God has given me many wonderful friends. You, the reader, are probably one of those friends or, perhaps, you landed on this blog and know little or nothing about me. You have probably noticed that I have not done a profile. Sometimes a friend will ask me what my favorite this or that is. Here are some favorites.
Translation of the Bible: The original New International Version of 1978. The most thorough and largest effort ever at bringing Scripture into the English language. One hundred and five highly qualified translators from many denominations, plus reviewers for style (like the late Elisabeth Elliot) with multiple cross checks of each others' work. It was well on the way to being the commonly used Bible in the English speaking world until the Committee on Bible Translation, that controls the text, gradually sabotaged it. No one seems to have told them "don't fix something if it is not broken". The changes to the text in 1984 were, fortunately, comparatively few. But by 2011 the Committee made radical changes, some of them justified of course, but confidence in the newest NIV was less and less. Evangelicals in droves went to the ESV and so we are deeper than ever into disunity on the wording of Scripture. ALL CHANGES IN THE NIV SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE FOOTNOTES AND THE TEXT OF 1978 SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT ALONE FOR AT LEAST FIVE GENERATIONS WITH NO MORE THAN ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF ONE PERCENT CHANGE IN THE TEXT IN ONE HUNDRED YEARS!!!!!! (More on this another day.)
Commentary on the whole Bible: The Expositors Bible Commentary; Editor - Frank Gaebelein; 12 volumes; based on the NIV text and many of the contributors were also NIV translators; published one volume at a time from 1979-1992. Once again, someone cannot leave a good thing alone and I understand the publishers have been tinkering with this also. Buy the original.
Food: I enjoy a great variety. I love good fish, salads, fresh fruits and vegetables. An apple a day is shear joy. I would rather have good breads (French, rye, etc.) than cakes. But I like my cake without frosting unless it is chocolate and that not too often.
Recreation, sports, etc.: I love being in the woods and fields. I grew up doing a lot of hunting - fox hunting with a good hound on fresh fallen snow was my favorite. I enjoy hunting now only when it is with a friend or friends. I regularly enjoy loading ammunition and going back to the range and test firing loads for accuracy. The word for "sin" in the original text of Scripture is derived from a word meaning "to miss the mark". Shooting at paper bulls eyes reminds me to 'hit the mark' in doing the will of God. I have little interest in most spectator sports. I often say, only half jokingly, I would rather watch paint dry.
Music: On one end of the spectrum - Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven. On the other end of the spectrum - bluegrass. Readers of my Facebook posts know that I have taken up playing the organ again after about a half century away from it. Talk about being rusty! In praise and worship music I am partial to orchestras and choirs with bold, majestic sounds whether the praise music is old or new. Greatest choral music ever - "Messiah" by Handel. Greatest instrumental music ever - Symphony No. 5 by L. Beethoven. Greatest organ composition ever - Toccata and Fugue in D minor by J.S. Bach. It became even more glorious when it was scored for orchestra in the Disney movie "Fantasia". Best bluegrass - "Orange Blossom Special".
Books: Those of an historical nature - Billy Graham's autobiography, "Just As I Am" and David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman ("Truman") for example, because much that is in books like that happened in my lifetime. Generally, I want to know as much history as I can, even that which some consider trivial, because it is much more interesting than fiction and because I use it to try to make teaching/preaching the Scriptures as interesting as I possibly can. The same applies to movies and T.V. I much prefer documentaries or at least docudramas that are accurate. For the most part I detest watching actors act.
Cars and trucks: Several decades ago I would have said anything Mopar (Chrysler products). Up until the 70's Chrysler engines and transmissions ruled. Now, I will take Toyota, thank you. I think Toyota is now what Chrysler was in quality 50 years ago.
Favorite Christian speakers/teachers now living: William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox and Hugh Ross. (Three apologists and one scientist). Least favorite Christian speakers/writers: Sorry! My time is up. Got to go. Blessings.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Sunday, November 15, 2015
NOT PRAYING FOR PARIS
OK. So the title is true only in one particular sense and not totally true. If you feel a little bit tricked into reading something just because of a catchy title please stay with me a bit longer and let's see if we can make this worth your while. If by "praying for Paris" is meant some vague, general sense of "God bless the Parisians" or "Bless the people of France", I (and you) can do better. But stop! A prayer like those two examples is not to be despised. All of our praying (even that of the 'most spiritual' among us) often needs editing by the Holy Spirit. "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will." (Romans 8:26&27)
The news came that France had been hit by the worst blow since World War II. In fact they had lost more lives and suffered a worse national set back when the Vietnamese communists defeated them in 1954 in what was then called French Indochina. The U.S. had been financing France's war against Ho Chi Minh's forces on the rationale that communism must be 'contained' in the post World War II years. But communism or no communism the anti colonial spirit was working against the French and ultimately against the U.S. The one bright spot in all that war and death was expressed to me more than 20 years ago by someone who had been in the Gospel ministry in an Asian country for many years. He said that the sacrifices of the 57,000 plus Americans who died in Viet Nam had bought precious time for the believers in that land to prepare to live under Communist tyranny. I never miss a chance to tell this to a Viet Nam veteran.
