very first few verses of this passage and in doing so thus declare it’s fulfillment. They even attribute the fact that the fulfillment of the passage is not awaiting something in the future, but are clear in pointing to the elements surrounding the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. They specifically point to Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel as all involved. Clearly we see the kings of the earth referenced here, but also the rulers, those of the Sanhedrin and High priest who sought the death of the Son of God. Also, it is clear that they are against Christ, or the Hebrew word here is xyvm, or Messiah. This is the prince who is now crowned King of kings and Lord of lords.

I don’t think too much commentary is in order here. Those first few verses are clearly taught as being fulfilled, not by some unknown little elder from a teeny tiny church in North Carolina, but by the apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

What is God’s response to this? Verse four says that He laughs at them. Now brothers, it is not a good thing for God to be laughing at you. Surely judgment is waiting in the wings with such laughter and indeed it is. We are told that He will speak to them in wrath and distress them in His deep displeasure.

Notice how all these things are mentioned in the parable that our Lord gave concerning the vineyard.

Matthew 21:33 ¶ "Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.
34 "Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit.
35 "And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another.
36 "Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.
37 "Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
38 "But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’
39 "So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?"
41 They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons."
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’S doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
44 "And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."
45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.

Jesus is clear and becomes even clearer through the following chapters of Matthew up through of the judgment awaiting those who seek to stop the enthronement of the King. If they would not bow the knee to the King and suffered such great judgment as in 70 AD, then how can we today who live after the enthronement of the King escape such great condemnation?!

This judgment was prophesied long ago back in Deuteronomy 29:24. There was a foretelling of how the nations would respond to the judgment that would come upon Israel for their rejection of Him as their King.

"All nations would say, `Why has the LORD done so to this land? What does the heat of this great anger mean?”

Remember, and if you don’t get anything else, get this: The entire saga is about the glory of God and His sovereign Kingly rule over His creation. When Israel was not content to have Him as King and desired that they have another king just like the Gentiles, God did not move over and allow another king to take His place. No He appointed Saul as a physical head over Israel and said they would learn a hard lesson from him, but He never ever stopped being King and He never gave up His right to sit whom He chose, namely His Son, to be King over them, as well as, all the earth.

And so, for the believer, verse 6 is a great comfort. Though the men of the centuries prior to the coming of Christ sought to bring the promises of God to nothing and though the men of the first century sought to bring the death of the Son of God to completion and though men still try to break the bonds of God and cast His cord from them, God has seated His King, even His Son, upon the throne in Mt. Zion! Glory! Hallelujah!

Now that I’m all excited(, notice verses 7-9. There we are told the promise of the Father to the Son. I simply love this: everything pertaining to the New Covenant and everything pertaining to the kingdom is bound up in the word of the Father to the Son from before the foundation of the world. It is not dependent upon an ethnic people, nor is it dependent upon any man, but upon the faithful promise of the faithful and living God. We are merely graciously bestowed benefactors of that great covenant by faith.

So were verses 7-9 fulfilled? Let’s look to the New Testament. We could site numerous passages that Jesus was the Son of the Living God and that His Father on more than one occasion declared that He was well pleased with Him (Matt. 3:17: 17:5). So when we see the declaration concerning the Son, we know this is in reference to Christ. Interestingly enough, when God says in this Psalm, “Today I have begotten You”, He is not referring to Christ’s incarnation, but rather to His resurrection. Notice how the beloved apostle fits this fulfillment in His gospel message in Acts 13,

29 "Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.
30 "But God raised Him from the dead.
31 "He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people.
32 "And we declare to you glad tidings——that promise which was made to the fathers.
33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
34 "And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’
35 "Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
36 "For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption;
37 "but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.
38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;
39 "and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

You see my friends, Christ is not only Savior and Lord, He is the eternal King. Our King does not reside in the tomb as David did, but was not allowed to see corruption. He came forth from the grave on the third day and lives forevermore and rules the universe from His Father’s throne.

29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Peter knew of the same promises, though these are not specific to the second chapter of the Psalms, it seems clear that Peter has in mind many of God’s promises concerning His Son, the resurrection and His ascension to the throne.

Acts 2:30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,
31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."’
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

In verse eight we have the promise that the nations would be Christ’s inheritance. Obviously as we go to the New Testament we can see the inclusion of the Gentile nations being included in the kingdom, for Christ did not come only for the Jews, but for the Gentiles. He came that He might redeem a people unto God from every nation, tribe, and tongue and that His glory might be reflected in the redemption of the whole world. Again, this is so obvious that it really does boggle my mind when there are those who do not see the fulfillment of these things in Christ.

Many still say that verse 9 awaits a future fulfillment. Hear the words of the inspired apostle while in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day,

Rev. 2:26 "And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations——
27 ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’ ——as I also have received from My Father;

In this passage where Jesus expressly addresses the fulfillment of this passage by linking overcomers with Him in His rule over the nations, He clearly states at the end of verse 27 “as I also have received from My Father”. The word used here for “have received” is didwmi. The word is in the perfect tense and indicates that is has been enacted in the past once and for all with no need to have it occur again in the future. Clearly Christ declares that this text has also been fulfilled at the time of the writing of Revelation. So obviously we are not waiting for that to occur……. It already has!

Finally, the last three verses of the passage are wise counsel from the Father. His command is that the kings and judges of the earth serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. They should seek to find peace with the Son. They should be aware of His right to the throne and to rule over them. They should take to heart the great duty that is theirs to serve as a representative of the living God. Specifically, it seems that this prophecy is more directed towards those of the days of Christ, though I would affirm that there is a practical aspect to all rulers of all times, including our own. They have been given their authority from the Lord Himself. They have not attained it on their own.

We recall Christ’s words before Pilate when He stated, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above (Jn. 19:11).” Any and all authority must recognize the authority that gave them theirs whether it be king, governor, mayor, pastor, or father. They must kiss the Son, lest He be angry. They must love Him and seek to glorify Him with the proper use of the power given to them. Their trust must be in Him and Him alone for the governing of their jurisdictions.

Sadly for those in the time of Christ, they failed to love and honor the Son and instead chose to murder Him and found themselves under His wrath, not only in time but for all eternity. Sinners would do well to heed the cry of the Psalmist, “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.”

2nd Day at the Conference

2006-10-07T22:10:00.000-05:00

I posted earlier this morning last night's sessions here at the Apologetics Group's conference on "The Family: God's Weapon for Victory". I am delighted to share with you the rest of the conference sessions. Be warned, reformation ahead! Both Pastor Nettles and Robert Andrews' messages were timely and poignant! You will be broken. You will be encouraged. You will be exhorted. You will be rebuked. You will be corrected. BUT, you will not be bored. Enjoy!

Husbands Love Your Wives
by Dr. Tom Nettles

Family Worship: Using the Catechism
Dr. Tom Nettles

You May Now Kiss the Bride: Preparing for Marriage
Eric Holmberg

Evanglizing Our Children Pt. 1
E. Calvin Beisner

Evangelizing Our Children Pt. 2
E. Calvin Beisner

Round Table Discussion

Aiming Our Arrows
Robert Andrews

The Family: God's Weapon for Victory
Robert Andrews

The Family: God's Weapon for Victory

2006-10-07T06:21:00.000-05:00

Greetings from Draper, VA! We arrived yesterday afternoon after about a 3 hour trip from Clover. Everything went well and unfortunately I was on the phone most of the time doing work related stuff. However, we got here and it began to drizzle, but it was ok. The kids have been so excited to see their friends and hit it off right away.

Jerry showed up with Pastor Robert Andrews and we talked for several hours. I must say that I was so encouraged by Pastor Andrews. We are looking forward to hearing him twice today in the conference. The conference is about twice the size as last year and we are meeting in Draper Valley Presbyterian Church. I think they may have to move to the new part of the building next year if it continues to grow. That's a good thing.

Also, I wanted to post a link to the first two mp3s I recorded last night. They are a substantial size, but I figure that all of you who read this probably have high speed internet and can download them quickly. I don't have the capacity to record at a low level kbps and have good quality, so these are high.

These are the first two sessions:

The Two Shall Become One Flesh: A Biblical Theology of Marriage
by Pastor Ken Pierce

The Death of Love in the Love of Romance
by Jerry Johnson

You can click on the titles to stream them, or you can right click and save them if you use an ipod or want to archive them. Enjoy and be encrouaged!

I have added the second day's mp3s here.

