I have decided to shut down for a while. I know this will disappoint a few people, but I think it is for the best. I need to concentrate on being the worship leader at VCF Tampa and some of the other ministries I am doing at the church. Some time at the beginning of next year I will be teaching some classes for both my church and a sister church north of here in Inverness, FL. I need to concentrate on that as well so I think that it would be good for me to take a break from blogging for a season. I will be back though.
In Christ,
Christian
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
My New Ride and Quiet Times
I didn't get up this morning thinking to myself, "Hey I think I'll spend $23,000 and go buy a car today" but that is exactly what I did. I traded in my 2002 Volkswagen Jetta (which I have been dying to get rid of for several weeks now) and am now the owner of a 2005 black Honda Civic. Yes everyone and their grandmother has driven a Civic at some point, but there is a reason for that. They really are good cars. My parents have had one for coming close to a decade now. This thing even has a spoiler and a sunroof. I am excited about this.
On another subject, I've decided to do away in my own life with the concept of the "quiet time". You know, where you sit down in a quiet place and pray and read your Bible and meditate on what you read. It's not that I don't believe in prayer, Bible study, or meditation, I do and plan to continue those vital activities, but it just seems to me in talking with others and thinking about it; the concept of the quiet time has become to many, including myself, a "Sacrament" in the bad sense of that term. It's a work; a ritual that many do and mark off as one's spiritual obligation for the day.
Now I have to be careful, because there are some/many believers who find the quiet time refreshing and exhilerating. If that's you, please ignore this portion of the blog post and continue on with having your quiet times, but I just think that for me (and I suspect many others), it's better if we pray, study our Bibles, and meditate in some other way, whatever that might mean. Let me know what you think.
Blessings in Christ,
Christian
On another subject, I've decided to do away in my own life with the concept of the "quiet time". You know, where you sit down in a quiet place and pray and read your Bible and meditate on what you read. It's not that I don't believe in prayer, Bible study, or meditation, I do and plan to continue those vital activities, but it just seems to me in talking with others and thinking about it; the concept of the quiet time has become to many, including myself, a "Sacrament" in the bad sense of that term. It's a work; a ritual that many do and mark off as one's spiritual obligation for the day.
Now I have to be careful, because there are some/many believers who find the quiet time refreshing and exhilerating. If that's you, please ignore this portion of the blog post and continue on with having your quiet times, but I just think that for me (and I suspect many others), it's better if we pray, study our Bibles, and meditate in some other way, whatever that might mean. Let me know what you think.
Blessings in Christ,
Christian
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Vineyard Calvinist Top Ten List
Today I thought I'd list the top ten books that I have read that have profoundly influenced me. These are books that have shaped my thinking in areas like theology, life, church, and hermeneutics. So without further adieu, here is my top ten in descending order.
10. The Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard, by Bill Jackson
I just finished up this one last week and loved it! Jackson takes the reader almost literally step-by-step through the Vineyard Movement's history from its background in the 1960s to 1999 when Todd Hunter led the Vineyard. My only complaint is that this book is long overdue for a revision. It only goes up to 1999 and other significant themes have impacted the Vineyard since like Bert Waggoner taking over for Todd Hunter, the emerging church, and the egalitarian controversy. It still is an excellent book and every Vineyard church member should read it.
9. End Time Delusions, by Steve Wohlberg
This book is key to my transition from the pre-tribulation rapture view to the post-trib view. It also opened me up to the possibility that futurism and preterism aren't the only interpretive options for biblical prophecy and the book of Revelation. One knock on the book is that Wohlberg is apparently a Seventh-Day Adventist and he takes a bit of a hostile tone toward those who disagree with him, particularly dispensationalists, almost consigning them to hell. That is not an overstatement. Also, while dismantling both futurism and preterism, his historicism is regrettably not a better alternative. But it did open me up to eventually embracing idealism.
8. The Cross-Centered Life, by C.J. Mahaney
This is a classic, and a very quick and easy read. Mahaney very deftly deals with issues that many Christians face like legalism and condemnation by taking us back to the cross. This is reformed soteriology at its best.
7. Some Messianic Jews Say: Messianic Judaism is Not Christianity, by Stan Telchin
This book was another quick and easy read. Telchin basically said in that book what I had been thinking for quite some time. He lays out some of the problems in the Messianic movement (legalism, elitism, divisiveness, etc...)while still appreciating its strengths. Although Telchin apparently has some serious family problems that have opened up questions as to his credibility, this is none-the-less an excellent critique of Messianic Judaism written by a former insider.
6. Messianic Christology, by Arnold Fruchtenbaum
Ironically next on my list is this one written by a Messianic Jewish believer. This book deals with messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus' first advent. He self-consciencously does not deal with second-coming prophecies (which is good because Fruchtenbaum is a dispensationalist), and shows that only Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the requirements of being Israel's Messiah. Some of the chapters also lay a very solid foundation for the Hebraic basis of Trinitarianism. I highly recommend this one especially for those interested in messianic prophecy.
5. Decision Making and the Will of God, by Gary Friesen
This was another paradigm shattering book for me. Friesen's thesis is that Scripture does not teach that God has an individual will for each believer. That is, I am not necessarily supposed to marry so-and-so or get such-and-such a job. He shows that taken to consistecy, I may have put on the wrong pair of socks this morning! Friesen then suggests that Christians should use wisdom given in Scripture to make life decisions.
4. The Word and Power Church, by Douglas Banister
I stumbled upon this one at my employer's sale rack and grabbed instantly. Banister does a fantastic job showing how both solid exegesis and expository preaching go hand-in-hand with praying for healing and receiving prophetic words. He details his own journey from being a good evangelical pastor to managing charismatic gifts in his church. He also shows how a good word and power church should function living in the tension. His overview of charismatic gifts in church history isn't bad either. Every reformed charismatic guy should read this one.
3. Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist, by Sam Storms
This is one in the same vein as Banister's book. I actually met Storms earlier this year and got this one signed. Storms spends the first part of the book detailing his own journey similar to Doug Banister's from a cessationist Bible church pastor to Metro Vineyard staff member, to Wheaton college professor, to president of Enjoying God Ministries. This guy actually rubbed elbows with Mike Bickle, Paul Cain, John Wimber, and others among the Kansas City Prophets and leadership of the Vineyard movement. The second part of the book deals with the divide between word-oriented cessationists and the more experiential Pentecostal/Charismatics. He ably shows how both word and spirit (or word and power) compliment each other. Another classic in the burgeoning Reformed Charismatic world.
2. Abraham's Four Seeds: A Biblical Examination of the Presuppositions of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, by John G. Reisinger
This was my introduction to New Covenant Theology and what an intro it was! Reisinger shows how both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology have hermeneutical starting points that don't mesh with scripture. He capably shows that as he puts it, "The nation of Israel was not the 'Body of Christ,' even though the Body of Christ is indeed the true 'Israel of God.' I believe this is one of the most true statements of theology I've ever read. The only knock on it is that Reisinger spends, in my opinion anyway, too much time defending believer baptism (he is a Baptist, so I guess it's understandable). The other complaint is that I think he spends most of his energy critiquing Covenant Theology and too little on Dispensationalism. Even still though, I think one of his most positive contributions is in the realm of hermeneutics. That is, I think he shows very well that the OT is to be interpreted by the NT. Very good and stimulating reading.
1. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today, by Jack Deere
This book is a landmark achievement in articulating a sound exegetical basis for continuationism. As with Banister and Storms, Deere tells his story of going from cessationist to continuationist including a stop at the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim with John Wimber. Deere shows how miraculous gifts did not cease with the apostles and that it was not only the apostles who could do miracles. He gives fascinating and emotional anecdotes to compliment his exegesis, which is exemplary. Also, he has some good chapters on cultivating intimacy with God that challenge me even today. Deere is easily one of the most influential figures among evangelical continuationists and reformed charismatics. This book easily deserves to be number one on my list. I would recommend it to anyone!
Well there you have it. These are the books that have been the most influential to me in my Christian life. Other books could have made the list, but I thought ten was a good number. I also have a huge list of books that I have yet to read. Maybe as time goes on, I'll modify my list, but for now, these are the best.
In Christ Jesus,
Christian
10. The Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard, by Bill Jackson
I just finished up this one last week and loved it! Jackson takes the reader almost literally step-by-step through the Vineyard Movement's history from its background in the 1960s to 1999 when Todd Hunter led the Vineyard. My only complaint is that this book is long overdue for a revision. It only goes up to 1999 and other significant themes have impacted the Vineyard since like Bert Waggoner taking over for Todd Hunter, the emerging church, and the egalitarian controversy. It still is an excellent book and every Vineyard church member should read it.
9. End Time Delusions, by Steve Wohlberg
This book is key to my transition from the pre-tribulation rapture view to the post-trib view. It also opened me up to the possibility that futurism and preterism aren't the only interpretive options for biblical prophecy and the book of Revelation. One knock on the book is that Wohlberg is apparently a Seventh-Day Adventist and he takes a bit of a hostile tone toward those who disagree with him, particularly dispensationalists, almost consigning them to hell. That is not an overstatement. Also, while dismantling both futurism and preterism, his historicism is regrettably not a better alternative. But it did open me up to eventually embracing idealism.
8. The Cross-Centered Life, by C.J. Mahaney
This is a classic, and a very quick and easy read. Mahaney very deftly deals with issues that many Christians face like legalism and condemnation by taking us back to the cross. This is reformed soteriology at its best.
7. Some Messianic Jews Say: Messianic Judaism is Not Christianity, by Stan Telchin
This book was another quick and easy read. Telchin basically said in that book what I had been thinking for quite some time. He lays out some of the problems in the Messianic movement (legalism, elitism, divisiveness, etc...)while still appreciating its strengths. Although Telchin apparently has some serious family problems that have opened up questions as to his credibility, this is none-the-less an excellent critique of Messianic Judaism written by a former insider.
6. Messianic Christology, by Arnold Fruchtenbaum
Ironically next on my list is this one written by a Messianic Jewish believer. This book deals with messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus' first advent. He self-consciencously does not deal with second-coming prophecies (which is good because Fruchtenbaum is a dispensationalist), and shows that only Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the requirements of being Israel's Messiah. Some of the chapters also lay a very solid foundation for the Hebraic basis of Trinitarianism. I highly recommend this one especially for those interested in messianic prophecy.
5. Decision Making and the Will of God, by Gary Friesen
This was another paradigm shattering book for me. Friesen's thesis is that Scripture does not teach that God has an individual will for each believer. That is, I am not necessarily supposed to marry so-and-so or get such-and-such a job. He shows that taken to consistecy, I may have put on the wrong pair of socks this morning! Friesen then suggests that Christians should use wisdom given in Scripture to make life decisions.
4. The Word and Power Church, by Douglas Banister
I stumbled upon this one at my employer's sale rack and grabbed instantly. Banister does a fantastic job showing how both solid exegesis and expository preaching go hand-in-hand with praying for healing and receiving prophetic words. He details his own journey from being a good evangelical pastor to managing charismatic gifts in his church. He also shows how a good word and power church should function living in the tension. His overview of charismatic gifts in church history isn't bad either. Every reformed charismatic guy should read this one.
3. Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist, by Sam Storms
This is one in the same vein as Banister's book. I actually met Storms earlier this year and got this one signed. Storms spends the first part of the book detailing his own journey similar to Doug Banister's from a cessationist Bible church pastor to Metro Vineyard staff member, to Wheaton college professor, to president of Enjoying God Ministries. This guy actually rubbed elbows with Mike Bickle, Paul Cain, John Wimber, and others among the Kansas City Prophets and leadership of the Vineyard movement. The second part of the book deals with the divide between word-oriented cessationists and the more experiential Pentecostal/Charismatics. He ably shows how both word and spirit (or word and power) compliment each other. Another classic in the burgeoning Reformed Charismatic world.
2. Abraham's Four Seeds: A Biblical Examination of the Presuppositions of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, by John G. Reisinger
This was my introduction to New Covenant Theology and what an intro it was! Reisinger shows how both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology have hermeneutical starting points that don't mesh with scripture. He capably shows that as he puts it, "The nation of Israel was not the 'Body of Christ,' even though the Body of Christ is indeed the true 'Israel of God.' I believe this is one of the most true statements of theology I've ever read. The only knock on it is that Reisinger spends, in my opinion anyway, too much time defending believer baptism (he is a Baptist, so I guess it's understandable). The other complaint is that I think he spends most of his energy critiquing Covenant Theology and too little on Dispensationalism. Even still though, I think one of his most positive contributions is in the realm of hermeneutics. That is, I think he shows very well that the OT is to be interpreted by the NT. Very good and stimulating reading.
1. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today, by Jack Deere
This book is a landmark achievement in articulating a sound exegetical basis for continuationism. As with Banister and Storms, Deere tells his story of going from cessationist to continuationist including a stop at the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim with John Wimber. Deere shows how miraculous gifts did not cease with the apostles and that it was not only the apostles who could do miracles. He gives fascinating and emotional anecdotes to compliment his exegesis, which is exemplary. Also, he has some good chapters on cultivating intimacy with God that challenge me even today. Deere is easily one of the most influential figures among evangelical continuationists and reformed charismatics. This book easily deserves to be number one on my list. I would recommend it to anyone!
Well there you have it. These are the books that have been the most influential to me in my Christian life. Other books could have made the list, but I thought ten was a good number. I also have a huge list of books that I have yet to read. Maybe as time goes on, I'll modify my list, but for now, these are the best.
In Christ Jesus,
Christian
Friday, November 21, 2008
Core Beliefs, Values, and Priorities
Although this blog has been up for a few months now, I think the time has come for me to finally lay down what this blog is really all about and how I will go about putting forth what I believe to be important.
For those familiar with how the Vineyard works as a church planting movement or those familiar with the life and ministry of John Wimber, Vineyard churches are required while they are being planted to put forth what there particular values, practices, and priorities are and I thought why not do the same for this blog. So without further adieu, here are the things the Vineyard Calvinist is all about.
-Promoting and defending historic evangelical, orthodox, and reformed doctrine and teaching as set forth in the Holy Scriptures and explained in the creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, Chalcedonian, Athanasian), confessions (Westminster, 1st and 2nd London Baptist, Belgic, etc.), councils (Orange), and contemporary statements (Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy) of the Church throughout its history.
-Promoting, explaining, and defending the five "solas" of the Protestant Reformation (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria)
-Understanding, promoting, articulating, defending, and applying a consistently reformed soteriology which includes but is not necessarily limited to:
For those familiar with how the Vineyard works as a church planting movement or those familiar with the life and ministry of John Wimber, Vineyard churches are required while they are being planted to put forth what there particular values, practices, and priorities are and I thought why not do the same for this blog. So without further adieu, here are the things the Vineyard Calvinist is all about.