So, what is a good way to pray at this moment. "Lord please pour out Your Spirit in great grace and power on believers, the Body of Christ, in France. Strengthen Your people there that they may speak Your word with great power into this moment of history. Give them, Father, many open doors of effective witness. Open the hearts of many thousands of French men, women and children to the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus. Father, may this moment of great grief, fear and uncertainty in that country not be wasted. May it be redeemed by many thousands turning to You through complete trust in Your One and Only Son, the Lord Jesus. May this move of your Spirit extend to all of the French people, even the leadership of the dominant Church. May they be profoundly moved to return to the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith apart from works. May they be moved by You to turn away from hollow religious tradition and may they lead their people in this way. And, Father, may that same gracious, all powerful move of Your Spirit extend to the United States, our leaders, our churches and the great mass of Americans who now have no place for You in all their thoughts. May this extend to England, throughout western Europe and to Islamic lands where many thousands are already turning to the Lord Jesus. In His Name. Amen"
The French people have had a lot 'stacked against them', in a spiritual sense, for many centuries. Their country has seen very little of authentic, biblical expressions of Christianity. Listen to what one historian said: "In Gaul (now called France), Clovis, pagan king of the Franks, married a Catholic Christian princess and was converted to orthodox Christianity in 496 A.D. This proved extremely significant for Christianity in the West. . . (but) it changed neither Clovis' character nor his reign, which continued to prosper on its treachery, brutality and murder." So the attacks this week were not the first of that kind inflicted on the French people. Listen to another historian speaking of Clovis' 'conversion' to Christianity: "This event points up the general pattern of early medieval conversions. The change to Christianity was essentially a matter of royal policy. The ruler's conversion decided the religion of his subjects." So, since the king is a 'Christian' that makes all of us 'Christians'.
The first Islamic invasion of Gaul (France) was stopped dead in 732 A.D. by Frankish armies under Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. The current crop of Islamic warriors are a kind of hybrid that combines the two evil empires of World War II with the demonic doctrines of Mohammed. They are like Nazis ("death to the Jews") and they are like the Japanese Kamikaze suicide pilots. How significant that Islamic leaders and countries were so sympathetic to Hitler. And how significant that the President of the U.S. once referred to Mohammed as "the holy prophet".
"Both in individual nations and in the overall world the widespread use of political terrorism has become one of the phenomena of the age. Random and indiscriminate terrorism is even more frightening. Similarly alarming are the indications that terrorist organizations from all over the world have in some way coordinated their efforts. We have already seen indications of how people give up liberties when they are faced with the threat of terrorism." Those words were written nearly 40 years ago by the late Francis Schaeffer. He also said, "In such circumstances, it seems that there are only two alternatives in the natural flow of events: first, imposed order (loss of freedom) or, second, our society once again affirming that base which gave freedom without chaos in the first place -- God's revelation in the Bible and his revelation through Christ."
"The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace."
The news came that France had been hit by the worst blow since World War II. In fact they had lost more lives and suffered a worse national set back when the Vietnamese communists defeated them in 1954 in what was then called French Indochina. The U.S. had been financing France's war against Ho Chi Minh's forces on the rationale that communism must be 'contained' in the post World War II years. But communism or no communism the anti colonial spirit was working against the French and ultimately against the U.S. The one bright spot in all that war and death was expressed to me more than 20 years ago by someone who had been in the Gospel ministry in an Asian country for many years. He said that the sacrifices of the 57,000 plus Americans who died in Viet Nam had bought precious time for the believers in that land to prepare to live under Communist tyranny. I never miss a chance to tell this to a Viet Nam veteran.
So, what is a good way to pray at this moment. "Lord please pour out Your Spirit in great grace and power on believers, the Body of Christ, in France. Strengthen Your people there that they may speak Your word with great power into this moment of history. Give them, Father, many open doors of effective witness. Open the hearts of many thousands of French men, women and children to the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus. Father, may this moment of great grief, fear and uncertainty in that country not be wasted. May it be redeemed by many thousands turning to You through complete trust in Your One and Only Son, the Lord Jesus. May this move of your Spirit extend to all of the French people, even the leadership of the dominant Church. May they be profoundly moved to return to the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith apart from works. May they be moved by You to turn away from hollow religious tradition and may they lead their people in this way. And, Father, may that same gracious, all powerful move of Your Spirit extend to the United States, our leaders, our churches and the great mass of Americans who now have no place for You in all their thoughts. May this extend to England, throughout western Europe and to Islamic lands where many thousands are already turning to the Lord Jesus. In His Name. Amen"
The French people have had a lot 'stacked against them', in a spiritual sense, for many centuries. Their country has seen very little of authentic, biblical expressions of Christianity. Listen to what one historian said: "In Gaul (now called France), Clovis, pagan king of the Franks, married a Catholic Christian princess and was converted to orthodox Christianity in 496 A.D. This proved extremely significant for Christianity in the West. . . (but) it changed neither Clovis' character nor his reign, which continued to prosper on its treachery, brutality and murder." So the attacks this week were not the first of that kind inflicted on the French people. Listen to another historian speaking of Clovis' 'conversion' to Christianity: "This event points up the general pattern of early medieval conversions. The change to Christianity was essentially a matter of royal policy. The ruler's conversion decided the religion of his subjects." So, since the king is a 'Christian' that makes all of us 'Christians'.
The first Islamic invasion of Gaul (France) was stopped dead in 732 A.D. by Frankish armies under Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. The current crop of Islamic warriors are a kind of hybrid that combines the two evil empires of World War II with the demonic doctrines of Mohammed. They are like Nazis ("death to the Jews") and they are like the Japanese Kamikaze suicide pilots. How significant that Islamic leaders and countries were so sympathetic to Hitler. And how significant that the President of the U.S. once referred to Mohammed as "the holy prophet".
"Both in individual nations and in the overall world the widespread use of political terrorism has become one of the phenomena of the age. Random and indiscriminate terrorism is even more frightening. Similarly alarming are the indications that terrorist organizations from all over the world have in some way coordinated their efforts. We have already seen indications of how people give up liberties when they are faced with the threat of terrorism." Those words were written nearly 40 years ago by the late Francis Schaeffer. He also said, "In such circumstances, it seems that there are only two alternatives in the natural flow of events: first, imposed order (loss of freedom) or, second, our society once again affirming that base which gave freedom without chaos in the first place -- God's revelation in the Bible and his revelation through Christ."