Busy weekend

2006-10-04T07:30:00.000-05:00

Well I am gearing up for a very busy weekend. Our family is going up to Virginia (that's pronounced with that wonderful Virginian accent as Vir-Gin-EE-uh) for the Apologetics Group Conference on the Family. Jerry Johnson ha graciously opened his home to us again this year (he is a glutton for punishment:). Our kids are excited about going and seeing the Johnson children and we are excited about seeing Jerry and his bride again. I will try and see if I can record the sessions in mp3. If i can, I'll get some of you guys who are unable to attend a copy.

Work lately has involved a lot of travel and out of town. I am content with what the Lord has given me, but we are constantly petitioning Him for some work closer to home. I ask my brothers to pray for the same, if I come to mind.

Denise and the children are busy making hats and various items for members of our family, as well as, the Johnson's. They also came up with the idea to make some little hats for new borns and distribute them. Some will be given charitably, while others they are going to seek to offer midwives. We'll see if the new entrepreneurial enterprise will be lucrative or not.

For those who don't know, Nathan is conducting a Q&A on Eschatology. I find the interaction very helpful and done in Christian charity. I do think he's coming around though:) LOL.

I will try and post on Psalm 2 by Monday. Of course, there are no guarantees with my study of Revelation and the conference this weekend, but I will make a serious effort at it.

Matthew 24 Part 4

2006-09-23T18:55:00.000-05:00

Matthew 24

9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.

10 "And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.

These words of Christ are by far the most personal towards the disciples. Yes these words are directed at the disciples specifically. They are not directed specifically at those of us in the future. With that said, can there be application that may follow those who follow Christ? Absolutely, we can look back over history and find that believers at different times have been hated and killed by those who oppose the truth.

However, let us note the pronouns here. First we see “they”, “you”, and nations. It appears in the context that “they” refers to the Jews. Indeed all throughout the New Testament we find that the Jews are the biggest instigators of persecution upon God’s people, the true Jews.

For instance, we will take a few examples. First we will note that by and large the persecution of God’s people was not new to the era of the Messiah. We discover throughout the Old Testament that the prophets that were sent by God to Israel were constantly ridiculed, persecuted and killed. It is no different in the beginning of the New Covenant age. Many of those such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and even Moses were constantly facing a rebellious people who would not hear the Word of God calling them to repentance, Instead, they met with hostilities, resentment, complaining, suffering and anguish from those they sought to lovingly call back to their husband, the Lord.

Jesus references this history of Israel in His parable of the vineyard owner from Matthew 21.

33 ¶ Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

Notice that in this passage, the chief priests and Pharisees perceived that He was speaking of them. Again, there is an air here of impending judgment upon those whom Jesus specifically references, those Jews who remain in unbelief.

Most of us are aware of many of the persecutions and the bringing before the nations and kings of the apostles and their followers. If not here are several references to this very thing being accomplished with this generation.

Acts 4:1 ¶ Now as they (Peter & John) spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them,

2 being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening.

Acts 4:18 And they called them (Peter & John) and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.

20 "For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done.

Acts 7:54 ¶ When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,

56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord;

58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 12: 1 ¶ Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.

2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

3 And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread.

4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

Acts 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.

Acts 14:5 And when a violent attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone them,

6 they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region.

Acts 14:19 ¶ Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead.

Acts 16:22 Then the multitude rose up together against them (Paul & Silas); and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods.

23 And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely.

24 Having received such a charge, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

These are just a few of the numerous historical accounts from the book of Acts. All through out the New Testament we see encouragement for those suffering and undergoing persecution. Truly the words of the Lord did come to pass. As a matter of fact, Luke tells us in the first chapter of Acts that Jesus told the disciples that they would be His martuv. This does obviously refer to a legal witness, but also carries with it the idea of a martyr. All of the disciples underwent martyrdom for there witness, except for the apostle John, but that was not for a lack of attempts by both the Jews and the Romans.

In picking up on the term “they” in verse 9, I think if there is any contextual appeal to Matthew 24 someone must identify who the “they” is that is spoken of here. Let’s note the parallel passage from Luke 21.

12 "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake.

13 "But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony.

14 "Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer;

15 "for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.

It seems to be consistent that the “they” that is in reference here is tied to the Jews. Notice that the disciples are to be delivered to synagogues and prisons. Again, the numerous accounts both in history and the Scripture testify to just such actions. As a matter of fact, I believe it is this kind of persecution that the apostle Paul spoke of when in 1 Corinthians 4 he said,

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves;

8 ¶ we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing;

9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed;

10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.

11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

12 So death works in us, but life in you.

Ultimately this came to a head and it was no longer just the Jews persecution. Remember with Christ it started out that way and eventually moved to the Romans. The same was true for the disciples. They were first persecuted by the Jews and then later in history by the Romans, or we could say “nations” since that is definitely a clear reference to those outside the Jewish state. Obviously, these things did take place in the first century. There is ample evidence of this. However, we know that throughout the world persecution against believers takes place, but where are those whom Jesus spoke of as “they” doing so? They have long passed from the scene.

History as well as Scripture affirms this. While Jewish persecution rose fairly early in the life of the apostolic church, It was not until just prior to the siege of Jerusalem that the Romans involved themselves in a serious manner of persecution towards Christians (64-68 AD).[1] Tacitus is one who recorded how the infamous Nero persecuted the Christians. He writes that Nero “inflicted unheard-of punishments on those who, detested for their abominable crimes, were vulgarly called Christians” so that eventually “an immense number were involved in the same fate.”[2] One church father by the name of Orosius (AD 390-?) writes of the Neronic persecution and says that he (Nero) “was the first at Rome to torture and inflict the penalty of death upon Christians, and he ordered them throughout all the provinces to be afflicted with like persecution; and in his attempt to wipe out the very name, he killed the most blessed apostles of Christ, Peter and Paul.”[3] This persecution is also purported to have been prompted by orthodox Jews in the capital by some.[4]

There are a few words in verse 10 we should be aware of. First we find the word translated here as offended. The word is skandalizw from which we get our word scandal. In the context, it is possibly referring to an enticement to sin, specifically in regards to the things it is associated with. In effect it speaks of some being trapped or taken into sin. Some translations actually translate it as “fall away”. I think scandalized may be a good understanding.

Second, we find the word betray or paradidwmi. This word speaks specifically to delivering someone up to be judged. There were going to be those who may have associated with the church, but in reality were not a part of the true body. These are among many of those that I believe the writer to the Hebrews was concerned with.

Third, we find the word hate or misew. This word carries the simple meaning of hatred and is tied closely to betray. We just finished up chapter 26 of Matthew in our fellowship and saw the betrayal of Judas Iscariot of our Lord. Some years ago there was movie out called “The Judas Project” in which the attempt was made to put the gospel accounts into a modern day setting. To be honest, at first I was a bit skeptical, but actually thought much of it was good. However, they attempted to put Judas in a sympathetic light as though he really didn’t know what he was doing. Judas was evil at his core. He thought only of self in the face of being selected to be a disciple of the Lord Jesus. He was looking out for number one and in doing so he showed hatred and contempt for Christ. Yes, he realized afterwards that he had betrayed innocent blood, but he never really realized the person of Christ and loved Him for who He is.

Now we should not be so hard upon Judas, for the fact is that we are all so subtly deceived at different points in our lives, both before we become believers and at times afterward. The old song says,

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;

We all know daily what it is to feel the desires of sin crouching at our door and desiring to take hold of us, even at times to gain at the expense of others. How often have we succumbed to the temptation to spare ourselves while selling someone else out? No doubt some of this is clearly tied to this passage. The love of systems, the world and applause of men and even of this life itself will sometimes drive those we think that are close to us, to betray us. Many during this time did just that.

John has already identified that many had apostatized or fallen away in 1 Jn. 2:19. There he states,

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Paul also speaks of those who forsook him. In 2 Timothy 1:15 he says, “that all those in Asia have turned away from me.” Many of us are struck with His words concerning a fellow worker in ministry when he says, “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world (2 Tim. 4:10) and also in verse 16 he laments that “at my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me.” Surely these things were occurring during the apostles’ lifetimes, just as Christ prophesied.

If we look at the parallel passages in Mark and Luke these things become even more specific and even more horrifying when we consider just who it is who will be involved.

Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. Mark 13:12

And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. Luke 21:16

These betrayals, persecutions and hatreds come from within families and among friends. Now, I know this post has gone a little long, and has been a long time coming, but let’s get one thing straight: family is not the gospel. It is not an idol to be worshipped. Our focus should not be the family. Jesus was clear when He said,

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” Matthew 10:34

I am a firm believer in family. I believe we have a duty to our families, but family is not the end all. The God of glory is. We must love our families and cherish and nurture them, but we must never idolize them for they are fallen, just as we are. They are prone to the same sins everyone else is, even the sin of hatred of both God and man. Let us not forget that. If there is one thing we need today in our culture of “We need to do this for the children”, is a biblical call to “Do what we do for the glory of God”. Doing things “for the children” will produce the same type of mentality that was prevailing in the first century and that was an air of superiority, ethnicity, and progeny. In essence, it became a very selfish culture rather than one filled with love and instead of bringing glory to the grace of God, ended up bringing glory to the just wrath of a Holy God.

[1] Gentry, Kenneth, Before Jerusalem Fell, Chapter 5

[2] Quoted from The Great Tribulation: Past or Future, Gentry, Kenneth & Ice, Thomas, pg. 41. This is from the excerpt where Gentry quotes Tacitus from Annals 15:44.

[3] Orosius, The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, 7:7

[4] Frend W H C, The Rise of Christianity, pg. 109

Athanasius on Cessationism, Eschatology, & the Gospel

2006-09-04T18:32:00.000-05:00

I promised I would post a short article concerning cessationism, eschatology and the gospel. Basically, I just wanted to throw out a great quote from Athanasius. I have also given the reference for his work so that you can see the context. I truly think he puts in perspective my own thinking.

“So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come, Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time, because kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed. Moses also prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews shall stand until His time, saying, "A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a prince from his loins, until the things laid up for him shall come and the Expectation of the nations Himself."[1] And that is why the Savior Himself was always proclaiming "The law and the prophets prophesied until John."[2] So if there is still king or prophet or vision among the Jews, they do well to deny that Christ is come; but if there is neither king nor vision, and since that time all prophecy has been sealed and city and temple taken, how can they be so irreligious, how can they so flaunt the facts, as to deny Christ Who has brought it all about? Again, they see the heathen forsaking idols and setting their hopes through Christ on the God of Israel; why do they yet deny Christ Who after the flesh was born of the root of Jesse and reigns henceforward? Of course, if the heathen were worshipping some other god, and not confessing the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses, then they would do well to argue that God had not come. But if the heathen are honoring the same God Who gave the law to Moses and the promises to Abraham—the God Whose word too the Jews dishonored, why do they not recognize or rather why do they deliberately refuse to see that the Lord of Whom the Scriptures prophesied has shone forth to the world and appeared to it in a bodily form? Scripture declares it repeatedly. "The Lord God has appeared to us,"[3] and again, "He sent forth His Word and healed them."[4] And again, "It was no ambassador, no angel who saved us, but the Lord Himself."[5] The Jews are afflicted like some demented person who sees the earth lit up by the sun, but denies the sun that lights it up! What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the Goddenyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.[6]”

Athanasius

On The Incarnation, 6:40

[1] Gen. 49:10

[2] Matt. 11:13

[3] Ps. 118:27

[4] Ps. 107:20

[5] Isa. 63:9

[6] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.vii.html

The Family: God's Weapon for Victory

2006-08-29T05:48:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to post this. God knows I have been meaning to put it up to make some aware of it. The Apologetics Group Conference this year is on the family. The following is a little blip about speakers and sessions for this year's conference and pricing. BTW, next year's conference will be on Bible Prophecy, so those of you interested in the subject may want to make plans to attend, Lord willing. If you are interested in attending just click the title of this post to register.

The 2006 Apologetics Group

Conference on Reformed Theology

We would like to invite you to attend The 2006 Apologetics Group Conference on Reformed Theology to be held October 6-7, 2006 ,
in Draper, VA. Where is Draper? Nestled in the beautiful mountains of Southwest Virginia , Draper is just minutes from the Blue Ridge Parkway . Come and hear inspiring teaching, enjoy great fellowship and experience the spectacular scenery. The registration fee is $30 for singles and $45 per couple. Child care will be provided. Seating is limited, please register early.

"The Family: God's Weapon for Victory"

Speakers

Dr. Thomas Nettles
Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner
Pastor Robert Andrews
Eric Holmberg
Jerry Johnson

Sessions include

The Two Shall Become One: A Theology of Marriage
You May Now Kiss the Bride: Preparing for Marriage
Romance to Death: The War Against Marriage
Aiming our Arrows: Training Covenant Children
The Family: God's Weapon for Victory
Family Worship: Sharpening our Arrows
Laying Down Our Lives: A Husband's Call
America 's War against Manhood: A Biblical Response
Reforming Entertainment: Retreat is not the Answer
Evangelizing our Children: The Do's and Don'ts

Matthew 24 Part 3

2006-08-27T20:23:00.000-05:00

Let me make note that in the last Matthew 24 post, I failed to reference the particular phrase that the Lord makes mention of and that is in verse six. Jesus clearly states that these wars and things that follow are not the end. He merely makes mention of them in relation to the fact that these things will be happening, but that they themselves are not the end, but He does not want the disciples to be troubled by these things.

One thing I want to make mention of. Sometimes we will disagree. I recognize that. Sometimes we might miss something. I recognize that as well. In either case I have always found each of those who comment on my site to be very gracious with our words, even in our passion. If something is stated in the post, but doesn’t wholeheartedly go along with the post (that is it is not the main substance of the post), I don’t mind conversation that takes that issue on. I think it is helpful. So please don’t hesitate to bring it up and let’s dialogue on it.

With that in mind we pick up the next few verses from Matthew 24.

7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

8 "All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Obviously, these verses go in line with the previous ones concerning “wars and rumors of wars”. Notice what is foretold. Nation will rise against nation. The term here for nation is ethnos. It is often translated as Gentiles or nations. All over the know Roman Empire, which spanned many nations and even outside of the Empire such was true. Many ethnic groups were opposed to one another. A Roman historian by the name of Tacitus (A. D. 56-117) writes in his history of the period between Christ’s words and 70 A.D. that there were “disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa,” “commotions in Thrace,” “insurrections in Gaul,” “intrigues among the Parthians,” a “war in Britain,” and a “war in Armenia.” This also began to happen in Jerusalem as well, both from within the ranks of the Jews and outwardly towards the Romans.

What is amazing is that these things were going on during a time of supposed peace. I made note of the fact that this was a time of the famous Pax Romana. However, let us note that this peace was actually an enforced peace. As a matter of fact, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote that there were so many civil wars within the Empire and so common that there was no need to write about them in any great detail stating, “I have omitted to give an exact account of them, because they are well known by all, and they are described by a great number of Greek and Roman authors.”

The fact that there are so many “dooms day” prophets that abound who are pointing to all sorts of wars and rumors of wars today as signs of Christ’s coming is indeed amazing since these things have already happened. They were merely the “beginning of sorrows”. However, these things were not alone and let us once again note that they were not “signs” of Christ’s coming, but rather merely things that would be taking place in the near future and even up until His coming.

What about the other things that Christ spoke of in verse 7? He specifically mentions, “famines, pestilences, and earthquakes”. Did these things take place as Jesus foretold? First we will note that a major famine hit the Roman Empire “in the days of Claudius Caesar”. This was prophesied by Agabus in Acts 11:28. Claudius ruled from A.D. 41 to A.D. 54. Luke uses the phrase “throughout all the world” to describe the reach of the famine. The word used for “world” in this text is not the word kosmos, but is the word oikoumene. This term means “inhabited earth” or “inhabited land”. It is the same word Luke chose to use in his gospel when he said, “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered (Luke 2:1).” The NASB translates it correctly as inhabited earth. This is a clear reference to the Roman Empire. It certainly didn’t apply to the “whole” world. The Chinese weren’t included, nor were the Americas.

Other historians document for us famines that engulfed the land. Here are a couple of citations:

The very famine spoken of in Acts 11 seems to be centered upon Jerusalem and Josephus, calling it “the great famine”[1], said, “a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal.”[2] Josephus mentions many other famines in various places in his writings, both in Antiquities and Wars.[3]

Each of the following quotes comes from the pen of Josephus in writing concerning the Great Tribulation that the Jews endured under the siege by the Romans.