BELIEFS AND VALUES
-Promoting and defending historic evangelical, orthodox, and reformed doctrine and teaching as set forth in the Holy Scriptures and explained in the creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, Chalcedonian, Athanasian), confessions (Westminster, 1st and 2nd London Baptist, Belgic, etc.), councils (Orange), and contemporary statements (Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy) of the Church throughout its history.
-Promoting, explaining, and defending the five "solas" of the Protestant Reformation (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria)
-Understanding, promoting, articulating, defending, and applying a consistently reformed soteriology which includes but is not necessarily limited to:
- the five points of sovereign grace also known as "Calvinism" (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, Perseverence of the Saints).
- The imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer by faith alone.
- Penal Substitutionary atonement.
-Consistent interpretation of the Old Testament by the New Testament. That is, the Old Testament does not exclusively interpret itself. The New Testament is a "new torah" and is the vehicle which should drive our interpretation and application of the Old Testament. Also, it is now the standard of ethics, law, and conduct for the Christian.
-Biblical Continuationism. That is, I believe that all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still being given today and are distributed by the Holy Spirit as He wills. Further, I believe that these gifts will only cease after the return of the Lord Jesus to the earth.
-Power evangelism. The Kingdom of God is here today. Jesus rules today as David's heir. As a result, the Kingdom of God is invading and plundering the Kingdom of Satan. Believers are empowered to teach the words and do the works of Jesus including, but not limited to:
- Healing the sick
- Casting out demons
- Raising the dead
-An emphasis on the local church as the place where most ministry both to the body and to the world should take place. The congregational life of the church is to be one of encouragement, equipping, and sending forth. This also entails a belief in biblical leadership (i.e. eldership, apostleship, etc...)
-Although recognizing that this is a sensitive issue, I believe that biblical eldership and apostleship, and teaching and preaching to the congregation are offices and functions open only to qualified men. Further, it is the role of the husband to lead his family. These in no way, undermine the equality, giftings, and anointings of women in the church.
-Love and worship as a way of life. The Kingdom of God is not exclusively about miracles and mighty works. It is primarily about love, peace, joy, reconciliation, compassion, mercy, grace, goodness, etc. Also, the worship of God is not confined to two hours on a Sunday morning and a mid-week service. It is all of life.
-An understanding and appreciation for church history.
-Promoting all of these things in a spirit of grace, patience, love, and conviction.
PRIORITIES
-Blogging as much as possible to promote my beliefs and values.
-Standing against error and loving the truth.
-Recognizing that my family, church, and job take higher priority than this blog as much as I enjoy and want to blog.
Well there you have it. Feel free to comment and tell me what you think. Thank you very much.
-Christian Edmiston
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Quick Election Day Thoughts
Well I voted today. Although I seriously considered going with a third party candidate, I ended up casting my ballot for John McCain. But my purpose today is not to highlight why I did so, but to share some quick thoughts for this election day. Some of them are obvious, and some not so obvious, but I hope you all enjoy and feel free to comment and agree/disagree. I may expand on one or more of these points later, but time is short today. As a disclaimer, these are my opinions and convictions and are not statements of Christian orthodoxy
-One's political views are not necessarily and indicator of one's standing with God or his/her relationship with Christ and it is not correct to be suspicious of other believers whose political and social views are different from one's own.
-It is possible to be a Christian Democrat and love Jesus, His people, and the world and be a vibrant believer
-Christians are neither commanded to, nor forbidden from engaging in social causes (i.e., pro-life movement, war, the environment, the poor, etc.).
-Regeneration is primary to any meaningful change in any arena, social or otherwise. We should be about preaching the Gospel and discipling first, and about social causes, if desired, second.
-There will be no "golden age". That is, I do not believe in either postmillennialism or neo-latter rain revivalism.
-...[God] does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?" (Daniel 4:35 NKJV)
-Whoever is elected to any office, Christians are obligated to respect, honor, submit to, and pray for those in authority. It is a sin to mock or to verbally or in writing disparage any other human being, but especially those in authority (1 Tim. 2:1-4; Romans 13:1-7; James 3:8-12). That however, does not mean we are obligated to agree with them in anything. We can in good conscience disagree with those in authority over us as long as we are full of respect, honor, love, and obedience.
-Civil disobedience is a sin except in cases where obedience to Christ and obedience to authorities are mutually exclusive (Acts 4:18-20).
Well I've got to run and go to work. Blessings.
-Christian
-One's political views are not necessarily and indicator of one's standing with God or his/her relationship with Christ and it is not correct to be suspicious of other believers whose political and social views are different from one's own.
-It is possible to be a Christian Democrat and love Jesus, His people, and the world and be a vibrant believer
-Christians are neither commanded to, nor forbidden from engaging in social causes (i.e., pro-life movement, war, the environment, the poor, etc.).
-Regeneration is primary to any meaningful change in any arena, social or otherwise. We should be about preaching the Gospel and discipling first, and about social causes, if desired, second.
-There will be no "golden age". That is, I do not believe in either postmillennialism or neo-latter rain revivalism.
-...[God] does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?" (Daniel 4:35 NKJV)
-Whoever is elected to any office, Christians are obligated to respect, honor, submit to, and pray for those in authority. It is a sin to mock or to verbally or in writing disparage any other human being, but especially those in authority (1 Tim. 2:1-4; Romans 13:1-7; James 3:8-12). That however, does not mean we are obligated to agree with them in anything. We can in good conscience disagree with those in authority over us as long as we are full of respect, honor, love, and obedience.
-Civil disobedience is a sin except in cases where obedience to Christ and obedience to authorities are mutually exclusive (Acts 4:18-20).
Well I've got to run and go to work. Blessings.
-Christian
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Open Letter Concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ
As some of you may have seen in a previous blog entry, I was recently challenged concerning my Trinitarian beliefs. I was sent a link to a documentary which attempted to prove biblically, theologically, and historically that Jesus is not truly divine and that the doctrine of the Trinity is untrue and a product of pagan influence on a gentile church. Essentially, the Trinity and the deity of Christ was denied in favor of a Unitarian view of the Godhead and of Christ.
I took some time to watch the documentary "The Human Jesus" (hereafter THJ), take notes, and write down my review of it. I sent it to the individual who originally sent me THJ, Adam Pastor. But I thought it wise to put it also on the blog. I thought so because if I was willing to defend a complimentarian view of gender roles publically on the blog, much more the deity of my Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyway, my response is below. It is a little long but such an important topic deserves some time and space.
-Christian
Adam,
Please accept my apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I have not forgotten but in actuality have been taking the time to watch the documentary you sent and to take notes on it as I wanted to offer to you an informed reply. Also, I have looked at your website to try to understand exactly what you do believe and what you do not.
Now on to "The Human Jesus". The first and most glaring thing I noticed was that there seems to be a sizeable misunderstanding of what Trinitarians like myself really believe about the nature of Christ in particular. Although the basic definition is correct, one gets the impression that Trinitarians believe in a Jesus that is truly God, but not really a man. That is not in fact what we believe and such a belief would be considered Gnosticism. The only group I know of that would be close to this would be the Christian Science cult.
The second thing I noticed was that there is this underlying assumption that Trinitarianism is incompatible with Jewish Monotheism. Along with this is the assertion that Trinitarianism will not be acceptable to the Jews (for example) because it is not consistent with their monotheism. With these I have a few replies and questions. Firstly, Trinitarianism is a form of Monotheism. It is not the only form, but it is one of them (and in my judgment, the purest and most biblical). The very definition of Trinitarianism is the belief in one God in three persons. If orthodoxy were teaching tritheism, you would be absolutely correct in asserting that we have departed from monotheism.
Secondly, truth about God is not determined by what is “Jewish” and what is not, but by what God’s Word actually says. The truth of God’s Word is often at odds with what men (even Jewish ones) will accept. For example, the Corban rule (Mark 7:9-13) would have been considered a very Jewish thing to do because of its Talmudic origins, but it had no basis in Torah and in fact was a clever way of getting around what Torah commanded concerning honoring father and mother. In a nutshell, the Lord Jesus cared (and still cares) more about what the Scriptures actually said than what might have been considered Jewish at that time or any time.
Thirdly, along with the above is the presupposition that Trinitarianism and the creeds that confess it are actually borrowed from pagan philosophy and the polytheism that usually accompanies it. However, this would only be true if there is no precedent in the Old Testament for the idea of a plurality within the one Godhead. As I shall argue shortly, there is plenty of evidence within the Old Testament for the idea of plurality and tri-unity.
At one point in the documentary we are told that the New Testament consistently warns against the gentile influence corrupting the pure Jewish faith. My question is when does the New Testament ever warn of this? Not that it isn’t possible for pagan influences to corrupt the true faith of YHVH, but again in the documentary, it is simply assumed that that is what happened. And I am not referring to some prior pagan practices that may have been assimilated (1 Cor. 8 seems to teach that elements used in pagan worship are not defiled), but pagan belief systems. I don’t see the early church attempting to reconcile the worship of Zeus/Jupiter into the worship of Israel’s God. Rather, I see the church looking at evidences in both testaments and attempting to formulate a belief about the One True God whom they confessed.
Several times we are also told that whenever Jesus appeared to be taking on divine prerogatives, He always backed off and denied that He was doing so in an absolute sense. The examples given are John 5:17-23 and John 10:30-39.
Concerning John 5:17-23, my reading of it shows no signs of denial that Jesus is equal to God the Father, quite the opposite. Rather, we should look at this passage in its context.
For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.[1][2]
Basically, this text can be broken up like this:
-Whatever God does, Jesus does
-If it is objected that Jesus says He can do nothing of Himself, proving He is not God, my answer is that difference in function does not equal difference in essence or in inequality. Consider what I blogged about that caused you to contact me in the first place; namely the issue of men and women and their roles and functions in the home and in the Church. Men and women are equal and both are created in the image of God, but they have different roles with the man taking headship in the home and in the Church. The submission of the woman does not entail her inequality with the man.
-God (the Father) raises the dead, Jesus raises the dead. Only God can raise the dead whether physically or spiritually.
-Only God judges (Psalm 9:7, 8; 94:2), yet Jesus is the One Who judges. It will not do to argue that Jesus only carries out and pronounces what the Father decrees because this passage makes clear that the Father judges no one. God has given that prerogative to the Son.
-The result is that the very same honor given to God is given to the Son as well as the Father, and that failure to honor the Son in that way is failure to honor the Father.
This is classic Trinitarianism as it relates to the Son’s relationship with the Father. The Father and the Son are equal. They share the One divine essence. However, in that equality (which can be illustrated by the roles of men and women in the home and the church), there is headship and submission. Also, there is difference in function.
We now come to John 10:30-39. In order to treat this passage properly, I think its larger context will go a long way.
Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.”
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.
One of the things that I think everyone overlooks in this exchange is the repeated emphasis Jesus makes on His “works” or the miracles that He did that bore witness to His identity. This is not isolated to this point in chapter 10, but is found elsewhere in John’s gospel (2:11; 4:54; 5:20, 36; 6:14; 11:45; 14:9-11; 20:30-31; 21:25).
This, I believe, is the lynchpin of Christ’s argument with the religious leaders. I always used to be confused by Jesus’ question immediately after the Jewish religious leaders picked up stones to stone Him. Why would Jesus ask about which work He is being stoned for? Is He completely oblivious to what He just said and wondering why He is about to be stoned? What does this question about His miracles have to do with anything?
The answer is found in verses 37 and 38. I am going to skip over vv. 34-36 for the time being but will return to them later. It is interesting that those about to stone Jesus did not dispute the reality of His miracles but instead for claiming to be God, which amounted to blasphemy in their book (and it would be, if it is not true). The Lord, however appeals to His miracles to back up His claim. Remember, we haven’t left the discussion of Christ’s statement in v. 30 about being one with the Father. Jesus is defending that statement by saying, in essence, “I am one with the Father. The miracles He gave me to do prove it. If I haven’t done any miracles, don’t believe me and start hurling stones. But if I do the miracles, which you don’t dispute that I do, believe me that I am one with the Father.”
The reason Jesus asks the question in verse 32 is to point out that the works which the Father gave Him to do, have never been disputed as having occurred by the religious leaders. Their response shows this. The point Jesus makes is that these same miracles which they admitted as having happened, prove the statement made in v. 30 and its implication, namely that Jesus is God.
Now I believe that Jesus did His miracles by the power and anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, these Spirit-wrought works were given by the Father to show that Jesus is the one sent by Him and Jesus, not me, is making the connection between the works He does and His identity as the God-man, one with the Father. In other words, His miracles confirm the message of Christ’s identity as one with the Father and the one sent to bring salvation to the world.
Now I will discuss vv. 34-36. At several points in The Human Jesus, we are told that many times in scripture, non-divine rulers and kings are called “gods”. As it pertains to this passage, Jesus is backing off from the claim to divinity by pointing that fact out.
However, many times, non-divine rulers are called “gods” because they actually are worshipped as such (like Caesar and in some cases Satan). Further, God Himself is also called “god”. At best, the argument from the documentary leaves the question open. Either Jesus is saying “I am God”, or He is saying “I am a ‘god’; that is a non-divine, but powerful ruler”. Context drives our interpretation (at least it should). Firstly, the point I made above argues for the former. Secondly, I think it is plain that Jesus is arguing from the lesser to the greater. He is saying that if non-divine judges are called “gods” in a much lesser sense, how much more the One sent by the Father and attested to by signs, wonders, and miracles. How much more is the one who actually is one with the Father going to be called God in its truest sense.
Now if I am correct, then it’s not blasphemy for Jesus to say, “I am the Son of God”, which according to context, is equivalent to saying “I and My Father are one”, because it was that statement and the religious leaders’ response to it that prompted this short monologue. That is exactly the point made in verse 36.
John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 are some other proof texts given in The Human Jesus designed to disprove Trinitarian notions of God in favor of a Unitarian one. I think on closer examination they are not as anti-Trinitarian as they may at first appear.
John 17:3 reads:
…And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Once again, I think context goes a long way in helping us correctly interpret the passage in question. Let’s see the whole context.
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
(John 17:1-5 NKJV)
While v. 3 standing on its own might give the impression that Jesus is affirming a Unitarian view of the Godhead, the surrounding context gives us some very Trinitarian statements. Firstly, Jesus petitions the Father to glorify Him. The Old Testament is very clear that God does not share His glory with anyone (Isaiah 42:8; 48:9-11). Secondly, it is the Son who has authority over all flesh. Only God can have that. It will not do to say that the Father delegated this authority so that makes Him less than God because of the point I made above that difference in function does not equal difference in essence or equality. Thirdly, it is the Son who gives eternal life, which is a prerogative of God alone.