"The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace."
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
November 11, the Prophet Daniel, Jesus and Us
From 1921 until 1954 it was Armistice Day. Since then it is Veterans Day. "So what is it really?", you ask. If it were up to me I would have left it alone as Armistice Day with everyone pausing at 11:00 A.M., as they once did, to pray for peace in the world. Veterans are honored on Memorial Day because most people don't know the difference between honoring living veterans and remembering those who died in armed conflict. Some people are aware that the First World War ended on November 11, 1918 but beyond that . . . well they are not sure. Hold on; you and I are going to take a fast trip back through history.
The Old Testament prophets saw seemingly contradictory visions of the Messiah/Christ. Daniel, for example, saw that the Messiah would be "cut off" (9:26) and Isaiah used those same two words in his powerful vision of the suffering Servant, the Lord Jesus (53:8). But most of their prophetic visions were of the glorious Messianic Kingdom, the goal of history, which we now see will be at the Second Coming of Messiah. Daniel saw the future of Gentile world powers until Messiah's Kingdom. He saw that Babylon would give way to Medo/Persia, then the Greek Empire, and finally the awesome and terrifying Roman Empire (chapters 2 & 7). Daniel saw the final form of this fourth empire existing in a ten king confederation at the time that Messiah's Kingdom of righteousness sweeps the gentile powers off the earth and, in the words of Isaiah, righteousness will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
But the Roman Empire ceased to exist in the west in the 5th century and in the east some time later. But Daniel's visions from God are true and the efforts have been many to revive the Roman Empire: Charlemagne, Napoleon, Bismarck . . . . and that very briefly brings us to the 20th century when the rivalries between European powers, all of them wanting to be a Roman style empire, exploded into the Great War of 1914-1918. The Armistice of 1918 brought an end to that slaughter which had taken over 10 million lives and paved the way for both Stalin and Hitler. That embodiment of evil in Germany would call his rule the Third Reich. In his view Rome was 1st, Bismarck was second 2nd and he was the third and final Roman Empire. And in a demonic parody of Revelation 20 he bragged that his Reich would last a thousand years. Daniel's vision of Rome existing in some form just before the true Messianic Kingdom comes is indeed where history is headed.
Back to my thought that we would be better off if this were still Armistice Day. We would be remembering biblical prophecy fulfilled in the rivalries that led to World War I. We would recall how truly preventable that horrible slaughter was and how all the crowned heads of Europe who started it were grandchildren of Queen Victoria who was supposed to be a symbol of morality! We would recall how the U.S. actually entered the war because the allies were so in debt to us for armaments. We would recall that U.S. involvement in it did not, as President Wilson promised, "make the world safe for democracy". We would remember that it only paved the way for Hitler and another war that was at least four times worse. We would be better off honoring veterans on another day and not forget all these things.
And there is one other thing that no one seems to have the courage to say. Not all veterans are worthy of honor. Some are; some are not.
The Old Testament prophets saw seemingly contradictory visions of the Messiah/Christ. Daniel, for example, saw that the Messiah would be "cut off" (9:26) and Isaiah used those same two words in his powerful vision of the suffering Servant, the Lord Jesus (53:8). But most of their prophetic visions were of the glorious Messianic Kingdom, the goal of history, which we now see will be at the Second Coming of Messiah. Daniel saw the future of Gentile world powers until Messiah's Kingdom. He saw that Babylon would give way to Medo/Persia, then the Greek Empire, and finally the awesome and terrifying Roman Empire (chapters 2 & 7). Daniel saw the final form of this fourth empire existing in a ten king confederation at the time that Messiah's Kingdom of righteousness sweeps the gentile powers off the earth and, in the words of Isaiah, righteousness will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
But the Roman Empire ceased to exist in the west in the 5th century and in the east some time later. But Daniel's visions from God are true and the efforts have been many to revive the Roman Empire: Charlemagne, Napoleon, Bismarck . . . . and that very briefly brings us to the 20th century when the rivalries between European powers, all of them wanting to be a Roman style empire, exploded into the Great War of 1914-1918. The Armistice of 1918 brought an end to that slaughter which had taken over 10 million lives and paved the way for both Stalin and Hitler. That embodiment of evil in Germany would call his rule the Third Reich. In his view Rome was 1st, Bismarck was second 2nd and he was the third and final Roman Empire. And in a demonic parody of Revelation 20 he bragged that his Reich would last a thousand years. Daniel's vision of Rome existing in some form just before the true Messianic Kingdom comes is indeed where history is headed.
Back to my thought that we would be better off if this were still Armistice Day. We would be remembering biblical prophecy fulfilled in the rivalries that led to World War I. We would recall how truly preventable that horrible slaughter was and how all the crowned heads of Europe who started it were grandchildren of Queen Victoria who was supposed to be a symbol of morality! We would recall how the U.S. actually entered the war because the allies were so in debt to us for armaments. We would recall that U.S. involvement in it did not, as President Wilson promised, "make the world safe for democracy". We would remember that it only paved the way for Hitler and another war that was at least four times worse. We would be better off honoring veterans on another day and not forget all these things.