"...others advised to let the banks alone, but to lie still before the city, to guard against the coming out of the Jews, and against their carrying provisions into the city, and so to leave the enemy to the famine, and this without direct fighting with them..."[4]

"But the famine was too hard for all other passions, and it is destructive to nothing so much as to modesty; for what was otherwise worthy of reverence was in this case despised; insomuch that children pulled the very morsels that their fathers were eating out of their very mouths, and, what was still more to be pitied, so did the mothers do as to their infants, and when those that were most dear were perishing under their hands, they were not ashamed to take from them the very last drops that might preserve their lives..."[5]

"Now of those that perished by famine in the city, the number was prodigious, and the miseries they underwent were unspeakable; for if so much as the shadow of any kind of food did anywhere appear, a war was commenced presently, and the dearest friends fell a fighting one with another about it, snatching from each other the most miserable supports of life."[6]

"...Now when they were slaying him, he made this imprecation upon them, that they might undergo both famine and pestilence in this war, and besides all that, they might come to the mutual slaughter of one another; all which imprecations God confirmed against these impious men..."[7]

Tacitus, the Roman historian who wrote around 109 A.D. said in book 12 of his Annals,

“Several prodigies occurred in that year. Birds of evil omen perched on the Capitol; houses were thrown down by frequent shocks of earthquake, and as the panic spread, all the weak were trodden down in the hurry and confusion of the crowd. Scanty crops too, and consequent famine were regarded as a token of calamity. Nor were there merely whispered complaints; while Claudius was administering justice, the populace crowded round him with a boisterous clamour and drove him to a corner of the forum, where they violently pressed on him till he broke through the furious mob with a body of soldiers. It was ascertained that Rome had provisions for no more than fifteen days, and it was through the signal bounty of heaven and the mildness of the winter that its desperate plight was relieved. And yet in past days Italy used to send supplies for the legions into distant provinces, and even now it is not a barren soil which causes distress. But we prefer to cultivate Africa and Egypt, and trust the life of the Roman people to ships and all their risks.”

As for the term pestilences, many of the most reliable manuscripts do not contain the word. However, even if it were present it would not be a problem at all, but would be closely tied to both earthquakes and famines, for it is a reference to plagues. They would clearly follow such disasters.

Therefore, our next word that is used picks up from Jesus’ words and also from those of Tacitus. The word is earthquakes. The term is seismos. This term is used in the gospel of Matthew 8:24 in reference to a storm or tempest that arose on the water, but we find that from the historian’s writings that indeed many earthquakes did abound prior to A.D. 70. For instance we just read previously of Tacitus’ account of an earthquake during a time of famine.

Earthquakes not only went on prior to Christ's words in the gospels, but followed later. Again, the term can include storms, tempests, and literal earthquakes. Probably the most well known earthquake of the New Testament is found in Acts 16. There we read:

25 ¶ But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.
26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed.

Let's not also forget the earthquakes that accompanied both the Lord's death (Matt. 27:54) and His resurrection (Matt. 28:2).

Tacitus also cites, “Apamea, too, which had been shaken by an earthquake, had its tribute remitted for five years.”

Several earthquakes also took place during the reigns of both Caligula (AD 37-41) and Claudius (AD 41-54). Seneca also recorded that several earthquakes took place in Asia, Achaia, Syria, and Macedonia.[8]

John Ellicott in his commentary states, “Perhaps no period in the world’s history has ever been so marked by these convulsions as that which intervenes between the Crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem.”[9]

Josephus in referencing earthquakes during the period of the Jewish War records, “for there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake. These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was put into this disorder; and any one would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.”[10]

Interestingly enough, an earthquake is one of the issues that John MacArthur brings up in his commentary for why the book of Revelation cannot have an early date. He cites an earthquake that happened in 60 AD in the city of Laodicea. H says, “Laodicea, one of the seven churches, was devastated by an earthquake about A.D. 60. For the rest of Nero’s reign, the city was involved in reconstruction, and could hardly be considered “rich… wealthy” and having “need of nothing (3:17). A date during Domitian’s reign would allow time for Laodicea to regain its wealth.”[11]

All I can say is, “John, John, John”, of course with a smile. The historical record contradicts Dr. MacArthur. Some disagree about the timing of this particular earthquake. Some have put it as late as A.D. 66, though most agree with Dr. MacArthur that this did occur in A.D. 60. I have no problem with either. The important thing is to point out the problem with his presupposition and that is because Laodicea was devastated by an earthquake she could not be considered “rich, wealthy, or in need of nothing”.

Tacitus informs us that Laodicea was indeed affected by an earthquake, but refused Roman funding to rebuild and did so through their own resources. He says, “One of the famous cities of Asia, Laodicea, was that same year overthrown by an earthquake, and, without any relief from us, recovered itself by its own resources.”[12] In other words, even after being devastated by an earthquake the city did not rise up like New Orleans and demand federal aid. Rather it took it upon itself as a free city to provide for its own reconstruction. As a matter of fact, a letter from a Laodicean says, “I am happy. I have fortune and I am not in need of anything.”[13]

I know that is a bit off topic, but should enter our thinking in how these two things are tied together (Matthew 24 and Revelation). As I will post shortly, it is this authors conviction that all of the New Testament was written prior to 70AD.

All of these things happened just as Christ said. Not one of the things we have seen, nor the things that follow in the passage failed to come to pass in that generation.

Finally we will note that these are the beginnings of birth pangs. Now, this could be taken in two different ways. First, it could be a reference to the fact that these things are simply the beginning of judgment. Second, they could be the beginning of the end of the Old system, which would be judgment, but also the birth of the kingdom as it comes in power and glory. I think that there is some indication in what follows that the latter is in view. There is both the judgment that is to be poured out according to the Old covenant stipulations laid down by God towards the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy and Leviticus 26 and there is the development of the Messianic kingdom as the old system is done away with. This is not a still birth we are talking about, but one which brings life.

As a father of seven I understand what birth pangs are. Though I cannot and probably never will clearly identify with women in regards to the pain. I can attest to the fact that the farther along the contractions come the more pain it produces, but once the mother is delivered, then the pain is no where near as it was, but rather there is joy in her deliverance and the new child is born. I think this is what is in view here as well. The judgments that fall are like the birth pangs with the deliverance of the kingdom to follow shortly. This seems also to be consistent with Christ's own words towards the Jews, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." (Matt. 21:43)

[1] Antiquities 20:5:2

[2] Antiquities 20:2:5

[3] Antiquities 20:2:6; 20:4:2; Wars 6:3:3

[4] Wars 5:12:1

[5] Wars 5:10:3

[6] Wars 6:3:4

[7] Wars 4:6:1

[8] Epistles 91

[9] Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 8 vols., Charles John Ellicott, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 6:146

[10] Wars 4:4:5

[11] MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Revelation 1-11, pgs. 8-9, 1999 Moody Press

[12] Annals 14:27

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denizli_Province

Blog...........You're it!

2006-08-08T14:08:00.000-05:00

Ok, Nathan has tagged me and explained the rules of engagement. So I'll take up the challenge. I just posted on a few recommendations from the past few months, but I understand that this particular post is to be about specific books in my life. So here they are:

One book that changed your life:
The Fulfilled Family by John MacArthur

One book that you’ve read more than once:
Grace Unknown by R. C. Sproul, Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan

One book you’d want on a desert island:
The Scriptures

One book that made you laugh:
Ten Peas in a Pod, Arnold Pent III. This book made me do a lot of things:)

One book that made you cry:
The Highland Chairman & Hans the Crucified. Yes this is one book put out by Lamplighter publishers. I might also add the third in the series of Crown and Covenant books, Rebel's Keep. I was so choked up that I honestly couldn't read for 5 minutes and so was Denise and a couple of kids.

One book that you wish had been written:
I would love to have a compilation of what early church fathers understood collectively on the subject of eschatology. I think it would be helpful not only in eschatology, but also pertaining to the cessationism discussion. Maybe if I had the time............:)

One book that you wish had never been written:
Chosen But Free. Dr. Geisler is in our immediate local, an is immensely gifted in many areas, but this has to be one of the worst books put out on the subject of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility I have ever read. If he had only written the first chapter and stopped, it would simply be a very, very fine booklet that would glorify God. Sadly, his word processor continued to function and the result was the utter demolishment of any foundation for the first chapter. Talk about a confusing book. I honestly got a headache (which I very rarely get) just trying to understand it, sort of like reading Dave Hunt's responses in Debating Calvinism.

One book you’re currently reading:
The Church Effeminate, various authors (Calvin, Lloyd-Jones, Luther, Spurgeon). Days of Vengeance, David Chilton. Kingdom Prologue, Meredith Kline. A Journey in God's Sovereignty, Richard Belcher

One book you've been meaning to read:
The Letters of Stonewall Jackson to His Wife

Now tag four people:
I would love to hear Hank's lines on this, but since he doesn't actually blog, I thought I might tag Gordan.