The last point is made in v. 5 in which I believe clinches it. Jesus prays again that the Father would glorify Him with the same glory He had with the Father before the creation of the world. The documentary asserts that Jesus was created in the womb of Mary His mother. John 17:5 would seem to contradict that assertion (among other verses; see for example Colossians 1:17). Further, this passage I believe asserts the full equality of Jesus with the Father, as well as by extension proving His deity.
It is in this context that Jesus defines eternal life by saying that it is knowing the Father, the only true God. I believe this fits perfectly well in a Trinitarian framework. No Trinitarian says that the Father is one of three gods, with the Son being another, and the Spirit yet another. That would be polytheism, which is heresy! Trinitarians happily assert that the Father is the only true God. We also assert that the Son and Holy Spirit also are the only true God. We believe in one and only one God.
If that doesn’t convince you, try this. If you would, assume just for the sake of argument that the Trinity is true and God the Son did become incarnate and take on human flesh. Ask yourself this question: Just how would we expect Him to pray to God His Father? Would we expect Him to affirm anything less than monotheism. Would we not expect that He would refer to God the Father as “The only true God”?
Jesus is certainly affirming monotheism here, but He also makes the point that eternal life is just as equally knowing Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. That clearly puts Him on an equal plane with the Father.
1 Corinthians 8:6 is similar. Paul makes a very monotheistic creedal statement to which I agree completely. However, there is something that I think Unitarians miss. It is asserted that since the passage says “…There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we for Him…” that that is damning to Trinitarianism. However, reading the rest of the passage reveals Paul’s very Trinitarian theology. Again I will quote the whole passage.
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(1 Corinthians 8:5,6 NKJV)
Let’s take the Unitarian argument to consistency. If the argument is true that this passage precludes Jesus Christ from being God because there is only one God, the Father, then it is equally true that God cannot be the Lord, because Paul tells us that there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. How then should we understand a passage like Revelation 11:15:
Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”
It is obvious that “our Lord” is God and “His Christ” is Jesus. But if we took 1 Corinthians 8:6 the way you suggest, then we have a problem because there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, Paul’s Trinitarian theology is brought out by linking together God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in the work of creation. He says that all things exist of God the Father and all things exist through Jesus Christ, God the Son.
I find that both John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, when read in context are very strong passages affirming both the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
One other point that is made particularly at the beginning of the documentary concerns the Shema. It is argued that any argument for Trinitarianism breaks down when we remember that God is one and that this was (and is) the flagship confession of the people of Israel. A couple of things I’d like to say concerning this.
Firstly, the Shema is a classic statement of monotheism; one of the most to the point. However, it is not the last word on the nature of God. Nothing subsequent will contradict it, but it might (and does) offer advance and new revelation that will teach us more about God while never superceding it or contradict it. This I think is apparent when coming to the New Testament, but there are Scriptures which says it pretty outright.
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds. (Hebrews 1:1 NKJV)
For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house…And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:3,5-6a NKJV)
Now I realize that you recognize that Christ is greater than Moses and I do not wish to patronize you by suggesting that you don’t, but I think that you may have missed some of the implications of that fact. Moses spoke from God and everything he spoke (including the Shema) was and is true, but what these Scriptures indicate is that the revelation given us in Christ Jesus is greater and more complete (but not contradictory), and sheds more light on what we have read prior. Further, everything prior must be interpreted in light of the greater revelation in Christ.
Another example of this can be seen when Jesus and Peter, James, and John descend from the Mountain of Transfiguration. Peter astutely asks why the scribes say that Elijah must come before the Messiah and the Lord replies that the scribes are correct but that Elijah did come. The disciples realized that He was referring to John the Baptist. So then, Malachi 3:1 was fulfilled, but the New Testament gives us advance and the deeper, truest meaning of the prophecy.
I think we have something similar in Deuteronomy 6:4. The New Testament never changes it, ignores it, or contradicts it; but rather more fully explains it and teaches us its truest meaning.
But even without all of that, I do believe that the Shema itself does hint at Trinitarianism. The first Trinitarian argument that is attacked is the belief that the Hebrew word “echad”. Trinitarians have argued that the word can and often does imply a compound unity which would open the door to the idea of a plurality within the Godhead, whereas The Human Jesus objects by saying that it only means an absolute one with no room for plurality. A Rabbi is even enlisted to support this.
However there are other passages in Scripture which seem give weight to the Trinitarian interpretation. Firstly, Genesis 2:24 says that when a man and a woman come together, the two become “one flesh”. In the Hebrew language, the word used for “one” is ehcad. This is one example of ehcad meaning a compound unity. Similarly, in Ezekiel 37:17, Ezekiel is instructed to take the two sticks symbolizing Joseph and Judah and to join them into one stick. Again the Hebrew word for “one” is echad.
While these do not prove the Trinitarian interpretation, they certainly open the door for it, and given the extra light of the New Testament particularly (though not exclusively), Trinitarianism is not as baseless as The Human Jesus would lead us to believe.
The next thing I want to touch on is the documentary’s treatment of John 1:1. I have heard of alternate interpretations of this verse which are used to deny that Jesus is God (notably the Watchtower’s translation “a god”) but I did not expect this. The only thing I can really say to that is that I think the interpretation that the “Word” which was with God and is God is more than just the plan of God or the purpose of God as the documentary asserts.
This interpretation breaks down at v. 14 which tells us that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The question we may reasonably ask is, “Who became flesh and dwelt among us according to the context”? The Word did. And the apostles beheld His (the Word’s) glory as of the only begotten of the Father. Clearly Jesus is the one who is only begotten of the Father. And if this is so, then it is He who became flesh and dwelt among us and it is He who is the Word who became flesh and who was with God and was God. This is more than just a Hebrew idiom that personifies God’s purpose or plan.
I also wish to defend the belief that the deity of Jesus makes possible our salvation. Contrary to the documentary’s claim, the worthiness of the sacrifice does make a difference. The children of Israel were not allowed to bring just any goat/bull/ox/sheep, etc… The sacrifice, as you no doubt are aware, must have been without blemish completely or it could not be a sacrifice.
This is typical of the sinlessness of Jesus. Only a sinless human being could be the sacrifice necessary to take away the sins of the human race. And only an infinite being could suffer an eternity’s worth of the wrath of God against sin in a finite period of time. If Jesus were not God, He could not suffer that infinite wrath in the space of one afternoon. If Jesus were not God, then no one could be saved.
One final thing. Near the end of the documentary it is argued that if Jesus were God, then how does He serve as an example to me as to how to live as a redeemed human being? The answer given is that He doesn’t. Jesus is man, not God so He does give us that example of how people should live to God’s glory.
However, I would counter by saying, as I did above, that Jesus when coming to earth “emptied Himself” as Philippians 2 says and became a human being. In emptying Himself, He voluntarily chose not to use His divine attributes but instead lived His life as a man in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is His sinless life, His victory over temptations, His miracles, and His obedience to the Father in going to the cross were done in the power of the Holy Spirit and not on the strength of His divine nature although He could have. This provides powerful assurance to me of what I can do with the same Holy Spirit in me.
To further make my point, I have linked below a message given by Dr. Sam Storms where he argues this point further.[3]
In closing I wish to put this in perspective. This is not a minor disagreement about a secondary point of doctrine. This is an issue which touches our eternal destinies. The fact is that Christology is vital to our salvation. Even a cursory reading of John’s gospel and His epistles make this plain. If I am wrong about Jesus being God and the Trinity, then I am going to Hell. If you are wrong about Jesus not being God, then you are going to Hell. I cannot sugar coat this. I believe that you must turn away from this doctrine you hold, embrace the true Lord Jesus Christ who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Jesus who is God incarnate who alone through faith in His name will save you and all who trust in Him from God’s wrath against our sins. Please consider what I say and don’t hesitate to reply.
-In Jesus name and on His authority,
Christian Edmiston
[1] Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] All emphases are mine.
[3] http://www.charismaticreformed.org/10-14-2006%20Sam%20Storms.mp3
I took some time to watch the documentary "The Human Jesus" (hereafter THJ), take notes, and write down my review of it. I sent it to the individual who originally sent me THJ, Adam Pastor. But I thought it wise to put it also on the blog. I thought so because if I was willing to defend a complimentarian view of gender roles publically on the blog, much more the deity of my Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyway, my response is below. It is a little long but such an important topic deserves some time and space.
-Christian
Adam,
Please accept my apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I have not forgotten but in actuality have been taking the time to watch the documentary you sent and to take notes on it as I wanted to offer to you an informed reply. Also, I have looked at your website to try to understand exactly what you do believe and what you do not.
Now on to "The Human Jesus". The first and most glaring thing I noticed was that there seems to be a sizeable misunderstanding of what Trinitarians like myself really believe about the nature of Christ in particular. Although the basic definition is correct, one gets the impression that Trinitarians believe in a Jesus that is truly God, but not really a man. That is not in fact what we believe and such a belief would be considered Gnosticism. The only group I know of that would be close to this would be the Christian Science cult.
The second thing I noticed was that there is this underlying assumption that Trinitarianism is incompatible with Jewish Monotheism. Along with this is the assertion that Trinitarianism will not be acceptable to the Jews (for example) because it is not consistent with their monotheism. With these I have a few replies and questions. Firstly, Trinitarianism is a form of Monotheism. It is not the only form, but it is one of them (and in my judgment, the purest and most biblical). The very definition of Trinitarianism is the belief in one God in three persons. If orthodoxy were teaching tritheism, you would be absolutely correct in asserting that we have departed from monotheism.
Secondly, truth about God is not determined by what is “Jewish” and what is not, but by what God’s Word actually says. The truth of God’s Word is often at odds with what men (even Jewish ones) will accept. For example, the Corban rule (Mark 7:9-13) would have been considered a very Jewish thing to do because of its Talmudic origins, but it had no basis in Torah and in fact was a clever way of getting around what Torah commanded concerning honoring father and mother. In a nutshell, the Lord Jesus cared (and still cares) more about what the Scriptures actually said than what might have been considered Jewish at that time or any time.
Thirdly, along with the above is the presupposition that Trinitarianism and the creeds that confess it are actually borrowed from pagan philosophy and the polytheism that usually accompanies it. However, this would only be true if there is no precedent in the Old Testament for the idea of a plurality within the one Godhead. As I shall argue shortly, there is plenty of evidence within the Old Testament for the idea of plurality and tri-unity.
At one point in the documentary we are told that the New Testament consistently warns against the gentile influence corrupting the pure Jewish faith. My question is when does the New Testament ever warn of this? Not that it isn’t possible for pagan influences to corrupt the true faith of YHVH, but again in the documentary, it is simply assumed that that is what happened. And I am not referring to some prior pagan practices that may have been assimilated (1 Cor. 8 seems to teach that elements used in pagan worship are not defiled), but pagan belief systems. I don’t see the early church attempting to reconcile the worship of Zeus/Jupiter into the worship of Israel’s God. Rather, I see the church looking at evidences in both testaments and attempting to formulate a belief about the One True God whom they confessed.
Several times we are also told that whenever Jesus appeared to be taking on divine prerogatives, He always backed off and denied that He was doing so in an absolute sense. The examples given are John 5:17-23 and John 10:30-39.
Concerning John 5:17-23, my reading of it shows no signs of denial that Jesus is equal to God the Father, quite the opposite. Rather, we should look at this passage in its context.
For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.[1][2]
Basically, this text can be broken up like this:
-Whatever God does, Jesus does
-If it is objected that Jesus says He can do nothing of Himself, proving He is not God, my answer is that difference in function does not equal difference in essence or in inequality. Consider what I blogged about that caused you to contact me in the first place; namely the issue of men and women and their roles and functions in the home and in the Church. Men and women are equal and both are created in the image of God, but they have different roles with the man taking headship in the home and in the Church. The submission of the woman does not entail her inequality with the man.
-God (the Father) raises the dead, Jesus raises the dead. Only God can raise the dead whether physically or spiritually.
-Only God judges (Psalm 9:7, 8; 94:2), yet Jesus is the One Who judges. It will not do to argue that Jesus only carries out and pronounces what the Father decrees because this passage makes clear that the Father judges no one. God has given that prerogative to the Son.
-The result is that the very same honor given to God is given to the Son as well as the Father, and that failure to honor the Son in that way is failure to honor the Father.
This is classic Trinitarianism as it relates to the Son’s relationship with the Father. The Father and the Son are equal. They share the One divine essence. However, in that equality (which can be illustrated by the roles of men and women in the home and the church), there is headship and submission. Also, there is difference in function.
We now come to John 10:30-39. In order to treat this passage properly, I think its larger context will go a long way.
Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.”
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.
One of the things that I think everyone overlooks in this exchange is the repeated emphasis Jesus makes on His “works” or the miracles that He did that bore witness to His identity. This is not isolated to this point in chapter 10, but is found elsewhere in John’s gospel (2:11; 4:54; 5:20, 36; 6:14; 11:45; 14:9-11; 20:30-31; 21:25).
This, I believe, is the lynchpin of Christ’s argument with the religious leaders. I always used to be confused by Jesus’ question immediately after the Jewish religious leaders picked up stones to stone Him. Why would Jesus ask about which work He is being stoned for? Is He completely oblivious to what He just said and wondering why He is about to be stoned? What does this question about His miracles have to do with anything?
The answer is found in verses 37 and 38. I am going to skip over vv. 34-36 for the time being but will return to them later. It is interesting that those about to stone Jesus did not dispute the reality of His miracles but instead for claiming to be God, which amounted to blasphemy in their book (and it would be, if it is not true). The Lord, however appeals to His miracles to back up His claim. Remember, we haven’t left the discussion of Christ’s statement in v. 30 about being one with the Father. Jesus is defending that statement by saying, in essence, “I am one with the Father. The miracles He gave me to do prove it. If I haven’t done any miracles, don’t believe me and start hurling stones. But if I do the miracles, which you don’t dispute that I do, believe me that I am one with the Father.”
The reason Jesus asks the question in verse 32 is to point out that the works which the Father gave Him to do, have never been disputed as having occurred by the religious leaders. Their response shows this. The point Jesus makes is that these same miracles which they admitted as having happened, prove the statement made in v. 30 and its implication, namely that Jesus is God.