And there is one other thing that no one seems to have the courage to say. Not all veterans are worthy of honor. Some are; some are not.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
"Russ, I Cannot Pray For ______________"
The words could be uttered by someone who has been cruelly betrayed; or someone whose child has been the victim of a horrible crime; or by you for reasons known only to you. The name in the blank could be someone previously close to you or a complete stranger. "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:44&45)
In the two blogs on Dispensationalism I said that neither dispensationalists nor their critics had, in my opinion, dealt adequately with the Sermon On The Mount (Matt. 5-7 & Luke 6). Dispensationalists apply it strictly to Israel in the coming Messianic Kingdom. Their critics (which are many) ignore entirely the context, that it was spoken to Israelites still living under the Law, and attempt to make direct application of all its parts to all believers at all times. But this ignores statements like "if you are offering your gift at the altar . . . ." (Matt. 5:23), and requires clever ways to explain away statements like "do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matt. 5:42) I can think of many people to whom I would never loan money or anything else because they are so irresponsible. And that is the same feeling of those who have said loudly through the years "we must obey the Sermon on the Mount". We need to clear up some things before we return to the very painful problem of praying for certain people.
The New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 correctly pointed out that the Sermon on the Mount is part of the "all Scripture (that) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16 NIV) But the footnote in the NSRB of '67 should have gone further. Jesus was setting straight the people's understanding of righteousness. Their leaders had reduced it to outward, legalistic observances. He was now taking them back to the Scriptures (what we now call the Old Testament) and nearly everything he taught in the Sermon was already in the Scriptures and had been overlooked or deliberately ignored. The 'gift at the altar' passage and several others are clearly based on Lev. 19:18, "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." (italics mine) Prov. 18:19 dealt with making things right with an offended brother. The difficult passages on "turning the other cheek" and lending to just about anyone, are based things said in Exodus 22 on how Israelites were to treat their fellow Israelites. (Other passages dealt with compassion to foreigners.)
So, if I am going to teach and quote from the Sermon I have a huge obligation to show that I have applied the principle involved the way it was intended in the O.T. and the way it is subsequently applied in the New Testament. This is the great error of believers who quote from the Sermon to justify their pacifism and their opposition of all military actions by the government. Jesus was talking about personal grudges and strife and not about the God ordained police powers of the state. (Rom. 13:1-7)
Some things in the Sermon have been raised even higher on this side of the cross. Speaking before the cross Jesus told His fellow Israelites to forgive so that they might be forgiven. (Matt. 6:14&15) The principle in that passage is eternally true, that if I, in disobedience to the Lord, maintain a hateful grudge, it becomes doubtful whether I am truly saved. But, on this side of the cross I am told to forgive because I have been forgiven". (Eph. 4:32) The Holy Spirit helps me maintain both of these: the deadly danger of refusing to forgive and the other principle which motivates me so powerfully to want to forgive because I am forgiven. This is why Romans 8:4 is so critical in relating the Sermon on the Mount to us today. "The righteous requirements of the Law are fulfilled in us who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit". (NIV)
Now, we can do much better with the problem of "I cannot pray for ___". Praying for them is precisely how I shall be delivered from this awful feeling I have about them. I pity them! What they have done means they are facing a terrible accounting at the Judgment. So, did I use Matthew 5:44&45 correctly when I quoted them at the beginning of this blog? I must have because Paul used them in exactly the same way in Rom. 12:17 ff. So now we are getting somewhere. Praying for them has set me free!
But there is one other name that more than a few people have put in the blank of the title of this blog. "I struggle to pray for the President because he is so evil" is what I have heard said. Is he really that evil? I am afraid so. To begin with he is a deceiver. "Marriage is only between a man and a woman" he once said. But, those close to him have admitted that this was totally dishonest and part of his plan to get elected and further the same sex marriage agenda. From the killing of unborn babies to making marriage meaningless by redefining it, we cannot name a single anti-God, anti-Christ agenda he has not supported. In the light of Daniel ch. 10, he is most likely under the domination of a powerful demon who might be called "the prince of the United States". He is the first President born to and nurtured by an atheist. I feel especially sorry for his daughters. He and his wife, however, know full well what they are doing. I need not indulge myself in hating him. He faces, unless he repents, the most fearsome judgment of Almighty God.
And so I pray: "Father in Heaven, I confess my sin of not coming to you more often on behalf of those in authority. Cleansed by the Blood of Christ I beg you Father to restrain any evil in the heart of the President and in the hearts of those who share his views. Please, please turn his heart to you in repentance and faith. And please turn the hearts of millions in this land to Yourself in repentance and faith. And please deliver those who, like me, are your children. Deliver us from spending more time condemning the evil than in praying to you on behalf of the evildoers. In the Name of Jesus, the Name above every name. Amen."
In the two blogs on Dispensationalism I said that neither dispensationalists nor their critics had, in my opinion, dealt adequately with the Sermon On The Mount (Matt. 5-7 & Luke 6). Dispensationalists apply it strictly to Israel in the coming Messianic Kingdom. Their critics (which are many) ignore entirely the context, that it was spoken to Israelites still living under the Law, and attempt to make direct application of all its parts to all believers at all times. But this ignores statements like "if you are offering your gift at the altar . . . ." (Matt. 5:23), and requires clever ways to explain away statements like "do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matt. 5:42) I can think of many people to whom I would never loan money or anything else because they are so irresponsible. And that is the same feeling of those who have said loudly through the years "we must obey the Sermon on the Mount". We need to clear up some things before we return to the very painful problem of praying for certain people.
The New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 correctly pointed out that the Sermon on the Mount is part of the "all Scripture (that) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16 NIV) But the footnote in the NSRB of '67 should have gone further. Jesus was setting straight the people's understanding of righteousness. Their leaders had reduced it to outward, legalistic observances. He was now taking them back to the Scriptures (what we now call the Old Testament) and nearly everything he taught in the Sermon was already in the Scriptures and had been overlooked or deliberately ignored. The 'gift at the altar' passage and several others are clearly based on Lev. 19:18, "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." (italics mine) Prov. 18:19 dealt with making things right with an offended brother. The difficult passages on "turning the other cheek" and lending to just about anyone, are based things said in Exodus 22 on how Israelites were to treat their fellow Israelites. (Other passages dealt with compassion to foreigners.)