Matthew 24 Part 2

2006-08-01T16:45:00.000-05:00

4 ¶ And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you.

5 "For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.

6 "And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Since I think I have already proven the case from the context that Matthew 24 will be dealing with the judgment that would come upon the Jewish people, I think the best route is to simply document it and show how some will look to a “literal” interpretation of certain aspects of Matthew 24 and take it to mean that it couldn’t have happened. I will attempt to demonstrate the biblical hermeneutic in interpreting apocalyptic language. We will also take a look at just how these verses parallel the Book of Revelation, which I don’t think is a problem for too many people, even the dispensationalists.

First thing is first. We must honestly affirm that the disciples’ questions seem to be clear and concise: When are these things (destruction of the temple) going to take place? All three gospels tend to confirm this. Many have written, including one blogger who showed up at the end of our discussions concerning some preliminary thoughts on the millennium, who argued the view of Dr. Thomas Ice concerning a difference between Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Now Dr. Ice is clearly a dispensationalist, so it would definitely fit his framework to distinguish between Luke 21 and Matthew 24. However, I think an honest assessment of the texts bear out that in both accounts it is the same conversation with the same Lord Jesus, the same disciples, and the same subject matter. Indeed Mark 13 is also a parallel to this discussion.

The only gospel writer to not address the issue in his gospel is John. This could be the very reason that he documents the details in the Book of the Revelation. I am already seeing this in regards to my previous study through Daniel and our current study of the gospel of Matthew, which as our able teacher Pastor Davis is taking us through. Actually it is pretty much a synoptic gospel study with Matthew being the focusJ Some of this Revelation parallel will come out in the comments of this post.

Although the question is clear and concise, we must allow for Jesus to answer in any way He sees fit. However, given that Christ has, in fact, set the stage for this discussion with his pronounced judgments against the Pharisees and scribes and immediately left the temple, declaring it to be desolate, and spoke directly to the disciples concerning its destruction, then I think it a fair evaluation to see that Jesus is directly answering the obvious question which would result from all of this.

Let us begin with the first thing that Christ warns of: false Christs. Jesus starts of with the words “Take heed that no one deceives you”. We will note that there were many during the time after the resurrection until the time of the judgment upon Jerusalem that many came claiming to be the Christ and drew many after them. This has significant meaning for Jesus’ audience. For we read that these things are going to come upon “this generation”.

Interestingly enough we find that John warns, in his first epistle, of antichrists. He says that many antichrists have come (1 Jn. 2:18). He speaks primarily of the spirit of antichrist and the doctrine of antichrist (1 Jn. 4:3). This was prevailing during the time up until the destruction of Jerusalem.

Also, the biblical accounts start the ball rolling in the documentation of such things coming to pass. First we will note the first century Pharisee Gamaliel as he addressed the council in Acts 5.

35 And he said to them: "Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men.

36 "For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing.

37 "After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed.

We also read the account of Simon in Acts 8.

9 But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great,

10 to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, "This man is the great power of God."

11 And they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries for a long time.

Let us note some of the comments of the Jewish historian Josephus.

In Judea matters were constantly going from bad to worse. For the country was again infested with bands of brigands and impostors who deceived the mob[i]

Moreover, impostors and deceivers called upon the mob to follow them into the desert. For they said that they would show them unmistakable marvels and signs that would be wrought in harmony with God’s design.[ii]

Deceivers and impostors, under the pretense of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the multitude to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance.[iii]

It seems very apparent from Scripture and from the historical account of Josephus that Christ’s words did in fact come to pass just as He foretold concerning false Christs.

Second we will note that Jesus spoke of wars and rumors of wars. I will not take on all of the dispensationalists claims of increased “stuff”, including wars and rumors of wars as signs of the end. The reason for that is clear from verse 6: See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. Wars are often seen throughout Scripture as God’s judgment upon the nations (Deut. 28:15, 25; Isa. 13:9; 14:30; 19:2; Jer. 4:27; Mic. 3:8-12). Yet Jesus specifically informs the disciples that these things are not to concern them. They should not be troubled by them. Rather they should expect them as part of the time that they live in.

Let’s recount the fact that when Christ came on the scene that the ruling Caesar was Augustus. He took the throne following Julius and was the one who instituted the Pax Romana (peace of Rome). This peace was an enforced peace that began in 17 B.C. Historians tell us that “the peace of the Roman Empire that Augustus established was purchased by monarchy, but it was a real and enduring peace. It embraced the entire Mediterranean world as no constitutional dispensations had ever done before.”[iv]

Interestingly enough, we are told, “in the Roman Empire proper, this period of peace remained comparatively undisturbed until the time of Nero.”[v] It is during his reign that he sends Vespasian into the area of Galilee and the surrounding territories and eventually into Jerusalem, though it would be Titus who would complete the holy city’s destruction. The revolt against the Romans by the Jews was a centerpiece of the breaking of the great Pax Romana, but Rome was already in the midst of civil war at the time. However, it is interesting to note the timing of these events in light of 2 Thessalonians 2 which states,

3 ¶ Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?

6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

This “falling away” is the apostasia. Interestingly the term means, “a falling away, defection, apostasy” and can even refer to a political revolt or simply a rebellion (Note: Many translations render this word in English as “rebellion”. Surely, this applies to a departure from the truth. This was true in Jesus’ day. The Jews had departed from Moses and they were evidencing it by departing from the Truth Himself: Christ. But there is much more to go on as we look back in history, for the departure from the truth leads to a departure against authority.

There is not only a religious apostasy, but there arose a political one as well. We will recall that by the time of Christ tensions were high between Rome and the Jews. The pagans against the people of Israel, who at that time, were God’s people in name only. This was part of the issue that you see coming out as Jesus is to be tried and executed. You see the despising of the Jews by the Romans and vice versa. Eventually this leads many of the Jews to seek to break free of Rome entirely within a generation. As a matter of fact, Josephus even uses the term apostasia (translated revolt) in his autobiography.[vi]

So we seem to have a good picture here. There will be false christs who deceive many and lead them astray. A departure from the truth will give way to a departure from authority. Obviously, this will bring with it wars, which I will save some of the details for some notes from Revelation in the futureJ These wars will then bring on the next things that Jesus prophecies.

[i] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, 20:5:5

[ii] Ibid, 20:5:6

[iii] Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2:13:4

[iv] G. W. Bowersock, Fiction as History: Nero to Julian, pg. 29

[v] Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 BC to 100 AD, pg. 110

[vi] Falvius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, 4

Response to Tim LaHaye Interview

2006-08-01T16:43:00.000-05:00

So Nathan has pointed us to a recent article by Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind money maker project.  For years now, LaHaye has been viewed as a Bible prophecy expert, even putting out his own Prophecy Study Bible.  Along with Jerry Jenkins, LaHaye has sold millions of copies of the Left Behind series and finally completed the series about a year ago.  Now they have pressed on with a new series along the same lines.  My first question is:  Is there any balance of biblical theology in this man’s life.  Some might ask me the same thing, since in recent days I have been preoccupied with biblical eschatology.  The difference is this:  I am trying to exegete books of the Bible, not try to cut and paste them together.  I am doing it in order that I might properly understand what the issues are and thereby be able to refute those who err, not make money off of biblical fiction (if there is such a thing).

With that in mind, it looks like we are in for another round of “Pin the tail on the Anti-christ”.  A recent interview with LaHaye with Newsweek’s Brian Braiker is online as of right now.  I just wanted to make a few comments in regards to this.  The first one will be very blunt:  When are we going to call men like LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, Jimmy Deyoung, Jack van Impe and others on their teachings?  At what point in the future can we say they are false prophets or teachers?  I say the time came many years ago and continues till today and if the Lord should tarry and the world continues another 100 or 1000 years, then they would clearly be seen as such.

I will note that there is absolutely no Scripture that is referenced in the entire interview.  Also, the gospel is simply whittled down to “Call upon the name of the Lord”.   There is no clear point to the eschatology, except the Jesus returns, which I do think is significant, but I am trying to understand, why is there a 7 year Tribulation?  What is an Anti-christ?  What is a rapture?  All of these things and more are what someone who might not be familiar with Left Behind or had run ins with Dispensationalists might have, not to mention the “why” of calling upon the name of the LORD (the gospel).  This may or may not be LaHaye’s fault.  It could simply be the editor’s choice, but I tend to see that LaHaye is more preoccupied with eschatology, than in the gospel that drives the eschatology, which is the gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of Jesus Christ.  We must see how eschatology fits with the gospel, for it is extremely important to see Jesus as the Christ.  I am in the process of doing that now in some of my posts on Matthew and soon to follow Revelation, so I will not deal with that here.