Now I believe that Jesus did His miracles by the power and anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, these Spirit-wrought works were given by the Father to show that Jesus is the one sent by Him and Jesus, not me, is making the connection between the works He does and His identity as the God-man, one with the Father. In other words, His miracles confirm the message of Christ’s identity as one with the Father and the one sent to bring salvation to the world.
Now I will discuss vv. 34-36. At several points in The Human Jesus, we are told that many times in scripture, non-divine rulers and kings are called “gods”. As it pertains to this passage, Jesus is backing off from the claim to divinity by pointing that fact out.
However, many times, non-divine rulers are called “gods” because they actually are worshipped as such (like Caesar and in some cases Satan). Further, God Himself is also called “god”. At best, the argument from the documentary leaves the question open. Either Jesus is saying “I am God”, or He is saying “I am a ‘god’; that is a non-divine, but powerful ruler”. Context drives our interpretation (at least it should). Firstly, the point I made above argues for the former. Secondly, I think it is plain that Jesus is arguing from the lesser to the greater. He is saying that if non-divine judges are called “gods” in a much lesser sense, how much more the One sent by the Father and attested to by signs, wonders, and miracles. How much more is the one who actually is one with the Father going to be called God in its truest sense.
Now if I am correct, then it’s not blasphemy for Jesus to say, “I am the Son of God”, which according to context, is equivalent to saying “I and My Father are one”, because it was that statement and the religious leaders’ response to it that prompted this short monologue. That is exactly the point made in verse 36.
John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 are some other proof texts given in The Human Jesus designed to disprove Trinitarian notions of God in favor of a Unitarian one. I think on closer examination they are not as anti-Trinitarian as they may at first appear.
John 17:3 reads:
…And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Once again, I think context goes a long way in helping us correctly interpret the passage in question. Let’s see the whole context.
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
(John 17:1-5 NKJV)
While v. 3 standing on its own might give the impression that Jesus is affirming a Unitarian view of the Godhead, the surrounding context gives us some very Trinitarian statements. Firstly, Jesus petitions the Father to glorify Him. The Old Testament is very clear that God does not share His glory with anyone (Isaiah 42:8; 48:9-11). Secondly, it is the Son who has authority over all flesh. Only God can have that. It will not do to say that the Father delegated this authority so that makes Him less than God because of the point I made above that difference in function does not equal difference in essence or equality. Thirdly, it is the Son who gives eternal life, which is a prerogative of God alone.
The last point is made in v. 5 in which I believe clinches it. Jesus prays again that the Father would glorify Him with the same glory He had with the Father before the creation of the world. The documentary asserts that Jesus was created in the womb of Mary His mother. John 17:5 would seem to contradict that assertion (among other verses; see for example Colossians 1:17). Further, this passage I believe asserts the full equality of Jesus with the Father, as well as by extension proving His deity.
It is in this context that Jesus defines eternal life by saying that it is knowing the Father, the only true God. I believe this fits perfectly well in a Trinitarian framework. No Trinitarian says that the Father is one of three gods, with the Son being another, and the Spirit yet another. That would be polytheism, which is heresy! Trinitarians happily assert that the Father is the only true God. We also assert that the Son and Holy Spirit also are the only true God. We believe in one and only one God.
If that doesn’t convince you, try this. If you would, assume just for the sake of argument that the Trinity is true and God the Son did become incarnate and take on human flesh. Ask yourself this question: Just how would we expect Him to pray to God His Father? Would we expect Him to affirm anything less than monotheism. Would we not expect that He would refer to God the Father as “The only true God”?
Jesus is certainly affirming monotheism here, but He also makes the point that eternal life is just as equally knowing Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. That clearly puts Him on an equal plane with the Father.
1 Corinthians 8:6 is similar. Paul makes a very monotheistic creedal statement to which I agree completely. However, there is something that I think Unitarians miss. It is asserted that since the passage says “…There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we for Him…” that that is damning to Trinitarianism. However, reading the rest of the passage reveals Paul’s very Trinitarian theology. Again I will quote the whole passage.
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(1 Corinthians 8:5,6 NKJV)
Let’s take the Unitarian argument to consistency. If the argument is true that this passage precludes Jesus Christ from being God because there is only one God, the Father, then it is equally true that God cannot be the Lord, because Paul tells us that there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. How then should we understand a passage like Revelation 11:15:
Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”
It is obvious that “our Lord” is God and “His Christ” is Jesus. But if we took 1 Corinthians 8:6 the way you suggest, then we have a problem because there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, Paul’s Trinitarian theology is brought out by linking together God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in the work of creation. He says that all things exist of God the Father and all things exist through Jesus Christ, God the Son.
I find that both John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, when read in context are very strong passages affirming both the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
One other point that is made particularly at the beginning of the documentary concerns the Shema. It is argued that any argument for Trinitarianism breaks down when we remember that God is one and that this was (and is) the flagship confession of the people of Israel. A couple of things I’d like to say concerning this.
Firstly, the Shema is a classic statement of monotheism; one of the most to the point. However, it is not the last word on the nature of God. Nothing subsequent will contradict it, but it might (and does) offer advance and new revelation that will teach us more about God while never superceding it or contradict it. This I think is apparent when coming to the New Testament, but there are Scriptures which says it pretty outright.
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds. (Hebrews 1:1 NKJV)
For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house…And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:3,5-6a NKJV)
Now I realize that you recognize that Christ is greater than Moses and I do not wish to patronize you by suggesting that you don’t, but I think that you may have missed some of the implications of that fact. Moses spoke from God and everything he spoke (including the Shema) was and is true, but what these Scriptures indicate is that the revelation given us in Christ Jesus is greater and more complete (but not contradictory), and sheds more light on what we have read prior. Further, everything prior must be interpreted in light of the greater revelation in Christ.
Another example of this can be seen when Jesus and Peter, James, and John descend from the Mountain of Transfiguration. Peter astutely asks why the scribes say that Elijah must come before the Messiah and the Lord replies that the scribes are correct but that Elijah did come. The disciples realized that He was referring to John the Baptist. So then, Malachi 3:1 was fulfilled, but the New Testament gives us advance and the deeper, truest meaning of the prophecy.
I think we have something similar in Deuteronomy 6:4. The New Testament never changes it, ignores it, or contradicts it; but rather more fully explains it and teaches us its truest meaning.
But even without all of that, I do believe that the Shema itself does hint at Trinitarianism. The first Trinitarian argument that is attacked is the belief that the Hebrew word “echad”. Trinitarians have argued that the word can and often does imply a compound unity which would open the door to the idea of a plurality within the Godhead, whereas The Human Jesus objects by saying that it only means an absolute one with no room for plurality. A Rabbi is even enlisted to support this.
However there are other passages in Scripture which seem give weight to the Trinitarian interpretation. Firstly, Genesis 2:24 says that when a man and a woman come together, the two become “one flesh”. In the Hebrew language, the word used for “one” is ehcad. This is one example of ehcad meaning a compound unity. Similarly, in Ezekiel 37:17, Ezekiel is instructed to take the two sticks symbolizing Joseph and Judah and to join them into one stick. Again the Hebrew word for “one” is echad.
While these do not prove the Trinitarian interpretation, they certainly open the door for it, and given the extra light of the New Testament particularly (though not exclusively), Trinitarianism is not as baseless as The Human Jesus would lead us to believe.
The next thing I want to touch on is the documentary’s treatment of John 1:1. I have heard of alternate interpretations of this verse which are used to deny that Jesus is God (notably the Watchtower’s translation “a god”) but I did not expect this. The only thing I can really say to that is that I think the interpretation that the “Word” which was with God and is God is more than just the plan of God or the purpose of God as the documentary asserts.
This interpretation breaks down at v. 14 which tells us that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The question we may reasonably ask is, “Who became flesh and dwelt among us according to the context”? The Word did. And the apostles beheld His (the Word’s) glory as of the only begotten of the Father. Clearly Jesus is the one who is only begotten of the Father. And if this is so, then it is He who became flesh and dwelt among us and it is He who is the Word who became flesh and who was with God and was God. This is more than just a Hebrew idiom that personifies God’s purpose or plan.
I also wish to defend the belief that the deity of Jesus makes possible our salvation. Contrary to the documentary’s claim, the worthiness of the sacrifice does make a difference. The children of Israel were not allowed to bring just any goat/bull/ox/sheep, etc… The sacrifice, as you no doubt are aware, must have been without blemish completely or it could not be a sacrifice.
This is typical of the sinlessness of Jesus. Only a sinless human being could be the sacrifice necessary to take away the sins of the human race. And only an infinite being could suffer an eternity’s worth of the wrath of God against sin in a finite period of time. If Jesus were not God, He could not suffer that infinite wrath in the space of one afternoon. If Jesus were not God, then no one could be saved.
One final thing. Near the end of the documentary it is argued that if Jesus were God, then how does He serve as an example to me as to how to live as a redeemed human being? The answer given is that He doesn’t. Jesus is man, not God so He does give us that example of how people should live to God’s glory.
However, I would counter by saying, as I did above, that Jesus when coming to earth “emptied Himself” as Philippians 2 says and became a human being. In emptying Himself, He voluntarily chose not to use His divine attributes but instead lived His life as a man in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is His sinless life, His victory over temptations, His miracles, and His obedience to the Father in going to the cross were done in the power of the Holy Spirit and not on the strength of His divine nature although He could have. This provides powerful assurance to me of what I can do with the same Holy Spirit in me.
To further make my point, I have linked below a message given by Dr. Sam Storms where he argues this point further.[3]
In closing I wish to put this in perspective. This is not a minor disagreement about a secondary point of doctrine. This is an issue which touches our eternal destinies. The fact is that Christology is vital to our salvation. Even a cursory reading of John’s gospel and His epistles make this plain. If I am wrong about Jesus being God and the Trinity, then I am going to Hell. If you are wrong about Jesus not being God, then you are going to Hell. I cannot sugar coat this. I believe that you must turn away from this doctrine you hold, embrace the true Lord Jesus Christ who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Jesus who is God incarnate who alone through faith in His name will save you and all who trust in Him from God’s wrath against our sins. Please consider what I say and don’t hesitate to reply.
-In Jesus name and on His authority,
Christian Edmiston
[1] Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] All emphases are mine.
[3] http://www.charismaticreformed.org/10-14-2006%20Sam%20Storms.mp3
Saturday, October 18, 2008
More Blogging From the ACRC Conference
The conference is over and it has been a wonderful time of fellowship, the preaching of the Word of God, worship, and prayer. I can't tell you how blessed and fortunate I am to be a part of two wonderful organizations of churches (Vineyard USA and the ACRC).
Yesterday we heard two very good messages about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and one that assessed today's pragmatic evangelistic approaches. Joseph Gleason, pastor of Christ the King Anglican Church walked us through church history and showed how the gifts can be found at just about every era of church history. The Patristic Period particularly comes to mind as Brother Joseph shared with us some quotes of many of the early fathers who testified to experiencing the prophetic and healing gifts among their congregations, as well as gifts of tongues and the casting out of demons. The Reformation period also witnessed some profound prophetic activity as some of the best known reformers had these experiences (John Knox and Samuel Rutherford especially).
Rob Wilkerson from Church in the Boro in Statesboro, GA then gave a profoundly powerful message about the importance of signs and wonders in the proclamation of the Gospel. He went through the Scriptures showing how whenever the Gospel was proclaimed, signs and wonders were not far behind. Rob was filled with passion while preaching and kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. He also demonstrated that affirming and seeking signs and wonders was not detrimental to the proclamation of the Gospel but a great help to it! Signs, wonders, and miracles peak people's attention, and build confidence in the preacher without at all diluting the intrinsic power of the Gospel.
The association business meeting was next and we spent a good hour and a half discussing possible changes to the statement of faith and the constitution. Particularly, we had a bit of a controversial amendment to the statement of faith concerning justification. Many in the association believe that both the active and passive obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer wheras I tend to believe that only the passive righteousness is imputed to the believer. I wholeheartedly agree with the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and also believe we need to strengthen our statement of and commitment to sola fide in a world where it is under attack so much (modern Roman Catholic apologists, Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, etc...). We just need to determine whether or not to be so specific as to the active/passive issue.
I hung out with some of the guys in between sessions at Starbucks where Mark Bahr, one of the pastors at Faith Community Church in Dallas bought everybody coffee (he works part time as a shift manager and gets a 30% discount; thanks a lot!).
The evening session saw Terry Simpson bring the word by critiquing "decisional regeneration" and other means of pragmatic evangelism. I really like Terry and agreed absolutely with everything he said, but the only complaint I had was that it just seemed like preaching to the choir. Hopefully the message is distributed by internet and can reach the audience it needs to reach.
This morning after breakfast, Jeff Gregory, also pastor at Faith Community Church in Dallas and founding member of the ACRC, showed us how Scripture can be used as a motivator to involving people in the missionary enterprise. He went to numerous Scriptures, largely from the Old Testament showing how fulfilling the Great Commission is fulfillment of OT prophecies of the nations coming and worshipping Israel's God and trusting His Messiah.
Sadly, after lunch many of the attendees had to return home so I said a few goodbyes and came back to the place where I have been staying with some wonderful people who for the second year in a row have opened up their home to me very graciously. I am very thankful. I leave for home tomorrow to get back to work and leading the worship team at VCF Tampa, and more importantly, getting back to my wife!
-Christian
Yesterday we heard two very good messages about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and one that assessed today's pragmatic evangelistic approaches. Joseph Gleason, pastor of Christ the King Anglican Church walked us through church history and showed how the gifts can be found at just about every era of church history. The Patristic Period particularly comes to mind as Brother Joseph shared with us some quotes of many of the early fathers who testified to experiencing the prophetic and healing gifts among their congregations, as well as gifts of tongues and the casting out of demons. The Reformation period also witnessed some profound prophetic activity as some of the best known reformers had these experiences (John Knox and Samuel Rutherford especially).
Rob Wilkerson from Church in the Boro in Statesboro, GA then gave a profoundly powerful message about the importance of signs and wonders in the proclamation of the Gospel. He went through the Scriptures showing how whenever the Gospel was proclaimed, signs and wonders were not far behind. Rob was filled with passion while preaching and kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. He also demonstrated that affirming and seeking signs and wonders was not detrimental to the proclamation of the Gospel but a great help to it! Signs, wonders, and miracles peak people's attention, and build confidence in the preacher without at all diluting the intrinsic power of the Gospel.
The association business meeting was next and we spent a good hour and a half discussing possible changes to the statement of faith and the constitution. Particularly, we had a bit of a controversial amendment to the statement of faith concerning justification. Many in the association believe that both the active and passive obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer wheras I tend to believe that only the passive righteousness is imputed to the believer. I wholeheartedly agree with the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and also believe we need to strengthen our statement of and commitment to sola fide in a world where it is under attack so much (modern Roman Catholic apologists, Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, etc...). We just need to determine whether or not to be so specific as to the active/passive issue.