So, if I am going to teach and quote from the Sermon I have a huge obligation to show that I have applied the principle involved the way it was intended in the O.T. and the way it is subsequently applied in the New Testament. This is the great error of believers who quote from the Sermon to justify their pacifism and their opposition of all military actions by the government. Jesus was talking about personal grudges and strife and not about the God ordained police powers of the state. (Rom. 13:1-7)
Some things in the Sermon have been raised even higher on this side of the cross. Speaking before the cross Jesus told His fellow Israelites to forgive so that they might be forgiven. (Matt. 6:14&15) The principle in that passage is eternally true, that if I, in disobedience to the Lord, maintain a hateful grudge, it becomes doubtful whether I am truly saved. But, on this side of the cross I am told to forgive because I have been forgiven". (Eph. 4:32) The Holy Spirit helps me maintain both of these: the deadly danger of refusing to forgive and the other principle which motivates me so powerfully to want to forgive because I am forgiven. This is why Romans 8:4 is so critical in relating the Sermon on the Mount to us today. "The righteous requirements of the Law are fulfilled in us who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit". (NIV)
Now, we can do much better with the problem of "I cannot pray for ___". Praying for them is precisely how I shall be delivered from this awful feeling I have about them. I pity them! What they have done means they are facing a terrible accounting at the Judgment. So, did I use Matthew 5:44&45 correctly when I quoted them at the beginning of this blog? I must have because Paul used them in exactly the same way in Rom. 12:17 ff. So now we are getting somewhere. Praying for them has set me free!
But there is one other name that more than a few people have put in the blank of the title of this blog. "I struggle to pray for the President because he is so evil" is what I have heard said. Is he really that evil? I am afraid so. To begin with he is a deceiver. "Marriage is only between a man and a woman" he once said. But, those close to him have admitted that this was totally dishonest and part of his plan to get elected and further the same sex marriage agenda. From the killing of unborn babies to making marriage meaningless by redefining it, we cannot name a single anti-God, anti-Christ agenda he has not supported. In the light of Daniel ch. 10, he is most likely under the domination of a powerful demon who might be called "the prince of the United States". He is the first President born to and nurtured by an atheist. I feel especially sorry for his daughters. He and his wife, however, know full well what they are doing. I need not indulge myself in hating him. He faces, unless he repents, the most fearsome judgment of Almighty God.
And so I pray: "Father in Heaven, I confess my sin of not coming to you more often on behalf of those in authority. Cleansed by the Blood of Christ I beg you Father to restrain any evil in the heart of the President and in the hearts of those who share his views. Please, please turn his heart to you in repentance and faith. And please turn the hearts of millions in this land to Yourself in repentance and faith. And please deliver those who, like me, are your children. Deliver us from spending more time condemning the evil than in praying to you on behalf of the evildoers. In the Name of Jesus, the Name above every name. Amen."
Thursday, November 5, 2015
NICKEL AND DIME CONVICTIONS - OR - SMALL CHANGE OF LIFE
It was one of those documentaries on the family history of Queen Elizabeth II of England. Her uncle, Edward VIII, was king for less than 11 months in 1936 when he abdicated and his brother George VI took the throne. Why did he abdicate? So he could marry a divorced American woman. You say "what!!!???" You heard me correctly. The Church of England, the official state church, forbid the marriage of or to divorced persons. There was a major constitutional crisis in England over this, so Edward abdicated and turned the throne over to his brother so that he could "marry the woman I love". The royal family has been an endless soap opera.
Fast forward to the 1950's. George VI died in 1952, after a lifetime of chain smoking, and his oldest daughter took the throne as Elizabeth II. A few years later Elizabeth's sister, Margaret, wanted to marry a divorced man. Another crisis. Margaret changed her mind. Crisis averted. As I watched this program it was at this point that I heard a statement by a commentator that is one of the most revealing we will ever hear. In regard to the whole matter of divorce and remarriage he said, "Well, now of course, THAT IS THE SMALL CHANGE OF LIFE".
"That's it!" I said to myself. That is precisely the view of divorce and remarriage both inside and outside the Church today -- with some exceptions. Let's stop right here and clarify something. It is not easy for me to write this, having as I do several very dear friends in this situation. But they know my heart and know that I have no desire to make life more painful for them. But, the "small change of life" view of this issue is calling into question how many professed believers in Jesus Christ have any real intention of obeying Him as Lord.
The Church of England today not only has no trouble with divorce and remarriage but will gleefully ordain those engaged in sexual practices explicitly forbidden in Scripture. Ditto for U.S. 'mainline' denominations. Evangelicals (a word that is supposed to mean 'those who take Scripture seriously') do not have much of a problem with divorce and remarriage either. I know firsthand the situation of a smaller U.S. denomination where a minority made a huge issue over a certain mode of baptism as a requirement for church membership. That minority finally split off and formed their own denomination. That same denomination once, many years ago, had an absolute prohibition of the remarriage of divorced persons. What a huge irony! The minority group will fight to the death for their view of baptism (a SYMBOLIC issue) and accept without question the change regarding divorce and remarriage (a SUBSTANTIVE issue).