The intro of the interview

The introduction to the interview starts out with this line:

The controversial books (referring to the Left Behind series), which have sold more than 60 million copies, depict the biblical end of the world, the Christian eschatology of the upheaval that precedes the second coming of Jesus Christ, known also as the “end times.” (emphasis mine)

I have a huge problem with LaHaye’s views on eschatology being defined as “the biblical” end of the world and “the Christian” eschatology.  This is simply not the case.  Simply because there are plenty of people who buy his books doesn’t make these things so.  Neither does the fact that many people across denominational lines holding to such views make them biblical or Christian.  That is simply faulty.  It should be stated as what it is:  The Dispensational view of eschatology, not the biblical one.

One should remember that for the Dispensationalist they don’t see any signs concerning a “secret” rapture, but instead see signs for the return of Christ.  Again, I don’t see this as biblical.  There is nothing in Scripture that would lead us to believe that the rapture and the Second Coming are separated by a gap of 7 years, nor are there signs of the Second Advent.

When asked if he sees the things going on in the Middle East as evidence of the end of days, LaHaye responds, “Biblically speaking, the very nations that are mentioned in prophecy—and have been mentioned for 2,500 years as occupying the focus of the tension of the last days—are the very nations that are involved in the conflict right now.  That may be one of the reasons there’s a sudden interest in bible prophecy because all of a sudden they realize end-time events could possibly take place and break forth right now” (emphasis mine).  Again, notice what is said.  Theses tensions among the same people have been going on for over 2,500 years according to LaHaye.  Actually they have been going on from before that.  Clearly Sarah and Hagar had tensions.  Isaac and Ishmael had tensions.  Israel and the nations around here had tensions.  There were tensions between Egypt and Israel.  On and on we could go even before that between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent we could reference, indicating the conflict between the people of God and the people against God.  As a caveat LaHaye throws in the words “could possibly”.  However, he definitely believes this is the way things will pan out ultimately.  Also, this is far from sudden interest.  How many times will unbelievers listen to you cry “Wolf”, until they finally say, “This guy obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about”?

He is then has a statement delivered to him, “But first century Christians believed that the end of the world could come during their lifetime.”

LaHaye completely sidesteps the issue by launching into a statement about imminency.  This totally misses the point.  It is an exegetical and hermeneutical fallacy on the part of LaHaye.  The generation that lived at the time of Christ was expecting the “world to come to an end”.  This was biblical imagery for the culture setting, nationality, and religious system of the Old Testament.  It was to be done away with just as Jesus said in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.  In fact immanency was not a particular part of the early church’s expectation for a number of reasons.  First, they knew that the Lord Jesus had told Peter how he would die in John 21.  Also we know that through Jesus’ own words in the gospels concerning his judgment upon Jerusalem and the specific words of Christ to Paul in Acts that the “imminent” return of Christ was not held by the church in the generation living at the time of Christ.  What Dispensationalists miss is that Christ is IMMINANT.  We live Coram Deo (before the face of God).

The question logically follows from the interviewer:  “Couldn’t almost anything then be taken as a clue that any point in history might be the end times?”

LaHaye responds, “Down through the years that’s true.  But never the accumulation of events as we have today.  I have often said that no one knows the day nor the hour that Christ will come, but no generation has had so many signs of the times as our generation.  We have more reason to believe that Christ could come in our lifetime than any generation before us (emphasis mine).

And what signs are those Mr. LaHaye?  Are you going to point to Matthew 24 for those signs?  If so, then you have just shown that problem in your exegesis.  If you are going to point to Revelation, I believe you will have shown problems in your hermeneutic and exegesis.  There is no more reason to expect Christ’s coming today than there was 100 years ago, because quite frankly, Christ was clear and so were His apostles that we simply be ready, praying, and watching.  If there is any sign, it is the sign of mass apostasy, and remember that is not just in America, it is throughout the world among those in the visible church.

The interviewer then brings this up, “But my understanding is that current biblical scholarship reads some of the apocalyptic scenes in the Bible as metaphorically addressing events that were taking place as the Bible was being written.”

Sad to say, but LaHaye plays uses the “L” word.  No he wasn’t talking about a show on Showtime.  He said this belonged to liberal theologians.  “These are usually liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally.”  That is simply nonsense.  I could point to a number of theologians past and present who would take this position (R. C. Sproul, Ken Gentry, Gary Demar, Gene Cook Jr., Tim Brown(, etc.).  Are these to be considered liberal??  Please.  Mr. LaHaye simply does not understand the biblical hermeneutic that is applied and he does not understand the position or he would not say such things.

But, he continues in with a “we” “they” statement concerning how it was written against Rome.  I think the interviewer should have been a little more guided in this statement.  For many of us who read Revelation do so understanding what is said concerning Rome and also see it as judgment against the nation of Israel.  He says, “We believe the Bible should be understood literally whenever possible (emphasis mine).”  I wonder if he considers Revelation 1:1-3 to be literal and I wonder what he specifically means by "whenever possible"?  I take Revelation literally.  However, I understand that it is using Old Testament imagery language to communicate a literal message, just as the prophets of old did.

He then states this incredible contradiction.  “The next big event is the second coming of Christ”, but then follows it in the very next sentence with it being preceded by a number of signs and then says just a few sentences before that that the Antichrist comes and sits in his kingdom and also that the Rapture occurs before that.  He then follows with a one world economy, one world government, and a one world religion.  Come now.  That seems like much more than the next big event.  However, we must point out that the Dispensationalist has two comings in the Second Coming (the rapture and the Second Coming (I don’t know what they would call that)).  So, the next big event is not the Second Coming, it’s, I guess, the rapture, or a number of other signs.

The interviewer then states, “Really?  It seems we’re a ways off from a one world religion.”  LaHaye responds, “That’s the least developed”.  What??!!  The least developed?  Hold on there partner, I’ve rode that horse before.  There are only two religions in this world:  The one grace of God atonement religion and the one world religion of man’s attainment.  So no matter if you are Muslim, Buddhist, Confusionist, Roman Catholic, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Seventh-Day Adventist, Arminian or any other man centered religion, you are a part of the one world religion and it has not waited till the end of earth’s history to be developed.  It was developed back in the Garden of Eden when Adam thought he could make it own his own apart from God and God’s Law.  This is the distinction between the gospel of the grace of God and the works righteousness that man tries to attain through various things (baptism, good works, confession, etc.).  The world is truly divided between those whom God saves and saves by the work of Jesus Christ alone and those who are attempting to save themselves by their own thinking, wills and efforts.

LaHaye is then asked about the threat of secular humanism.  He says, “Part of the opposition to our position is from the secular humanists, but part of it is from the liberal people of theology that reject the Bible.  I don’t see a great difference between them.  Their basic conclusions are often the same (emphasis mine).”  It appears that he leaves no room for those who are faithful exegetes of Scripture who are against his position other than liberals or secular humanists.  Again, that simply is not true.  If you hold to Dispensational theology, in my opinion, I think you are far from biblical theology, which also means you are farther from a biblical eschatology.

Let me say this:  THE CHURCH HAS EXPRESSED REFORM IN MANY AREAS.  NOW IS THE TIME FOR REFORMATION IN THE AREA OF ESCHATOLOGY.  OUR FATHERS HAVE HASHED OUT SOTERIOLOGY, CANONIZATION, CHRISTOLOGY, ANGELOLOGY, AND MANY OTHER AREAS, BUT WE NEED ESCHATALOGICAL REFORMATION!

LaHaye then goes on about millions being saved during the Tribulation, through 144,000 Jewish converts.  Now how these Jews become Christian is a mystery.  After all he states that the church is gone before this happens.  Who will preach to these and bring them to Christ?  How will they be saved?

Ro 10:14  How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Then as a result of these Jewish “evangelists”, millions will come to Christ.  Again, am I missing something or has Christ not torn down a wall of partition between Jew and Gentile in Christ?
Ga 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Let me make one thing clear.  There are only one people of God.  There is only one Israel.  Israel is made up in the Old Testament of primarily Jews, but in the New Testament, unbelieving Jews are referred to by Paul in Romans 11 as those branches that are cut of from Israel and now Israel (the ecclesia, the church, the people of God) is composed of believers from both Jews and Gentiles (predominantly Gentiles).  God has not forsaken His people.  If there are believing ethnic Jews, which honestly I question, then they come into the Church the same way a Gentile does and that is through Jesus Christ.  But Dispensationalism does not believe that those saved during the Tribulation are of the church.  Rather they view them outside the Church and refer to them as Tribulation saints.  There is a huge glaring disconnect with the rest of Scripture.