I hung out with some of the guys in between sessions at Starbucks where Mark Bahr, one of the pastors at Faith Community Church in Dallas bought everybody coffee (he works part time as a shift manager and gets a 30% discount; thanks a lot!).
The evening session saw Terry Simpson bring the word by critiquing "decisional regeneration" and other means of pragmatic evangelism. I really like Terry and agreed absolutely with everything he said, but the only complaint I had was that it just seemed like preaching to the choir. Hopefully the message is distributed by internet and can reach the audience it needs to reach.
This morning after breakfast, Jeff Gregory, also pastor at Faith Community Church in Dallas and founding member of the ACRC, showed us how Scripture can be used as a motivator to involving people in the missionary enterprise. He went to numerous Scriptures, largely from the Old Testament showing how fulfilling the Great Commission is fulfillment of OT prophecies of the nations coming and worshipping Israel's God and trusting His Messiah.
Sadly, after lunch many of the attendees had to return home so I said a few goodbyes and came back to the place where I have been staying with some wonderful people who for the second year in a row have opened up their home to me very graciously. I am very thankful. I leave for home tomorrow to get back to work and leading the worship team at VCF Tampa, and more importantly, getting back to my wife!
-Christian
Friday, October 17, 2008
Blogging From the ACRC Conference
We've completed one day of the 3rd annual conference of the Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches (ACRC) and it was a good one. I got in to Arkansas on Wednesday night at about 11:00 pm CT and got to Jacksonville Christian Fellowship (JCF) at about 11:00 yesterday morning. I got to track down some old friends and do a little catching up as well as finally meet some in person that I've corresponded with via e-mail and blogs (like Luke Geraty of "Voice of the Lamb").
After lunch we convened and Pastor Kirk Wetsell of JCF gave the opening message communicating a theology of missions starting in the Garden of Eden all the way up to the book of Acts. Interestingly he got into a little bit of eschatology because he discussed how the missionary mandate is an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant and how it is ultimately fulfilled by "Spiritual Israel", i.e. the Church which is the true seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29) and made up of people from all nations.
Wayne Conrad from Faith Community Church in Dallas gave the next message titled "The Missionary Incentive" where he tackled objections to Calvinism and how it supposedly hinders our missionary zeal. He went through several scriptures showing how the missionary incentive is none other than the Holy Spirit who is in us who yearns for the glory of Christ and His redemptive work on the cross and who alone opens up blind eyes and deaf ears to the Gospel.
After dinner we came back and brother Earl Wright, pastor of the Church of God in the Word in Philadelphia, PA reminded us that the content of Gospel preaching must include the elements of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Sin, because as we know, all people everywhere are sinners. We must include the message of righteousness because the only righteousness God will accept is the one imputed to people by faith in Jesus' name. Judgment must be there because all people will ultimately stand before a holy God and be judged for every thought, word, and action whether good or bad.
Today we will hear about some of today's methods of pragmatic evangelism as well as have an important vote about strengthening our commitment to justification by faith alone by the imputed righteousness of Christ. I gotta run.
-Christian
After lunch we convened and Pastor Kirk Wetsell of JCF gave the opening message communicating a theology of missions starting in the Garden of Eden all the way up to the book of Acts. Interestingly he got into a little bit of eschatology because he discussed how the missionary mandate is an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant and how it is ultimately fulfilled by "Spiritual Israel", i.e. the Church which is the true seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29) and made up of people from all nations.
Wayne Conrad from Faith Community Church in Dallas gave the next message titled "The Missionary Incentive" where he tackled objections to Calvinism and how it supposedly hinders our missionary zeal. He went through several scriptures showing how the missionary incentive is none other than the Holy Spirit who is in us who yearns for the glory of Christ and His redemptive work on the cross and who alone opens up blind eyes and deaf ears to the Gospel.
After dinner we came back and brother Earl Wright, pastor of the Church of God in the Word in Philadelphia, PA reminded us that the content of Gospel preaching must include the elements of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Sin, because as we know, all people everywhere are sinners. We must include the message of righteousness because the only righteousness God will accept is the one imputed to people by faith in Jesus' name. Judgment must be there because all people will ultimately stand before a holy God and be judged for every thought, word, and action whether good or bad.
Today we will hear about some of today's methods of pragmatic evangelism as well as have an important vote about strengthening our commitment to justification by faith alone by the imputed righteousness of Christ. I gotta run.
-Christian
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
I Am Going to the ACRC Conference
Well I am back in the blogging business. I am sorry to all you faithful readers who have missed my blogging as of late. I can't really explain how or why, but I just haven't had it in me lately. But I have decided after hearing some people tell me that they've missed it that I should go ahead and blog again. Please, please hold your applause.
Anyway, tomorrow I fly out to Little Rock, Arkansas to go to the third annual conference of the Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches (ACRC). I went last year and had a great time, got to know some great people, and learned a lot about how to be both a calvinist and a continuationist at the same time. Naturally I am looking forward to going again.
Another reason why I am excited is because there will be an important vote at the association business meeting on Friday. We will vote on an amendment to our statement of faith to strengthen our commitment to the traditional protestant and reformed view of justification. With competing viewpoints even within the reformed camp (e.g. Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul), many in the ACRC feel that it's important to set forth our conviction of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer (we will probably not be so specific as to the question of the imputation of the active and passive righteousness). I expect the amendment to pass with flying colors but it's still an important moment for the association I think.
The main topic of the conference however will be world missions. It is providential that I am going to this "missions" conference while at the same time reading about how the Vineyard has approached missions in Bill Jackson's book The Quest for the Radical Middle. Also, reformed folks like me are often caricatured as being uninterested in missions because of how we view the sovereignty of God, predestination, etc.
Anywho, if I get time (and access to the internet), I'll try to blog about the conference while it's going on. Stay tuned...
-Christian
Anyway, tomorrow I fly out to Little Rock, Arkansas to go to the third annual conference of the Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches (ACRC). I went last year and had a great time, got to know some great people, and learned a lot about how to be both a calvinist and a continuationist at the same time. Naturally I am looking forward to going again.
Another reason why I am excited is because there will be an important vote at the association business meeting on Friday. We will vote on an amendment to our statement of faith to strengthen our commitment to the traditional protestant and reformed view of justification. With competing viewpoints even within the reformed camp (e.g. Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul), many in the ACRC feel that it's important to set forth our conviction of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer (we will probably not be so specific as to the question of the imputation of the active and passive righteousness). I expect the amendment to pass with flying colors but it's still an important moment for the association I think.
The main topic of the conference however will be world missions. It is providential that I am going to this "missions" conference while at the same time reading about how the Vineyard has approached missions in Bill Jackson's book The Quest for the Radical Middle. Also, reformed folks like me are often caricatured as being uninterested in missions because of how we view the sovereignty of God, predestination, etc.
Anywho, if I get time (and access to the internet), I'll try to blog about the conference while it's going on. Stay tuned...
-Christian
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Complimentarianism: A Short Defense, Part 2
Although as some of you can see, I have quite another issue to deal with from my comments page for the previous post (and I will be getting to that very, very soon), I have nonetheless decided to continue with my defense of Qualified Male Leadership (QML)... for now.
I left off with noting how Christ Jesus, although equal to the Father, joyfully submits Himself to the will of the Father without diminishing His essential equality with Him, and how I believe that this provides a model for how the roles for men and women in the Church work. I believe that Christ also provides an example for the men in our churches and homes to learn from.
I left off with noting how Christ Jesus, although equal to the Father, joyfully submits Himself to the will of the Father without diminishing His essential equality with Him, and how I believe that this provides a model for how the roles for men and women in the Church work. I believe that Christ also provides an example for the men in our churches and homes to learn from.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves his own flesh. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
(Ephesians 5:25-29 NKJV)
The husband is given the particular admonition to love and lead his wife in exactly the same way the Lord Jesus Christ does His church. How much did/does He love her? He died an excruciating, humiliating, and painful death on a Roman cross for her. And not only that, He bore God's infinite and eternal wrath and fury on her behalf for the sins of its members. This is a tall order to say the very least!
Further, Christ never hits His Church. He never ignores it. He is never an absentee husband. He never plays around with other "churches". He never just disappears for hours or days to hang out with His friends. He always cares for and protects the Church. He always has her on His mind; always doing what is best and most needful for her. Husbands, let's be that kind of husband and leader and our wives won't have much of a problem following our lead.
So what does all this have to do with church leadership? I'm glad you asked! This passage I believe establishes a pattern of male leadership in the home. According to Paul in 1 Timothy 3, having one's household in order is a prerequisite to being qualified to lead the church.
...if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?
(1 Timothy 3:5 NKJV)
It would be inconsistent of Paul to establish this qualification if male leadership were not clearly on his mind. Only the husband leads the family. A wife is not supposed to lead her family in this way (unless of course she is a single mother; but that is not the ideal situation), therefore, being consistent, she could never meet the qualifications to lead a church.
That being said however, that does not mean simply being a man qualifies you for church leadership. One must still meet the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; and 1 Peter 5. As we shall see, some men don't meet them. I'm not sure I meet them yet, although I'm working on it.
Once again, I do hope I am coming off with having a loving spirit in all this.
Next time I'll post on the controversial 1 Timothy 2:12-15.
-Christian
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Complimentarianism: A Short Defense, Part 1
Over the last couple of weeks, I have been confronted with, from more than one place, the idea of women in roles of leadership in the Church both pastoral or otherwise. It's no secret that the official position of the Association of Vineyard Churches USA is egalitarianism, or the view that women should not be held back from leadership positions in the Church. However, this is only on the translocal level. On the local level, that determination is left to the local church. But the egalitarian view is clearly the majority opinion in the Vineyard.
The other side of this question, and the position that I embrace and am now prepared to defend, is complimentarianism. In short, this view states that God created both men and women equally in His image, but assigned to each different, but complimentary roles in the family and in the Church. In other words, there are certain roles that only a man can fulfill, but that a woman compliments him in. Conversely, there are certain roles that only a woman can fulfill, but that a man compliments her in.
Before I move on I would like to state a few things. Firstly, I do hope that my statements are taken in the sense that I mean them. I do not wish to tear down, denigrate, or in any way hurt others in the Body of Christ, especially those with whom I disagree on this issue. It is not my intention to question the reality of any person's salvation, sincerity, or their love for our Lord Jesus Christ. I realize that this is a sensitive issue and will attempt to proceed accordingly.
Secondly, my statements are not meant to communicate any sort of chauvinism or mysogynism. I do not have some sort of sexist axe to grind. I honor womanhood and motherhood and would not be who I am today without either. I honor and love my own wife, mother, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, sister-in-law, and niece in my own family as well as the many friends I have who are female.
Thirdly, although I have the best of intentions and take great care, it is possible that I may none-the-less offend someone in the Body of Christ. It is also possible that I may also slip up and display some sort of immaturity or insensitivity. If such occurs, feel free to call me on it, in a Christ-like manner of course, and if I see it, I will immediately repent and apologize. This is a learning and growing experience for me too. I am still new at this.
Fourthly, I do this because I love the truth. I believe this issue is important and one that needs to be discussed. God has ordered the Church to function in a way consistent with His revelation in Scripture and I believe that the Scriptures do speak to this issue particularly. But I also know that the truth is to be spoken in love (Ephesians 4:15), so I endeavor to do exactly that.
The question before us that I intend to answer biblically is what does Scripture say about the role of women in the local church, specifically in regard to leadership? Historically the answer has been that only qualified men can and should fulfill this role. Recently however, the pendulum has swung the other direction, particularly in the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave traditions. Methodism, the Churches of the Nazarene and other offshoots of Wesleyanism were already ordaining women.
The Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopalian traditions have followed suit I do believe. Many of the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Reformed varieties however have still held strongly to the traditional view of qualified male leadership.
Among those like myself who believe in the continuation of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit and in the ministries of signs and wonders/deliverance, the Qualified Male Leadership view (hence QML) is a distinct minority viewpoint (although Sovereign Grace Ministries and New Frontiers International are notable exceptions).
It would be tempting to start our discussion at 1 Timothy 2:12,13 but instead I want to start at Genesis 1:26,27.
The other side of this question, and the position that I embrace and am now prepared to defend, is complimentarianism. In short, this view states that God created both men and women equally in His image, but assigned to each different, but complimentary roles in the family and in the Church. In other words, there are certain roles that only a man can fulfill, but that a woman compliments him in. Conversely, there are certain roles that only a woman can fulfill, but that a man compliments her in.
Before I move on I would like to state a few things. Firstly, I do hope that my statements are taken in the sense that I mean them. I do not wish to tear down, denigrate, or in any way hurt others in the Body of Christ, especially those with whom I disagree on this issue. It is not my intention to question the reality of any person's salvation, sincerity, or their love for our Lord Jesus Christ. I realize that this is a sensitive issue and will attempt to proceed accordingly.
Secondly, my statements are not meant to communicate any sort of chauvinism or mysogynism. I do not have some sort of sexist axe to grind. I honor womanhood and motherhood and would not be who I am today without either. I honor and love my own wife, mother, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, sister-in-law, and niece in my own family as well as the many friends I have who are female.
Thirdly, although I have the best of intentions and take great care, it is possible that I may none-the-less offend someone in the Body of Christ. It is also possible that I may also slip up and display some sort of immaturity or insensitivity. If such occurs, feel free to call me on it, in a Christ-like manner of course, and if I see it, I will immediately repent and apologize. This is a learning and growing experience for me too. I am still new at this.
Fourthly, I do this because I love the truth. I believe this issue is important and one that needs to be discussed. God has ordered the Church to function in a way consistent with His revelation in Scripture and I believe that the Scriptures do speak to this issue particularly. But I also know that the truth is to be spoken in love (Ephesians 4:15), so I endeavor to do exactly that.
The question before us that I intend to answer biblically is what does Scripture say about the role of women in the local church, specifically in regard to leadership? Historically the answer has been that only qualified men can and should fulfill this role. Recently however, the pendulum has swung the other direction, particularly in the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave traditions. Methodism, the Churches of the Nazarene and other offshoots of Wesleyanism were already ordaining women.
The Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopalian traditions have followed suit I do believe. Many of the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Reformed varieties however have still held strongly to the traditional view of qualified male leadership.
Among those like myself who believe in the continuation of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit and in the ministries of signs and wonders/deliverance, the Qualified Male Leadership view (hence QML) is a distinct minority viewpoint (although Sovereign Grace Ministries and New Frontiers International are notable exceptions).