Taking together all the statements that Jesus made on this issue and the statements in Paul's letters it is clear that a believer can separate from a spouse because of unfaithfulness and, by implication, for their own and their children's safety. The matter of remarriage is somewhat less clear however, especially in I Cor. 7. That is why throughout most of the last 2000 years it was generally (but not always universally) forbidden in Christianity. I once took an absolute stand against remarriage. The Holy Spirit helped me be less dogmatic but still very cautious about it. If a fellow believer tells me that, before God, they were absolutely faithful to their spouse and did all within their power to keep their marriage vows, but their spouse still left them, I will take them at their word unless I have clear evidence otherwise. If they then choose to remarry I will accept them in that decision but I will probably ask to be excused from performing the ceremony.
I will be completely candid. The very casual practice of divorce and remarriage among so many professed believers, treating it as the small change of life, makes me FEAR FOR THEIR SOULS AND THEIR ETERNAL DESTINY. I have entered into what I consider to be a personal covenant with God, that He will deliver from the scourge of divorce all of the children, grandchildren and descendants that Susan I will ever have until His Kingdom comes and His will is done on earth as it is done in Heaven.
It was one of those documentaries on the family history of Queen Elizabeth II of England. Her uncle, Edward VIII, was king for less than 11 months in 1936 when he abdicated and his brother George VI took the throne. Why did he abdicate? So he could marry a divorced American woman. You say "what!!!???" You heard me correctly. The Church of England, the official state church, forbid the marriage of or to divorced persons. There was a major constitutional crisis in England over this, so Edward abdicated and turned the throne over to his brother so that he could "marry the woman I love". The royal family has been an endless soap opera.
Fast forward to the 1950's. George VI died in 1952, after a lifetime of chain smoking, and his oldest daughter took the throne as Elizabeth II. A few years later Elizabeth's sister, Margaret, wanted to marry a divorced man. Another crisis. Margaret changed her mind. Crisis averted. As I watched this program it was at this point that I heard a statement by a commentator that is one of the most revealing we will ever hear. In regard to the whole matter of divorce and remarriage he said, "Well, now of course, THAT IS THE SMALL CHANGE OF LIFE".
"That's it!" I said to myself. That is precisely the view of divorce and remarriage both inside and outside the Church today -- with some exceptions. Let's stop right here and clarify something. It is not easy for me to write this, having as I do several very dear friends in this situation. But they know my heart and know that I have no desire to make life more painful for them. But, the "small change of life" view of this issue is calling into question how many professed believers in Jesus Christ have any real intention of obeying Him as Lord.
The Church of England today not only has no trouble with divorce and remarriage but will gleefully ordain those engaged in sexual practices explicitly forbidden in Scripture. Ditto for U.S. 'mainline' denominations. Evangelicals (a word that is supposed to mean 'those who take Scripture seriously') do not have much of a problem with divorce and remarriage either. I know firsthand the situation of a smaller U.S. denomination where a minority made a huge issue over a certain mode of baptism as a requirement for church membership. That minority finally split off and formed their own denomination. That same denomination once, many years ago, had an absolute prohibition of the remarriage of divorced persons. What a huge irony! The minority group will fight to the death for their view of baptism (a SYMBOLIC issue) and accept without question the change regarding divorce and remarriage (a SUBSTANTIVE issue).
Taking together all the statements that Jesus made on this issue and the statements in Paul's letters it is clear that a believer can separate from a spouse because of unfaithfulness and, by implication, for their own and their children's safety. The matter of remarriage is somewhat less clear however, especially in I Cor. 7. That is why throughout most of the last 2000 years it was generally (but not always universally) forbidden in Christianity. I once took an absolute stand against remarriage. The Holy Spirit helped me be less dogmatic but still very cautious about it. If a fellow believer tells me that, before God, they were absolutely faithful to their spouse and did all within their power to keep their marriage vows, but their spouse still left them, I will take them at their word unless I have clear evidence otherwise. If they then choose to remarry I will accept them in that decision but I will probably ask to be excused from performing the ceremony.
I will be completely candid. The very casual practice of divorce and remarriage among so many professed believers, treating it as the small change of life, makes me FEAR FOR THEIR SOULS AND THEIR ETERNAL DESTINY. I have entered into what I consider to be a personal covenant with God, that He will deliver from the scourge of divorce all of the children, grandchildren and descendants that Susan I will ever have until His Kingdom comes and His will is done on earth as it is done in Heaven.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Part III -- Some Conclusions
Preface: May the Peace of God, which transcends all understanding, guard
your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 4:7)
"We have much more to say about this . . ." (Heb. 5:11) but the Holy Spirit has clearly said, "Put this subject on the shelf awhile after today". Yes Lord, I will do exactly that; then, as You lead, come back to it on down the road. "So cut to the chase, Russ, are you a Dispensationalist?" Well, I think that I have been "up front" with you and shown that I have an appreciation for the broad, general ideas in Dispensationalism and I have tried to show briefly how I have modified it at certain points. I have tried to set an example for those who hold different views of Scripture to similarly critically evaluate their own systems. But I must also say that I do not really like words that end in 'ist' or 'ism'. But we are stuck with them: Calvinist, dispensationalist, etc., etc., etc. So we'll do the best we can with them.
Remember, that the word "dispensation" no longer appears in most English translations of the New Testament. That is the main reason we rarely hear the word. Some believers prefer to view the broad sweep of history by the covenants God has made with people. This is often called Covenant Theology. They see the Church as being the New Covenant People of God, as being what Israel failed to be and therefore being the New Israel or The Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). They see baptism as replacing circumcision as the Sign of the Covenant and therefore they baptize infants. This is a very brief description and I hope a fair one. Covenant theologians may, of course, say it a little differently. You may do a Google search to find more.