Here is where we will see one portion of how our eschatology impacts politics and life.  The interviewer asks, “Does this explain how living right with God, in a Christian sense, would entail supporting the Israeli state right now?”  LaHaye’s response is classic Dispensationalism.  “I think those two things are related.  Christians who take the Bible literally are generally supportive of Israel because God promises to bless those nations that are a blessing to Israel and curse those nations that are not.  And the history of America bears that out. (emphasis mine)”

Where Mr. LaHaye does the history of America bear this out??  Not only that, but the New Testament says that we are the children of Abraham

Gal. 3:7  Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

Paul goes on to show that the Church is Israel.

Gal. 6:16  And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

He states that those who are of faith are the true circumcision and are the true Jews.

Romans 9:6 ¶  But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7  nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8  That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

National Israel, as it exists today is a geo-political entity.  It is not the fulfillment of prophecy.  It is the result of faulty dispensational-backed eschatology.  I certainly don’t say this without supporting the nation itself.  They are a sovereign nation and have every right to defend their borders and no other nation should tell them otherwise, but our government has no business putting its nose in their business.  As Michael Peroutka once said, referencing a proverb, “A man who puts his nose in another’s business is like a man who picks up a dog by his ears.”  It’s time to let go of the dog(

When asked whether or not the state of Israel is just what I stated LaHaye responded with, “No, that’s just a third of the number of Jews in the world.”  The interviewer was trying to understand the disconnect between “Jews” spread across the world and the state of Israel.  He was asking a good question.  However, LaHaye really misses the point and if he were to give his eschatology in full, he would also state that he believes 2/3’s of the Jews will be slaughtered during the Tribulation.  It doesn’t sound like a bright future if you are Jewish.  Also, it tends to not take such passages as Romans11:26  “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob”, as literal does it?

Later he shows his inconsistency in this understanding by stating, “…during the Tribulation period, there’ll be a sea change, and many Jews will accept Christ.  Not all.  Again, it’s an individual decision (emphasis mine).  From his commentary, you would think it would be a God decision.  He said all Israel would be saved.  Does that not imply all without exception?  In the reformed view, which he opposes, we clearly see that all Israel refers to all of God’s elect people, which is consistent with our theology.

They then got into some silly stuff about a hockey rink at Liberty University.  I wonder if Dr. Caner will be involved in that.  Maybe he can teach his hockey team how to smash those nasty Calvinists(  Dr. Caner definitely might even put on some pads and skates and get into a little scuffle on the ice.  I would love to see that.  He’s definitely built for it and seems to have the adrenaline and passion for it.  Pardon me……we are on hockey…..Go Canes!!!

He was asked about his investment in the rink since he believes the way he does.  I must admit it seems odd.  If you are so serious about these things that are soon to take place why waste time with games and gimmicks.  Why not let your preaching be serious and present a gospel that can save and bring life to sinners who are dead in their trespasses and sins?

In any case, I want to say that Mr. LaHaye may be a brilliant man in other areas.  He may be personably likeable.  He may even have good intentions (the road to Hell……well you know).  I am not questioning his motives.  I seriously don’t know if he writes all those books for money or not.  But he is in desperate need of repentance in this area and correction.  I truly hope that God would bring someone into his life to help him see his error and that God would grant repentance, so that he might boldly shine forth the truth and give God the glory.

Recommendations

2006-07-30T18:26:00.000-05:00

Well it’s been awhile since I have had an opportunity to recommend some books or things to listen to and so I thought I would take his time to put forth a few recommendations of things we have read or listened to in the past couple of months. I will have my second post on Matthew 24 up in just a couple of days.

The first recommendation is a book called Ten P’s in a Pod A Million-mile Journal of the Arnold Pent Family written by Arnold Pent III. This book is right at 200 pages and our family enjoyed it over a couple of weeks each night before we read the scriptures together before bed. It was wonderful to read how the family work together played together and minister together. Clearly it seems the mother and father sought to train their children in the nurturer and admonition of the lord. It doesn’t seem that the children were rebellious towards them or their training in any way. This book is taken from the diary of our hope and the third, one of eight children. Though his father may not have been reformed, he definitely lived a life that appeared to be one of trusting god for even the smallest things of life. You’ll be amazed encouraged and even convicted at the tremendous amount of love for the word of a lot that the Pent family had. They were constantly reading the Scriptures in memorizing the Scriptures and quoting the Scriptures from memory. They have determined that by the time each child turned eighteen that they had spent over 20,000 hours reading and memorizing Scripture. In fact, one of the boys could quote the entire New Testament from memory while several of the children could finish any verse in the Bible when others began the quote of a certain passage. Our family enjoyed this book and I am sure yours will too. I wholeheartedly recommend this book for you and your family. P.S. this sounds like the manifestation of the kind of persons who hold Psalm 119 dear to their heart(

Second I would recommend to new books from doctor Richard Belcher. Both books are what we would call theological novels. They are A Journey in Faith and A Journey in God’s Sovereignty. My children love these stories of adventure and the study of God’s Word with the fictional characters Ira Fife Pointer and Dink. I would highly recommend any of the books in the “Journey” series by Dr. Belcher. He came and spoke to us back in January of this year and I found him to be a true delight and faithful man of God. Though he is 70, he is as full of life, passion and a love for God and His Word as any young man today. I’m sure young and old alike will enjoy and benefit from these books.

We also finished up the Crown and Covenant books by Douglas Bond. Again, these were wonderful God honoring stories based in a real historical setting around the famous Scottish Covenanters. Real historical events and real historical people are mixed in with fictional characters from a student and teacher of Scottish Covenant history. You will simply fall in love with Duncan, Angus, and their father Sandy M’Kethe and they seek to survive amidst the king’s dragoons and the struggle against the temptations of the flesh and the false religious system of the papacy. There are three in the series: Duncan’s War, King’s Arrow, & Rebel’s Keep. I must confess that near the end of the third volume I was so choked up that it took several minutes for me to gain my composure. Denise was also very moved. Your children will love these, especially your boys.

We also finished up Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot. We read this in preparation for viewing the film End of the Spear. Personally, I found both to be very edifying, though the book was much more detailed and inspiring. It was good to see how God brought all of the missionaries together with different talents and abilities that complimented one another and helped them attain their goal of seeking to bring the gospel to the Aucas. I enjoyed the film, though I thought they made Jim Elliot look pretty silly, which I would never have viewed him as. Also, though the film does not contain a complete gospel and I don’t think that was its intention, as I recall I don’t know that a complete gospel was presented in Elliot’s book either. Elliot’s book presents the story from the missionaries and their wives perspective, while the film presents the perspective of the Aucas. The book we read was the 40th anniversary edition which had a great appendix added for the 40th anniversary of the story. I thought in that reflection Elizabeth Elliot was honest and forthright about the missionaries and the sovereignty of God. This is really a blessing to read.

On a personal level of late, I have read Ken Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. Also, I have begun David Chilton’s work, Days of Vengeance, which is a commentary on the Book of Revelation and am looking forward to reading a gift from my friend Hank titled, Kingdom Prologue by Meredith Kline. Earlier this year I also finished John Sarfati’s work Refuting Compromise in which he demonstrated the problems that arise with the old earth theory, in particular refuting Hugh Ross’ comments concerning the issue and Three Views of the Millenium and Beyond. There are several books in my library that have not been read yet. However, one that I am eager to sit down with an read is The Marketing of Evil by David Kupellan. I heard it was a good book, so if you have read it and feel it is not, please save me from wasting my time( I was recommended a book titled Romanced to Death by Paul deParrie last year and found it to be an excellent expose against the raging sexual craze of our western culture. Though it is out of print you can obtain it through some resources such as Amazon.com, or possibly Homewardbooks.com (shameless plug:), via an email.

Recently, I caught a great sermon by Pastor Roy Hargrave titled An Idol Called Evangelism. This sermon is a wonderful complement to another recommended book from the past, Evangelicalism Divided. Pastor Hargrave’s citations of Charles Finney are right on and in my opinion, downright frightening. Today’s Finney follower, most of which can be found in the SBC, should seriously consider Finney’s legacy and what it led to and the biblical concerns that Pastor Hargrave presents.