It would be tempting to start our discussion at 1 Timothy 2:12,13 but instead I want to start at Genesis 1:26,27.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB)
The reality of humanity as created in God's image is one of the central beliefs of the Christian faith. But what exactly does it mean to be created in God's image?
I believe that reflecting God back to Himself is what that means. In other words, we as human beings look like God. We sound like God. We smell like God. God created us almost like mirrors that He gazes at Himself in and finds pleasure in. At least that is what is supposed to happen. Sin has so damaged that image, that God really finds it repugnant and in order to restore that image to us, sends His only Son to die for us and be raised back to life for us. Christ's passion is designed to make human beings look like, sound like, and smell like God again for His glory.
Another basic Christian truth is the Trinity. Simply put, the Trinity is the belief that there is one, and only one, true and living God who is revealed as three distinct, but co-equal persons - The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. These three are one, and only one God.
So how do these basic truths of the Christian faith tie together to argue for the QML viewpoint? I'm glad you asked!
As human beings who reflect God back to Himself, we are called not only to reflect God's rulership over the universe, and His love and compassion to each other, but also to reflect His Trinitarian existence.
In the Trinity, although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equal in essence, there is still headship and submission. The Father exercises headship over the Son. The Son submits to the Father. Jesus said to His disciples once, "...The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Our Lord certainly did not mean that He was inferior to the Father as some cultists teach, but that in the Trinity, there is a pecking order if you will. Similarly, the Apostle Paul states: God is the head of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:3) The Father takes a leadership role in the Godhead while the Son submits to His Father's will.
Tying that in with our current discussion, I believe that the Scriptures indicate that in the home and in the church, God has set a pattern of male leadership to reflect His intra-trinitarian relationships (I do not believe that women should be held back from positions of authority or leadership outside the home or church. Women can hold positions of authority in the marketplace or government for example and all those under a woman's leadership are obliged to submit).
Consider again with me 1 Corinthians 11:3 in its context:
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. (NASB)
Paul, I believe, is laying out the divine pecking order. God [the Father] is over Christ. Christ is over man, and man (in this context, in the church's gathering) is over the woman. But, lest the man become arrogant, Paul reminds the men that every man (excepting Adam of course), came from a woman.
What I think is important as we consider this text as it relates to the issue at hand is that when we consider Christ's obedience to the Father, we always see Him joyfully submitting to His Father and lovingly carrying out the plan of God. He never considered that it might diminish His essential equality with God.
In the next part of this discussion, I'll deal more with how Christ is the model for both the male and female.
-Christian
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Just Got Back From My First Vineyard Conference
I just got back on Thursday from just north of Atlanta, GA for the Vineyard Southeast Regional conference. It was an awesome time where so many good things happened. I rode up with one of the pastors, his wife and daughter, and the youth pastor. We drove up on Tuesday morning and got to the Atlanta Vineyard around 1:30 pm. I was able to stay at my pastor's son's home for the two nights we were there.
The speakers were Gary Best, the national director of the Vineyard in Canada, H.B. London of Focus on the Family, and Bert Waggoner, the national director of the AVC in the United States. I actually was able to meet both Gary Best and Bert Waggoner and even talked briefly with Waggoner about postmodernism, epistemology, and the emerging church. Those were some of the highlights. I also got a copy of John Wimber and Kevin Springer's Power Evangelism.
The pastor, his wife, and some members from the Vineyard in Inverness, Florida went up too and we had a good time fellowshipping with them. Also met some of the pastors from other Vineyards in the southeast.
One other highlight was when Gary Best encouraged us at the end of one of his talks about healing was to have everybody in the sanctuary who had never given words of knowledge about healing in such a big setting to stand up and...give a word of knowledge about healing. Well that included me and Gary went around the room asking us to share a word if we had received one. I shared that I thought someone had ligament damage in their left knee that should be prayed for. A girl stood up and myself and several others prayed for her and she got healed! The knee didn't hurt anymore and felt very good she said. Some might not look very highly on that but it was my first real experience at healing.
H.B. London's messages were about guarding your family life in mininstry. It really gets ugly when a minister lets himself get too busy ministering that he forgets his family and they pay the price.
Bert Waggoner's message was reaffirming what the Vineyard is all about...The Kingdom of God! He said something that I have said before - that dispensational theology and the Vineyard do not mix. Dispensationalism's view of the Kingdom is completely incompatible with what the Vineyard is all about. He stressed that some in the Vineyard needed to have a theological conversion.
He also spoke of how the Vineyard is a movement that stresses the Kingdom and not much else so there is room for diverse viewpoints on other issues. In other words, much to my chagrin, the Vineyard is not a reformed movement. On the other hand, it's not an arminian movement either, or an emergent movement or anything else. It's a Kingdom movement.
I also went to two church planting workshops. I've always been interested in it but it really got me thinking if I ever wanted to do that full time. I'm not sure yet.
Some points of concern though are in order. For example at the conference the book table was selling books by N.T. Wright. Wright is a champion of the New Perspective on Paul that I believe alters justification by faith and denies the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
Also, some in the Vineyard are taking an emergent slant that makes me uncomfortable. Finally there was some laughter during one of the ministry times. Some time I'll blog on holy laughter.
Anyway, long story short, I really learned about some of the realities of ministry, more of what the Vineyard is all about, and more about how the Vineyard works as a whole movement. Praise God for what He did there.
Christian
The speakers were Gary Best, the national director of the Vineyard in Canada, H.B. London of Focus on the Family, and Bert Waggoner, the national director of the AVC in the United States. I actually was able to meet both Gary Best and Bert Waggoner and even talked briefly with Waggoner about postmodernism, epistemology, and the emerging church. Those were some of the highlights. I also got a copy of John Wimber and Kevin Springer's Power Evangelism.
The pastor, his wife, and some members from the Vineyard in Inverness, Florida went up too and we had a good time fellowshipping with them. Also met some of the pastors from other Vineyards in the southeast.
One other highlight was when Gary Best encouraged us at the end of one of his talks about healing was to have everybody in the sanctuary who had never given words of knowledge about healing in such a big setting to stand up and...give a word of knowledge about healing. Well that included me and Gary went around the room asking us to share a word if we had received one. I shared that I thought someone had ligament damage in their left knee that should be prayed for. A girl stood up and myself and several others prayed for her and she got healed! The knee didn't hurt anymore and felt very good she said. Some might not look very highly on that but it was my first real experience at healing.
H.B. London's messages were about guarding your family life in mininstry. It really gets ugly when a minister lets himself get too busy ministering that he forgets his family and they pay the price.
Bert Waggoner's message was reaffirming what the Vineyard is all about...The Kingdom of God! He said something that I have said before - that dispensational theology and the Vineyard do not mix. Dispensationalism's view of the Kingdom is completely incompatible with what the Vineyard is all about. He stressed that some in the Vineyard needed to have a theological conversion.
He also spoke of how the Vineyard is a movement that stresses the Kingdom and not much else so there is room for diverse viewpoints on other issues. In other words, much to my chagrin, the Vineyard is not a reformed movement. On the other hand, it's not an arminian movement either, or an emergent movement or anything else. It's a Kingdom movement.
I also went to two church planting workshops. I've always been interested in it but it really got me thinking if I ever wanted to do that full time. I'm not sure yet.
Some points of concern though are in order. For example at the conference the book table was selling books by N.T. Wright. Wright is a champion of the New Perspective on Paul that I believe alters justification by faith and denies the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
Also, some in the Vineyard are taking an emergent slant that makes me uncomfortable. Finally there was some laughter during one of the ministry times. Some time I'll blog on holy laughter.
Anyway, long story short, I really learned about some of the realities of ministry, more of what the Vineyard is all about, and more about how the Vineyard works as a whole movement. Praise God for what He did there.
Christian
Friday, July 11, 2008
His Exceedingly Great and Precious Promises
Last night in Katie and I's small group the subject of God's promises to us came up and it was an occasion to bring up some things that I have pondering lately. The essence of saving faith is in trusting Christ and Him alone for your salvation from sin and God's judgment. Trusting anything else, even Jesus plus something else is not saving faith, but is belief in a different gospel which will ultimately damn those who believe it (Galatians 1:8,9).
Trusting Christ means trusting that He will bring us into the Kingdom of God both now and in glory. It's trusting in God's goodness, love, faithfulness, grace, compassion, etc. toward you. You, if you believe in the Christ of Scripture, are one of God's dear children. He loves you (Eph. 3:14-21), He cares for you (1 Peter 5:8), He is Abba Father to you (Romans 8:15). He will give you mercy and grace to help you in your time of need (Hebrews 4:14-16), and He will ensure your perseverence in the faith and bring you into His eternal kingdom (Jeremiah 32:40, Hebrews 10:14, Revelation 21:1-22:5). And the list goes on.
All of these the Apostle Peter calls God's exceedingly great and precious promises...(2 Peter 1:4a NKJV). It's vital that we as believers grab a hold of these and bank all of our hope on them in Christ Jesus.
The people of Israel in the Old Testament unfortunately failed to do this in a key moment. You may remember that Israel was poised to enter the promised land and sent the 12 spies in for reconaissance. Ten came back and gave a bad report saying that it would be too hard and that ultimately, God could not be trusted. They may not have said that outright, but that was the attitude of their hearts.
And even though Joshua and Caleb encouraged the people to trust God and go, the majority won out and the children of Israel would wander in the desert for forty years until that generation died out (with the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb).
Israel failed to trust God's promises and goodness toward them and they paid the price. Interestingly, this generation of Israelites is put up as an example of unbelief that we should not follow(Hebrews 3:7-19).
Trusting God and His promises is not easy. Our flesh is continually trying to pull us away from God (Galatians 5:17). The deceitful promises of sin, and its passing pleasures that war against the soul (Hebrews 3:13; 11:25; 1 Peter 2:11) are continually around us. Yet we know that nothing will ever separate us from God's love (Romans 8:38,39), and that God will never let us be tempted beyond what we are able to bear (1 Cor. 10:13), and that God will ultimately see us through to the end, never letting us fall away(Jeremiah 32:40), and bringing us to eternal glory (Romans 8:30).
Trust in God's promises toward you in Christ Jesus today and pray that I will do the same.
-Christian
Trusting Christ means trusting that He will bring us into the Kingdom of God both now and in glory. It's trusting in God's goodness, love, faithfulness, grace, compassion, etc. toward you. You, if you believe in the Christ of Scripture, are one of God's dear children. He loves you (Eph. 3:14-21), He cares for you (1 Peter 5:8), He is Abba Father to you (Romans 8:15). He will give you mercy and grace to help you in your time of need (Hebrews 4:14-16), and He will ensure your perseverence in the faith and bring you into His eternal kingdom (Jeremiah 32:40, Hebrews 10:14, Revelation 21:1-22:5). And the list goes on.
All of these the Apostle Peter calls God's exceedingly great and precious promises...(2 Peter 1:4a NKJV). It's vital that we as believers grab a hold of these and bank all of our hope on them in Christ Jesus.
The people of Israel in the Old Testament unfortunately failed to do this in a key moment. You may remember that Israel was poised to enter the promised land and sent the 12 spies in for reconaissance. Ten came back and gave a bad report saying that it would be too hard and that ultimately, God could not be trusted. They may not have said that outright, but that was the attitude of their hearts.
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the children of Israel; from every tribe of their fathers you shall send a man, every one a leader among them"...And they returned from spying out the land after forty days...Then they told him, and said: "We went to the the land where you sent us. It truly flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. Nevertheless the people who dwell in the land are strong; the cities are fortified and very large; moreover we saw the descendants of Anak there..." And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out... (Numbers 13:1,2;25-28;32a NKJV)
And even though Joshua and Caleb encouraged the people to trust God and go, the majority won out and the children of Israel would wander in the desert for forty years until that generation died out (with the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb).
Israel failed to trust God's promises and goodness toward them and they paid the price. Interestingly, this generation of Israelites is put up as an example of unbelief that we should not follow(Hebrews 3:7-19).
Trusting God and His promises is not easy. Our flesh is continually trying to pull us away from God (Galatians 5:17). The deceitful promises of sin, and its passing pleasures that war against the soul (Hebrews 3:13; 11:25; 1 Peter 2:11) are continually around us. Yet we know that nothing will ever separate us from God's love (Romans 8:38,39), and that God will never let us be tempted beyond what we are able to bear (1 Cor. 10:13), and that God will ultimately see us through to the end, never letting us fall away(Jeremiah 32:40), and bringing us to eternal glory (Romans 8:30).
Trust in God's promises toward you in Christ Jesus today and pray that I will do the same.
-Christian
Monday, June 30, 2008
David's Broken Relationships, Part 2
Probably the most infamous example of a broken relationship in David’s life, maybe even more so than Saul, was David’s own son Absalom. This is a tragic story of a family literally torn apart by lust, revenge, murder, and rebellion. It begins with one of David’s other sons Amnon, who’s lust for and rape of his half-sister Tamar set into motion events that would ultimately lead to Absalom’s downfall:
After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. (2 Samuel 13:1 NKJV)
Amnon’s cousin and friend Jonadab convinced Amnon to use trickery in luring Tamar into Amnon’s house so he could rape her:
So Jonadab said to him, “Lie down on your bed and pretend to be ill. And when your father comes to see you, say to him, ’Please let my sister Tamar come and give me food, and prepare the food in my sight, that I may see it and eat it from her hand.’” (2 Samuel 13:5)
The ploy worked and Amnon got what he wanted from Tamar. Scripture then records that afterward, Amnon hated Tamar and sent her away (2 Samuel 13:15).
When Absalom heard about these things, he began to hate Amnon in his heart and eventually plotted revenge by setting a trap for him and killing him two years later.
And it came to pass, after two full years, that Absalom had sheepshearers in Baal Hazor, which is near Ephraim; so Absalom invited all the king’s sons. Then Absalom came to the king and said, “Kindly note, your servant has sheepshearers; please, let the king and his servants go with your servant.”
But the king said to Absalom, “No, my son, let us not all go now, lest we be a burden to you.” Then he urged him, but he would not go; and he blessed him.
Then Absalom said, “If not, please let my brother Amnon go with us.” And the king said to him, “Why should he go with you?” But Absalom urged him; so he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him.
Now Absalom had commanded his servants, saying, “Watch now, when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you ‘Strike Amnon!’ then kill him. Do not be afraid. Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and valiant.”
So the servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and each one got on his mule and fled. (2 Samuel 13:23-29)
David got word of Absalom’s murder of Amnon and Absalom fled the country to Talmai the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur (2 Samuel 13:37), and was there for three years.