I have no desire to critique Covenant Theology only to very briefly say why I am unable to embrace it. Paul, in his letters, rarely mentions the New Covenant and the context of those few references is to believers of Jewish background who need assurance that only in Jesus can the blessings of the New Covenant be found. All believers, whether Jew or Gentile, receive the two basic blessing of the New Covenant: their sins removed and being given a new heart. But the believer in the Lord Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, now has "every spiritual blessing in Christ in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 1:3), something even greater than the New Covenant. God's purpose in the New Covenant was "with the House of Israel and the House of Judah". (Jer. 31:31) It is no accident that the longest passages on the New Covenant in the New Testament are in the Letter to the Hebrews. And it is also no accident that Paul's letter giving the most detail of the believer's standing in Christ and what the Church, the Body of Christ, is in God's plan and purposes, never mentions the New Covenant. The word 'covenant' itself is only mentioned when he reminds Gentile believers that they were ". . . by birth . . . foreigners to the covenants (plural) of promise . . . ." (Eph. 2:11&12) Agreeing with the broad, general aspects of Dispensationalism does not mean that I minimize the Covenants in Scripture. But that is a topic for another day.
Having said all this I quickly add that some of the greatest defenders of the Faith, past and present, have held to Covenant Theology and this is true of some of my dear friends in the Body of Christ. The Covenant view of Scripture dominated Christianity from the time of Augustine (ca. 400 A.D.) until the 20th century when the broad, general aspects of Dispensationalism became, in the words of a well known Covenant theologian, "the majority report of Evangelical Christianity". Interestingly, this same man also said that he believes Romans 11:26 will be literally fulfilled: "And so all Israel will be saved . . . . " (Be careful there R.C., you're sounding like a dispensationalist.)
I hope that in these three posts I have passed the test of James 3:17&18. "The wisdom that comes from God is first utterly pure, then peace-loving, gentle, approachable, full of tolerant thoughts and kindly actions, with no breath of favoritism or hint of hypocrisy. And the wise are peacemakers who go on quietly sowing for a harvest of righteousness--in other people and in themselves." (Phillips-New Testament in Modern English)
The next post will be "The Small Change of Life" (as in "nickel and dime")
your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 4:7)
"We have much more to say about this . . ." (Heb. 5:11) but the Holy Spirit has clearly said, "Put this subject on the shelf awhile after today". Yes Lord, I will do exactly that; then, as You lead, come back to it on down the road. "So cut to the chase, Russ, are you a Dispensationalist?" Well, I think that I have been "up front" with you and shown that I have an appreciation for the broad, general ideas in Dispensationalism and I have tried to show briefly how I have modified it at certain points. I have tried to set an example for those who hold different views of Scripture to similarly critically evaluate their own systems. But I must also say that I do not really like words that end in 'ist' or 'ism'. But we are stuck with them: Calvinist, dispensationalist, etc., etc., etc. So we'll do the best we can with them.
Remember, that the word "dispensation" no longer appears in most English translations of the New Testament. That is the main reason we rarely hear the word. Some believers prefer to view the broad sweep of history by the covenants God has made with people. This is often called Covenant Theology. They see the Church as being the New Covenant People of God, as being what Israel failed to be and therefore being the New Israel or The Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). They see baptism as replacing circumcision as the Sign of the Covenant and therefore they baptize infants. This is a very brief description and I hope a fair one. Covenant theologians may, of course, say it a little differently. You may do a Google search to find more.
I have no desire to critique Covenant Theology only to very briefly say why I am unable to embrace it. Paul, in his letters, rarely mentions the New Covenant and the context of those few references is to believers of Jewish background who need assurance that only in Jesus can the blessings of the New Covenant be found. All believers, whether Jew or Gentile, receive the two basic blessing of the New Covenant: their sins removed and being given a new heart. But the believer in the Lord Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, now has "every spiritual blessing in Christ in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 1:3), something even greater than the New Covenant. God's purpose in the New Covenant was "with the House of Israel and the House of Judah". (Jer. 31:31) It is no accident that the longest passages on the New Covenant in the New Testament are in the Letter to the Hebrews. And it is also no accident that Paul's letter giving the most detail of the believer's standing in Christ and what the Church, the Body of Christ, is in God's plan and purposes, never mentions the New Covenant. The word 'covenant' itself is only mentioned when he reminds Gentile believers that they were ". . . by birth . . . foreigners to the covenants (plural) of promise . . . ." (Eph. 2:11&12) Agreeing with the broad, general aspects of Dispensationalism does not mean that I minimize the Covenants in Scripture. But that is a topic for another day.
Having said all this I quickly add that some of the greatest defenders of the Faith, past and present, have held to Covenant Theology and this is true of some of my dear friends in the Body of Christ. The Covenant view of Scripture dominated Christianity from the time of Augustine (ca. 400 A.D.) until the 20th century when the broad, general aspects of Dispensationalism became, in the words of a well known Covenant theologian, "the majority report of Evangelical Christianity". Interestingly, this same man also said that he believes Romans 11:26 will be literally fulfilled: "And so all Israel will be saved . . . . " (Be careful there R.C., you're sounding like a dispensationalist.)