Finally: Software stuff. I found a great PDF creator for free without advertising through Sourceforge.net. Sourceforge.net is a great site that brings together people from all walks of life to develop a variety of software for free, where everyone contributes and everyone benefits. This PDF Creator can be obtained here.

By the way, they finally got the Homewardbooks site up, but I will probably not go with the new setup. The company who sold the store is now trying to dip their hands into my pockets further through extra transaction fees, which in my opinion, they simply are not entitled to after taking me for over $300 and not offering a refund when after many months they were down and could not provide service paid for. WARNING: Stay away from SPREADTHEWORD.COM.

Finally, I wanted to let some of you know about the Apologetics Group’s conference on Reformed theology in Draper, VA in October. Last year’s was great on the subject of Amazing Grace. This year’s conference is on The Family: God’s Weapon for Victory. If you can attend, I’m sure it will be a great blessing and instruction from God’s Word.

A Concise Illustration Regarding the Alcohol Issue

2006-07-15T08:08:00.000-05:00

Josh Buice has wrapped up this month's posting regarding alcohol. After coming to the end One gentleman replied with these words:

David I have seen the destruction of what alcohol does and how it will work as an evil in peoples lives ! It starts with that one little drink and before you know its 2 - 3 -4 - or more before you know it ? I COMPARE IT SORT OF SPEAK WITH A GOOD OLD SOUTH GA PEACH COBBLER YOU CAN;T EAT JUST ONE BOWL ? Reading through all the comments that was posted I can;t really tell if you and Josh came to an agreement of what the scripture says . In my opinion it should have been accepted as it is because it is the word of GOD and JESUS is the only perfect being that walked on earth. whether it be fermented or juice of the vine history tells us that the water was unsafe to drink and that is to be accepted as one of GODS blessings that he supplied to the people of the land ? The question about whether JESUS gave drunk men wine I would think that JESUS would not have tolerated doing that !

Now I want to point out that there was respectful conversation going on at the site, which I really appreciate among brethren and this brother was no exception. However, to help make the point clear I tried to give a clear and concise illustration regarding the line between gifts from God and the sinnner turning those gifts into sin. I think this is a way we might help others to understand exactly the position that many of us would take. Here's my response:

Let me see if we can be a little clearer. You stated that you have seen the destruction alcohol brings. Let me correct you. You have seen the destruction that drunkards bring by sinning in their drunkenness. Alcohol does nothing in itself. That's like the argument that guns kill people. No. People kill other people with guns. However, guns can be of great use for protection. The problem is with the sinner.

Other instances we could site:

God gives food, but commands us not to be gluttons.

God made women, but commands men not to lust after them, nor fornicate, nor commit adultery

God has graciously provided, possessions, but commands not to steal.

God gives us times of rest, yet commands us not to be lazy.

God gives us work, yet commands that there be times of rest.

You see there is a clear line between a gift from God and our evil intentions turning that gift into sin.

SBC resolution on Alcohol

2006-07-09T20:31:00.000-05:00

Ok, I know I’m a bit late on this, but recent conversations have sparked some thought output concerning the following SBC resolution. I must say that in light of the resolution that Dr. Ascol submitted, I am not surprised that his did not find its way into the “popularity” of resolutions offered. Resolutions

Resolution No. 5ON ALCOHOL USE IN AMERICAWHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); andWHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; andWHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; andWHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; andWHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be itRESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it furtherRESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages. RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it furtherRESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finallyRESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

Now, I must confess that much of the resolution I agree with. Alcohol, in the main, is destructive when abused. There is no question. There is also no question that the Bible warns of the sins that may come from alcoholic beverages.

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

Proverbs 23:30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.
34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:
35 "They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?"

The Old Testament is filled with instruction for kings and priests concerning the use of strong wine and drink. They are warned about its abuse and the priests are specifically instructed not to partake of it when they are entering into the tabernacle to perform their duties.

Le 10:9 "Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations,

Proverbs 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink; 5Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.

There are numerous passages that those who have dealt with the subject have pointed out. Almost all Hebrew and Greek dictionaries along with subsequent lexicons will point to the fact that teetotalerism (sic) is pressed, no pun intended, upon the text. For an honest examination of the subject matter would point to the fact that wine was clearly not forbidden to men. Rather, men were to be on guard against its abuse.

Vwryt is the Hebrew word used to express wine or freshly pressed grapes, such as fresh squeezed grape juice.

Nyy is the Hebrew word used to speak of wine. It appears that this is in reference to grape juice with alcoholic content for its use is often alongside strong drink. Its Greek equivalent is oinov, which is often used in the New Testament and translated as wine.

Several interesting contrasts happen in Scripture to show forth that alcoholic wine was in use by the Hebrews by the term Nyy. I will note that many of the exegetical gymnastics to make the terms of the Scripture alcohol in one sense and then non-alcoholic in another simply strike me as an attempt to read into the text something that isn’t there.

Two instances I will point to will make the point.

1 Samuel 1:9 ¶ So Hannah arose after they had finished eating and drinking in Shiloh. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat by the doorpost of the tabernacle of the LORD.
10 And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed to the LORD and wept in anguish.
11 Then she made a vow and said, "O LORD of hosts, if You will indeed look on the affliction of Your maidservant and remember me, and not forget Your maidservant, but will give Your maidservant a male child, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head."
12 And it happened, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli watched her mouth.
13 Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli thought she was drunk.
14 So Eli said to her, "How long will you be drunk? Put your wine away from you!"
15 And Hannah answered and said, "No, my lord, I am a woman of sorrowful spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor intoxicating drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.
16 "Do not consider your maidservant a wicked woman, for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief I have spoken until now."

The word Nyy is used here and is clearly alcoholic since Eli believes her to be drunk, yet she speaks of the fact that she has not partaken of wine or strong drink. It is not a stretch to assume that she refers to beverages with alcoholic properties. However, we will note that in 1Samuel 1:24 we see that she brings an offering to the Lord which contains the very thing that she referred to as not partaking of when accused of being drunk.

Now when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bulls, one ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the LORD in Shiloh. And the child was young.

A question that arises in my mind is this for those who are the “teetotalers”, why is a fermented drink acceptable to God? True we do not see Hannah partaking, but we find her, in fact, offering it to God.

The second illustration I would offer clearly points to fermented grape juice in the Nazarite vow found in Numbers 6

2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD,
3 ‘he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins.
4 ‘All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin.

Now notice that there is a clear distinction between what is alcoholic (wine) and sour wine (vinegar) and grape juice and even the fruit. The glaring question in this vow is what is special concerning abstinence from the fruit of the vine as an indication of separation unto the Lord? Is this to be completely different from the rest of the congregation of the Lord? This would seem consistent in the context of the passage.

There is a very serious dealing with the use of the terms and the dividing line between partaking of alcohol and the sin of drunkenness in a recommended book God Gave Wine by Ken Gentry.
All in all, I personally support much of the resolution, but think it goes beyond what Scripture actually says and lumps those who might partake in a manner that does not intoxicate as though they are in fact committing sin. With that said, I want to stress what the apostle Paul said.

Romans 14:16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil;
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.

In stating this, for those of my brothers who do choose to partake of alcoholic beverages, remember that in your liberty, you are to consider the weaker brother. The same apostle that wrote the words above also concluded with,

19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.
21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

Let not our liberty be judged by another (1 Cor. 10:29-33), but may our sin be evident to everyone. Let us love our brothers and take measures wherein the same apostle told us that all things are lawful, but all things are not profitable. This is wise counsel from the Scriptures. Let us not boast and flaunt our liberty, but consider those who are weaker in the faith, for the former puffs up, but the latter shows forth love.

In conclusion, drunkenness is clearly condemned in Scripture and we find that drunkards are found outside the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 24:49; 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal 5:21). Drunkenness is something many believers find as part of their past life and something that the Scriptures call us away from (Rom. 13:13). When drunkenness occurs among believers, then there is clear warrant in Scripture for calling them to repentance no matter how loud they cry “liberty”. May God give His people wisdom rather than simply following the rally cries of those within the SBC, no matter how well meaning they are.

If I might add one last thing to the mix. Over at Josh Buice's PTD it seems this has flared up as well. I like Josh and appreciate his insights, but I find that he is attempting to justify teetotalerism (sic) in John 2 against the cries of those, who are just as wrong, who seek to justify wine consumption from John 2. If you exegete John 2, the point of the passage is not "to drink or not to drink", the point is the power of Christ in the miracle He performs. Attempting to argue this issue from John 2 is like those who attempt to argue the atonement from 2 Peter 2:1 and it just doesn't seem to make sense to me:)