However a turn of events would eventually bring Absalom back to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 14:1-24), although some time still followed until David finally forgave Absalom (2 Samuel 14:33). I suspect however that Absalom never forgave David. It is likely that had Joab not intervened, Absalom never would have returned to Jerusalem and Absalom may have known that.
Although on the surface it appeared that all was well, Absalom secretly began a conspiracy to overthrow David and take the kingship of Israel from him by force. The years of separation seemed to have taken their toll on their relationship. The cycle of unforgiveness and bitterness would destroy a young man and his family.
Absalom for four years turned Israel against David by promising that if he were king, he would be more fair in dealing with disputes (2 Samuel 15:2-7) and in that way he gained the support of the people. He convinced David’s counselor Ahithophel to join the conspiracy against David and along with the chariots, horses, and men he provided for himself, Absalom proclaimed himself king and marched on Jerusalem sending David and his men fleeing.
A turn of events in which spies from David undermined Absalom, would prove to be Absalom’s downfall. Although David wished that Absalom’s life be spared, Joab the commander of David’s army killed Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14,15).
David however still showed his heart by weeping for Absalom bitterly:
Then the king was deeply moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept. And as he went; he said thus: “O my son Absalom- my son, my son Absalom- if only I had died in your place! O Absalom my son, my son!” (2 Samuel 18:33 NKJV)
Despite the rebellion of Absalom and the attempt on his life, David still loved his son and longed to be reconciled.
Ahithophel as mentioned earlier, was also a Broken relationship for David. Imangine for a moment that your son hates you and tries to kill you and take what belongs to you. That would be unbearable in and of itself. But what if your friend with whom you had shared meals, and whose advice you prized sided with your rebellious son?
This was the situation David found himself in when his son Absalom proclaimed himself king and invaded Jerusalem. Absalom was assisted by David’s royal counselor Ahithophel. Scripture does not tell us what it was that caused Ahithophel to side with Absalom in trying to overthrow David, but regardless of the reason it left its mark on David.
Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:9 NKJV)
In this Psalm, David laments his friend and counselor turning against him and seeking his life. Although he entrusts himself to God, one can only imagine the kind of pain David felt as he thought of Ahithophel’s treason.
Ahithophel however would eventually kill himself apparently after Absalom overruled his advice and instead took the advice of Hushai, one of David's spies.
Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb. (2 Samuel 17:23 NKJV)
As we might imagine, David saw his share of heartbreak and betrayal. I think that one of the biggest things we can get from these broken relationships is to note David’s unfailing trust in the Living God.
Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me! For my soul trusts in You; and in the shadow of Your wings I will make my refuge, until these calamities have passed by. I will cry out to God Most High, to God who performs all things for me. (Psalm 57:1,2 NKJV)
Particularly relevant is Psalm 3 which David composed while fleeing from Absalom.
LORD, how they have increased who trouble me! Many are they who rise up against me. Many are they who say of me, “There is no hope for him in God.” Selah.
But You, O LORD, are a shield for me, my glory and the One who lifts up my head. I cried to the LORD with my voice, and He heard me from His holy hill. Selah. (Psalm 3:1-4 NKJV)
Despite all of David’s troubles and despite all his failings, God never stopped loving David or delivering him when David needed him the most. O how great is God’s faithfulness to His children!
After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. (2 Samuel 13:1 NKJV)
Amnon’s cousin and friend Jonadab convinced Amnon to use trickery in luring Tamar into Amnon’s house so he could rape her:
So Jonadab said to him, “Lie down on your bed and pretend to be ill. And when your father comes to see you, say to him, ’Please let my sister Tamar come and give me food, and prepare the food in my sight, that I may see it and eat it from her hand.’” (2 Samuel 13:5)
The ploy worked and Amnon got what he wanted from Tamar. Scripture then records that afterward, Amnon hated Tamar and sent her away (2 Samuel 13:15).
When Absalom heard about these things, he began to hate Amnon in his heart and eventually plotted revenge by setting a trap for him and killing him two years later.
And it came to pass, after two full years, that Absalom had sheepshearers in Baal Hazor, which is near Ephraim; so Absalom invited all the king’s sons. Then Absalom came to the king and said, “Kindly note, your servant has sheepshearers; please, let the king and his servants go with your servant.”
But the king said to Absalom, “No, my son, let us not all go now, lest we be a burden to you.” Then he urged him, but he would not go; and he blessed him.
Then Absalom said, “If not, please let my brother Amnon go with us.” And the king said to him, “Why should he go with you?” But Absalom urged him; so he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him.
Now Absalom had commanded his servants, saying, “Watch now, when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you ‘Strike Amnon!’ then kill him. Do not be afraid. Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and valiant.”
So the servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and each one got on his mule and fled. (2 Samuel 13:23-29)
David got word of Absalom’s murder of Amnon and Absalom fled the country to Talmai the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur (2 Samuel 13:37), and was there for three years.
However a turn of events would eventually bring Absalom back to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 14:1-24), although some time still followed until David finally forgave Absalom (2 Samuel 14:33). I suspect however that Absalom never forgave David. It is likely that had Joab not intervened, Absalom never would have returned to Jerusalem and Absalom may have known that.
Although on the surface it appeared that all was well, Absalom secretly began a conspiracy to overthrow David and take the kingship of Israel from him by force. The years of separation seemed to have taken their toll on their relationship. The cycle of unforgiveness and bitterness would destroy a young man and his family.
Absalom for four years turned Israel against David by promising that if he were king, he would be more fair in dealing with disputes (2 Samuel 15:2-7) and in that way he gained the support of the people. He convinced David’s counselor Ahithophel to join the conspiracy against David and along with the chariots, horses, and men he provided for himself, Absalom proclaimed himself king and marched on Jerusalem sending David and his men fleeing.
A turn of events in which spies from David undermined Absalom, would prove to be Absalom’s downfall. Although David wished that Absalom’s life be spared, Joab the commander of David’s army killed Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14,15).
David however still showed his heart by weeping for Absalom bitterly:
Then the king was deeply moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept. And as he went; he said thus: “O my son Absalom- my son, my son Absalom- if only I had died in your place! O Absalom my son, my son!” (2 Samuel 18:33 NKJV)
Despite the rebellion of Absalom and the attempt on his life, David still loved his son and longed to be reconciled.
Ahithophel as mentioned earlier, was also a Broken relationship for David. Imangine for a moment that your son hates you and tries to kill you and take what belongs to you. That would be unbearable in and of itself. But what if your friend with whom you had shared meals, and whose advice you prized sided with your rebellious son?
This was the situation David found himself in when his son Absalom proclaimed himself king and invaded Jerusalem. Absalom was assisted by David’s royal counselor Ahithophel. Scripture does not tell us what it was that caused Ahithophel to side with Absalom in trying to overthrow David, but regardless of the reason it left its mark on David.
Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:9 NKJV)
In this Psalm, David laments his friend and counselor turning against him and seeking his life. Although he entrusts himself to God, one can only imagine the kind of pain David felt as he thought of Ahithophel’s treason.
Ahithophel however would eventually kill himself apparently after Absalom overruled his advice and instead took the advice of Hushai, one of David's spies.
Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb. (2 Samuel 17:23 NKJV)
As we might imagine, David saw his share of heartbreak and betrayal. I think that one of the biggest things we can get from these broken relationships is to note David’s unfailing trust in the Living God.
Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me! For my soul trusts in You; and in the shadow of Your wings I will make my refuge, until these calamities have passed by. I will cry out to God Most High, to God who performs all things for me. (Psalm 57:1,2 NKJV)
Particularly relevant is Psalm 3 which David composed while fleeing from Absalom.
LORD, how they have increased who trouble me! Many are they who rise up against me. Many are they who say of me, “There is no hope for him in God.” Selah.
But You, O LORD, are a shield for me, my glory and the One who lifts up my head. I cried to the LORD with my voice, and He heard me from His holy hill. Selah. (Psalm 3:1-4 NKJV)
Despite all of David’s troubles and despite all his failings, God never stopped loving David or delivering him when David needed him the most. O how great is God’s faithfulness to His children!
Friday, June 27, 2008
Clarifying Remarks on the Lakeland Revival
I was going to post part 2 of my study on David's broken relationships but I felt it would be a good idea instead to clarify and qualify some of my remarks on the revival in Lakeland.
First, I want to say that it is possible that Todd Bentley did not mean to suggest that believers are equal to Jesus in every way. However, I admit this only as a possibility.
Second, I wanted to state whatever Mr. Bentley's doctrine might be and whatever the state of his soul, that does not necessarily have any direct bearing on the actual manifestations happening there. My pastor for instance was healed of a gall bladder condition and I have no reason to think that he is lying to me or misinterpreting what happened.
All this means is that there is the possibility that people are legitimately getting healed and raised from the dead in Lakeland, but then again it's also possible that that is not the case.
Thirdly, I still want to stand by my remarks about the content of Todd Bentley's message that night. It was classic health and wealth. He did say something if I remember correctly wherein he tried to distance himself from it, but I remain unconvinced.
I left that meeting place knowing that in whatever ministry I eventually (Lord willing) fill, I must keep the Gospel in the forefront and pray for the miraculous to manifest itself in conjunction with that.
I still do not support the revival, but hopefully what I have said clarifies a few things.
-Christian
First, I want to say that it is possible that Todd Bentley did not mean to suggest that believers are equal to Jesus in every way. However, I admit this only as a possibility.
Second, I wanted to state whatever Mr. Bentley's doctrine might be and whatever the state of his soul, that does not necessarily have any direct bearing on the actual manifestations happening there. My pastor for instance was healed of a gall bladder condition and I have no reason to think that he is lying to me or misinterpreting what happened.
All this means is that there is the possibility that people are legitimately getting healed and raised from the dead in Lakeland, but then again it's also possible that that is not the case.
Thirdly, I still want to stand by my remarks about the content of Todd Bentley's message that night. It was classic health and wealth. He did say something if I remember correctly wherein he tried to distance himself from it, but I remain unconvinced.
I left that meeting place knowing that in whatever ministry I eventually (Lord willing) fill, I must keep the Gospel in the forefront and pray for the miraculous to manifest itself in conjunction with that.
I still do not support the revival, but hopefully what I have said clarifies a few things.
-Christian
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
This is Really Good
Someone sent me this article from Christianity Today written by Tim Keller. This is easily one of the best things I've ever read on evangelism. Enjoy.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/002/9.74.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/002/9.74.html
Monday, June 16, 2008
So I, uh...went to the Lakeland revival...
I went to the revival in Lakeland, FL tonight to check it out for myself. I've heard all kinds of things about it good and bad. I decided to go with as open a mind as I knew how to have albeit I had some questions and a few red flags were flying.
I got to the place a little after 7:00 pm and found my way to back of the auditorium. The band was all in place while what I guess was a pre-recorded message I presume from Todd Bentley was playing on the loud speaker. A few minutes later the band started playing their worship songs. I tried the best I could to discern the lyrics because they didn't have them up on the screens but I was able to pick up most of the songs. They were all good songs that sang what appeared to me to be God-centered lyrics. I heard "How Great is Our God", "I Exalt Thee" and some others that I did not recognize. As far as the worship song time, I had no real complaints. Actually, it was quite good.
About an hour later, Todd Bentley was introduced to speak. He did say some good things; like God choosing us and us being righteous in Christ, but about ten or fifteen minutes in he got to the bad part. He said that he received a vision of a rod with honey dripping down and likened it to Aaron's rod that budded and how that symbolizes God's choosing of us to release his favor and his anointing. He said that because we're righteous in Christ, there is really no separation between us and Christ. In other words, what Christ can expect to receive from God in heaven is exactly what we can expect.
Now I believe that the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer is a precious truth and one worth preaching and dying for, but the simple fact remains, I am not Jesus! Should I expect all of heaven to fall down and worship me? Should I expect to be exalted to the right hand of the Father? Should every knee fall down before me and confess that I am Lord? He went on to compare us as Christians to Esther and how she received everything she needed from the king and how the king asks us to ask whatever we wish and then encouraged us to ask for houses, properties, airplanes, and cars, and all manner of material things. Debt cancellations too. He based this on the teaching of Christ that those who give up all they have for his sake and the gospel's (lands, houses, parents, brothers, sister, wives, children) would receive a hundredfold in this life. He also told us that we should ask for more than just for our needs to be met.
The truth is, I cannot support this revival. I hope my words are full of grace and compassion, but this I do not believe is from God. I know that places like Corinth had some seriously off-key doctrine, but that wasn't everybody and it likely wasn't all the leadership (although there were false apostles there). In this case, the entire event is geared to this kind of thing. It's just too much ear tickling.
-Christian
I got to the place a little after 7:00 pm and found my way to back of the auditorium. The band was all in place while what I guess was a pre-recorded message I presume from Todd Bentley was playing on the loud speaker. A few minutes later the band started playing their worship songs. I tried the best I could to discern the lyrics because they didn't have them up on the screens but I was able to pick up most of the songs. They were all good songs that sang what appeared to me to be God-centered lyrics. I heard "How Great is Our God", "I Exalt Thee" and some others that I did not recognize. As far as the worship song time, I had no real complaints. Actually, it was quite good.
About an hour later, Todd Bentley was introduced to speak. He did say some good things; like God choosing us and us being righteous in Christ, but about ten or fifteen minutes in he got to the bad part. He said that he received a vision of a rod with honey dripping down and likened it to Aaron's rod that budded and how that symbolizes God's choosing of us to release his favor and his anointing. He said that because we're righteous in Christ, there is really no separation between us and Christ. In other words, what Christ can expect to receive from God in heaven is exactly what we can expect.
Now I believe that the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer is a precious truth and one worth preaching and dying for, but the simple fact remains, I am not Jesus! Should I expect all of heaven to fall down and worship me? Should I expect to be exalted to the right hand of the Father? Should every knee fall down before me and confess that I am Lord? He went on to compare us as Christians to Esther and how she received everything she needed from the king and how the king asks us to ask whatever we wish and then encouraged us to ask for houses, properties, airplanes, and cars, and all manner of material things. Debt cancellations too. He based this on the teaching of Christ that those who give up all they have for his sake and the gospel's (lands, houses, parents, brothers, sister, wives, children) would receive a hundredfold in this life. He also told us that we should ask for more than just for our needs to be met.
The truth is, I cannot support this revival. I hope my words are full of grace and compassion, but this I do not believe is from God. I know that places like Corinth had some seriously off-key doctrine, but that wasn't everybody and it likely wasn't all the leadership (although there were false apostles there). In this case, the entire event is geared to this kind of thing. It's just too much ear tickling.