I hope that in these three posts I have passed the test of James 3:17&18. "The wisdom that comes from God is first utterly pure, then peace-loving, gentle, approachable, full of tolerant thoughts and kindly actions, with no breath of favoritism or hint of hypocrisy. And the wise are peacemakers who go on quietly sowing for a harvest of righteousness--in other people and in themselves." (Phillips-New Testament in Modern English)
The next post will be "The Small Change of Life" (as in "nickel and dime")
Sunday, November 1, 2015
"Russ, what is Dispensationalism?" Part 2
No method of viewing or interpreting Scripture is without need of improvement. This includes Dispensationalism and all the systems that criticize it. And no approach to Scripture by those in the stream of historic, Biblical Christianity is without at least some valid points. Dispensationalism was promoted in the 1800's by the group in England known as The Brethren and known in this country as Plymouth Brethren. A man named Darby was an early leader in this. Later, Robert Anderson, head of Scotland Yard in London (at the time of the Jack the Ripper killings) published a small commentary on Daniel ch. 9 (The Coming Prince) that had great influence for many years. Then C.I. Scofield, with the help of a distinguished committee of evangelical scholars, published his Reference Bible. In the 20th century schools like Moody Bible Institute, most Bible colleges, Dallas Seminary, Grace Seminary and numerous others furthered this view of Scripture. In my view the high water mark of Dispensational teaching came with the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967. The committee that produced this had such distinguished names as Frank Gabelein and Wilbur M. Smith. They vastly improved the notes over that of the original Scofield and they corrected archaic words and gross mistranslations in the King James Version. I still have high regard for this Bible. There is a Scofield III but I have never seen it.
The essential elements of Dispensationalism are: 1) seven dispensations from Creation to the New Heavens and Earth; 2) clear distinction between Israel (as an ethnic people chosen by God) and the Church (made up of Jew and Gentile without distinction); 3) the Church is not the 'new Israel' -- God will yet restore Israel to Himself during the Great Tribulation; 4) the destiny of the Church, the Bride of Christ is to be raptured, taken to the Father's House, before the Great Tribulation; 5) a sharp distinction between the 'Gospel of the Kingdom' in the four Gospels and early part of Acts, and the 'Gospel of the Grace of God' in Paul's letters; 6) the literal fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom at the return of Christ at the close of the Tribulation -- sometimes called premillennialism; 7) the final seven year period in the great prophecy of Daniel 9 is still in the future.
Much, but not all, of these seven represents a return to the consensus of the early Church until the 4th century. Regarding no. 4, the Christian leader Victorinus, in the late 3rd century said, "For the wrath of God always strikes the obstinate people with seven plagues, that is perfectly, as it is said in Leviticus; and these shall be in the last time, when the Church shall have gone out of the midst." I generally agree with no. 4 but I arrive at it differently and I detest the terms 'pre', 'mid' or 'post' tribulation. I emphatically use the term imminent rapture as being much closer to the spirit of biblical teaching.
Of the seven points I have listed the one I first came to be uneasy about (when I was still age 17) was no. 5. I had been so influenced by Dispensationalism that I gravitated toward Paul's letters and tended to set aside the teaching of Christ in the Gospels as being 'for the Kingdom'. Then I was memorizing I Timothy and came to 6:3 & 4 (KJV), "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing . . . ." Then later I noticed that Paul, more than once, said he was 'preaching the kingdom of God' (Acts 20:25).
It is much better to say that there is one Gospel -- Jesus Christ Himself. That one Gospel has several aspects: His death and resurrection; His coming again to bring about the doing of God's will on earth as it is done in heaven. This is all part of the Good News -- the Gospel. This is the first and most basic way I corrected dispensational teaching. As we said at the beginning of this post, other systems of viewing Scripture could stand correction as well.
More to come in Part III. If you, the reader, are facing a threat to your health; your marriage; your children; your church; your walk with God . . . may the Spirit of the Living God do for you now something beyond all that we can ask or imagine.
The essential elements of Dispensationalism are: 1) seven dispensations from Creation to the New Heavens and Earth; 2) clear distinction between Israel (as an ethnic people chosen by God) and the Church (made up of Jew and Gentile without distinction); 3) the Church is not the 'new Israel' -- God will yet restore Israel to Himself during the Great Tribulation; 4) the destiny of the Church, the Bride of Christ is to be raptured, taken to the Father's House, before the Great Tribulation; 5) a sharp distinction between the 'Gospel of the Kingdom' in the four Gospels and early part of Acts, and the 'Gospel of the Grace of God' in Paul's letters; 6) the literal fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom at the return of Christ at the close of the Tribulation -- sometimes called premillennialism; 7) the final seven year period in the great prophecy of Daniel 9 is still in the future.
Much, but not all, of these seven represents a return to the consensus of the early Church until the 4th century. Regarding no. 4, the Christian leader Victorinus, in the late 3rd century said, "For the wrath of God always strikes the obstinate people with seven plagues, that is perfectly, as it is said in Leviticus; and these shall be in the last time, when the Church shall have gone out of the midst." I generally agree with no. 4 but I arrive at it differently and I detest the terms 'pre', 'mid' or 'post' tribulation. I emphatically use the term imminent rapture as being much closer to the spirit of biblical teaching.
Of the seven points I have listed the one I first came to be uneasy about (when I was still age 17) was no. 5. I had been so influenced by Dispensationalism that I gravitated toward Paul's letters and tended to set aside the teaching of Christ in the Gospels as being 'for the Kingdom'. Then I was memorizing I Timothy and came to 6:3 & 4 (KJV), "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing . . . ." Then later I noticed that Paul, more than once, said he was 'preaching the kingdom of God' (Acts 20:25).
It is much better to say that there is one Gospel -- Jesus Christ Himself. That one Gospel has several aspects: His death and resurrection; His coming again to bring about the doing of God's will on earth as it is done in heaven. This is all part of the Good News -- the Gospel. This is the first and most basic way I corrected dispensational teaching. As we said at the beginning of this post, other systems of viewing Scripture could stand correction as well.
More to come in Part III. If you, the reader, are facing a threat to your health; your marriage; your children; your church; your walk with God . . . may the Spirit of the Living God do for you now something beyond all that we can ask or imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)