-Christian
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Advantages and Dangers of the Middle Ground
One of the things I've been reflecting on lately is the concept of the "middle ground". In a nutshell, it is a position that attempts to adhere to the strengths of two diametrically opposed positions while throwing out the weaknesses. Many times, such a position will reject the "tyranny of the 'or'" in favor of the "genius of the 'and'".
For example, traditional Evangelicalism is the "middle ground" between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. It was believed by the first Evangelicals during the 1940s that Fundamentalism had an orthodox theology but was poor at engaging the culture effectively. Conversely, Liberal Theology was good at engaging the culture, but did not have an orthodox theology (obviously!). Thus Evangelicalism is the "middle ground", attempting to have an orthodox theology while at the same time engaging the culture effectively.
In many cases, such a "middle ground" has an almost romantic feel to it. It makes one feel wise and balanced. Indeed, sometimes that is a good thing. We need wisdom and balance. Many times, two opposite positions will over-emphasize one thing to the exclusion of another while the other position over-emphasizes what the other de-emphasizes.
One distinct disadvantage though is that holding such a middle position opens one up to being shot at from both sides. Case in point: I would hold to a position that is consistent with New Covenant Theology. On one hand, I appreciate the contributions of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and try to hold them in tension and make adjustments where necessary. On the other hand, New Covenant Theologians are criticized by both camps because we disagree with hallmarks of their respective theologies.
As I said before, sometimes a middle ground position is a good thing. It helps us to balance two equally true truths and hold them in tension. But just because it is a middle ground position does not make it true.
For example, I believe in a literal hell. It is eternal, it is conscious, and it will be terrifying beyond description for those whose fate it will ultimately be. Those who never place faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to rescue them from their sins will suffer God's righteous and just anger and wrath there. The opposite position is that of Universalism. This view believes that all human beings (and the devil and demons too in some cases) will ultimately be restored to God and finally saved. However, there is a "middle ground" position. That of Annihilationism. According to this view, those who are ultimately unsaved will simply cease to exist, either after suffering God's wrath for a time or in some cases immediately upon death.
Well that sounds like a reasonable, and balanced view now doesn't it. There's just one problem. It's not true! Scripture repeatedly affirms the eternality of hell (Matthew 25:41,46;Mark 9:43-48; 2 Peter 2:17). So then, the "middle ground" position isn't always the truth.
What then shall we do? I would suggest a few things:
1) It is a good idea to seriously consider the middle ground position because often (though not always) it does succeed in holding in balance two truths emphasized respectively by opposite positions. I believe the Charismatic Reformed tradition is a good case in point.
2) However, truth is truth whether or not it is the middle ground. On occasion, like the example of eternal punishment, one position is true while the other position and the middle position are untrue.
3) We should always talk about our positions with others in a spirit of humility, love, and consideration.
4) Try to understand where the other person whose position you disagree with is coming from. Speak the truth of what you believe in their language as it were. You might find you're making some progress.
5) Recognize that you could be wrong. Be humble enough to change your position and make the necessary (and sometimes painfully uncomfortable) changes in your life.
Well I hope this makes for some interesting food for thought.
-Christian
For example, traditional Evangelicalism is the "middle ground" between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. It was believed by the first Evangelicals during the 1940s that Fundamentalism had an orthodox theology but was poor at engaging the culture effectively. Conversely, Liberal Theology was good at engaging the culture, but did not have an orthodox theology (obviously!). Thus Evangelicalism is the "middle ground", attempting to have an orthodox theology while at the same time engaging the culture effectively.
In many cases, such a "middle ground" has an almost romantic feel to it. It makes one feel wise and balanced. Indeed, sometimes that is a good thing. We need wisdom and balance. Many times, two opposite positions will over-emphasize one thing to the exclusion of another while the other position over-emphasizes what the other de-emphasizes.
One distinct disadvantage though is that holding such a middle position opens one up to being shot at from both sides. Case in point: I would hold to a position that is consistent with New Covenant Theology. On one hand, I appreciate the contributions of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and try to hold them in tension and make adjustments where necessary. On the other hand, New Covenant Theologians are criticized by both camps because we disagree with hallmarks of their respective theologies.
As I said before, sometimes a middle ground position is a good thing. It helps us to balance two equally true truths and hold them in tension. But just because it is a middle ground position does not make it true.
For example, I believe in a literal hell. It is eternal, it is conscious, and it will be terrifying beyond description for those whose fate it will ultimately be. Those who never place faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to rescue them from their sins will suffer God's righteous and just anger and wrath there. The opposite position is that of Universalism. This view believes that all human beings (and the devil and demons too in some cases) will ultimately be restored to God and finally saved. However, there is a "middle ground" position. That of Annihilationism. According to this view, those who are ultimately unsaved will simply cease to exist, either after suffering God's wrath for a time or in some cases immediately upon death.
Well that sounds like a reasonable, and balanced view now doesn't it. There's just one problem. It's not true! Scripture repeatedly affirms the eternality of hell (Matthew 25:41,46;Mark 9:43-48; 2 Peter 2:17). So then, the "middle ground" position isn't always the truth.
What then shall we do? I would suggest a few things:
1) It is a good idea to seriously consider the middle ground position because often (though not always) it does succeed in holding in balance two truths emphasized respectively by opposite positions. I believe the Charismatic Reformed tradition is a good case in point.
2) However, truth is truth whether or not it is the middle ground. On occasion, like the example of eternal punishment, one position is true while the other position and the middle position are untrue.
3) We should always talk about our positions with others in a spirit of humility, love, and consideration.
4) Try to understand where the other person whose position you disagree with is coming from. Speak the truth of what you believe in their language as it were. You might find you're making some progress.
5) Recognize that you could be wrong. Be humble enough to change your position and make the necessary (and sometimes painfully uncomfortable) changes in your life.
Well I hope this makes for some interesting food for thought.
-Christian
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
David's Broken Relationships, Part 1
Virtually any believer can identify with King David. Out of all the men of the Bible, it seems as if the scriptures are more honest about the life of David than any other person in scripture excepting maybe our Lord Himself. The honesty of Scripture concerning David extends to his triumphs (1 Samuel 17:12-58) to his colossal failures (2 Samuel 11:1-12:25) to incidents in his life (1 Samuel 18:1).
It is in these things that believers can take comfort and instruction from the life of David. Given that the New Testament places a high priority on the Old Testament for the instruction of the Church and its members (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11; 2 Timothy 3:16,17), we should look at the life of David (as well as any other person in Scripture) and consider well the lessons we can learn.
It seems that David knew more than most people the pain of broken relationships. These are relationships that started well but for one reason or another, ended disastrously with really no hint of any kind of reconciliation.
We start with David’s tortured relationship with his predecessor to the throne of Israel, Saul. It is David’s successes and his popularity and Saul’s jealousy that lead to Saul’s epic fall from grace.
The Bible notes that initially Saul loved David:
"So David came to Saul and stood before him. And he loved him greatly, and he became his armorbearer.
Then Saul sent to Jesse, saying, 'Please let David stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight.'” (1 Samuel 16:21,22)
David achieved a very high status in Saul’s court and among the people of Israel. Unfortunately, it would be David’s victory over Goliath and its aftermath that set Saul against David. Saul’s jealousy and paranoia over David’s popularity and the obvious fact that the Lord was with David but had left Saul, tore the relationship apart and ultimately ended with Saul’s tragic suicide (1 Samuel 31:1-6).
Saul’s daughter Michal, David’s wife was another broken relationship David endured. Scripture records that Michal was originally in love with David:
"Thus Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with David, and that Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him…" (1 Samuel 18:28).
Michal even saved David’s life on one occasion from the wrath of Saul:
"Saul also sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning. And Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, 'If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed.'
So Michal let David down through a window. And he went and fled and escaped.
And Michal took an image and laid it in the bed, put a cover of goats’ hair for his head, and covered it with clothes.
So when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said 'He is sick.'”
(1 Samuel 19:11-14 NKJV)
However, Michal’s love for David would eventually turn into hatred. Although it appears that Michal would continue as David’s wife, there does not seem to be any hint of reconciliation.
"So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with gladness. And so it was, when those bearing the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, that he sacrificed oxen and fatted sheep.
Then David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod…Now as the ark of the LORD, came into the City of David, Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart…Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, 'How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!'...Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death” (2 Samuel 6:12-14;16;20;23 NKJV).
A couple of things bear mentioning in this text. First, Michal’s disposition toward David has obviously changed. We read at first that she loved David greatly, even to the point that she defied her own father in saving his life.
However, there is probably one particular incident that turned Michal against David.
After the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, David was crowned King of Judah. However Ishbosheth, one of Saul’s other sons was crowned King of Israel and the two houses had a long civil war for control of the whole Kingdom. This is detailed in 2 Samuel 2-4.
During this conflict, Abner, one of Ishbosheth’s generals planned to defect to David’s side after an argument with Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 3:6-12). David agreed to Abner’s offer on the condition that He bring with him Michal his wife whom Saul had previously given to Paltiel while David was a fugitive from Saul: "…But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim." (1 Samuel 25:44 NKJV).
Seeing things from Michal’s perspective may help explain (though certainly not excuse) her antipathy towards David.
Here is her husband whom she apparently hasn’t seen in years, an enemy of the family, who has also married other women (see 1 Samuel 25:42,43; and also a list of his sons from these and other marriages – 2 Samuel 3:2-5). Meanwhile Michal has moved on with her life in a new marriage to a man who obviously loved her very much (see 2 Samuel 3:16 where he weeps over her as she is being taken away), and David forcibly removes her from that life. It was probably not a very happy reunion.
The next thing to notice is that verse 23 indicates that she had no children to the day of her death. This would seem to indicate (although we can not be dogmatic) that she and David continued to have a sexual relationship. If she had no children, the text would seem to imply that she tried to but failed. Even though David had other wives (Bathsheba; Abigail), David had to live in an unhappy marriage.
Next time we'll deal with two more of David's broken relationships.
-Christian
It is in these things that believers can take comfort and instruction from the life of David. Given that the New Testament places a high priority on the Old Testament for the instruction of the Church and its members (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11; 2 Timothy 3:16,17), we should look at the life of David (as well as any other person in Scripture) and consider well the lessons we can learn.
It seems that David knew more than most people the pain of broken relationships. These are relationships that started well but for one reason or another, ended disastrously with really no hint of any kind of reconciliation.
We start with David’s tortured relationship with his predecessor to the throne of Israel, Saul. It is David’s successes and his popularity and Saul’s jealousy that lead to Saul’s epic fall from grace.
The Bible notes that initially Saul loved David:
"So David came to Saul and stood before him. And he loved him greatly, and he became his armorbearer.
Then Saul sent to Jesse, saying, 'Please let David stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight.'” (1 Samuel 16:21,22)
David achieved a very high status in Saul’s court and among the people of Israel. Unfortunately, it would be David’s victory over Goliath and its aftermath that set Saul against David. Saul’s jealousy and paranoia over David’s popularity and the obvious fact that the Lord was with David but had left Saul, tore the relationship apart and ultimately ended with Saul’s tragic suicide (1 Samuel 31:1-6).
Saul’s daughter Michal, David’s wife was another broken relationship David endured. Scripture records that Michal was originally in love with David:
"Thus Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with David, and that Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him…" (1 Samuel 18:28).
Michal even saved David’s life on one occasion from the wrath of Saul:
"Saul also sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning. And Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, 'If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed.'
So Michal let David down through a window. And he went and fled and escaped.
And Michal took an image and laid it in the bed, put a cover of goats’ hair for his head, and covered it with clothes.
So when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said 'He is sick.'”
(1 Samuel 19:11-14 NKJV)
However, Michal’s love for David would eventually turn into hatred. Although it appears that Michal would continue as David’s wife, there does not seem to be any hint of reconciliation.
"So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with gladness. And so it was, when those bearing the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, that he sacrificed oxen and fatted sheep.
Then David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod…Now as the ark of the LORD, came into the City of David, Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart…Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, 'How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!'...Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death” (2 Samuel 6:12-14;16;20;23 NKJV).
A couple of things bear mentioning in this text. First, Michal’s disposition toward David has obviously changed. We read at first that she loved David greatly, even to the point that she defied her own father in saving his life.
However, there is probably one particular incident that turned Michal against David.
After the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, David was crowned King of Judah. However Ishbosheth, one of Saul’s other sons was crowned King of Israel and the two houses had a long civil war for control of the whole Kingdom. This is detailed in 2 Samuel 2-4.
During this conflict, Abner, one of Ishbosheth’s generals planned to defect to David’s side after an argument with Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 3:6-12). David agreed to Abner’s offer on the condition that He bring with him Michal his wife whom Saul had previously given to Paltiel while David was a fugitive from Saul: "…But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim." (1 Samuel 25:44 NKJV).
Seeing things from Michal’s perspective may help explain (though certainly not excuse) her antipathy towards David.
Here is her husband whom she apparently hasn’t seen in years, an enemy of the family, who has also married other women (see 1 Samuel 25:42,43; and also a list of his sons from these and other marriages – 2 Samuel 3:2-5). Meanwhile Michal has moved on with her life in a new marriage to a man who obviously loved her very much (see 2 Samuel 3:16 where he weeps over her as she is being taken away), and David forcibly removes her from that life. It was probably not a very happy reunion.
The next thing to notice is that verse 23 indicates that she had no children to the day of her death. This would seem to indicate (although we can not be dogmatic) that she and David continued to have a sexual relationship. If she had no children, the text would seem to imply that she tried to but failed. Even though David had other wives (Bathsheba; Abigail), David had to live in an unhappy marriage.
Next time we'll deal with two more of David's broken relationships.
-Christian
Friday, May 30, 2008
The Presence of God, Part 2
Now it's time to get to the meat of what I want to say about the presence of God. As I said in my earlier post, a cursory reading of the Psalms reveals that the writers longed for God's presence. Some other Psalms to consider include Psalm 42:1,2: "As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. My sould thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?" I like the way the New International Version renders Psalm 14:5, "...God is present in the company of the righteous." Probably the best Psalm in this regard is one that the Apostle Peter quoted on the Day of Pentecost referring to Christ's resurrection. Psalm 16:11 says in the New King James Version: ...In Your presence is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore." That may be the most powerful Scripture on the presence of God there is.
Another interesting place where God manifests His presence is in the exercise of Biblical Church discipline, which is outlined in Matthew 18:15-20. Specifically verse 20 says: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them."
Now in the context, I believe that Jesus is saying that when the leadership of the Church makes the difficult decision to disfellowship or excommunicate someone because of willful, continual, unrepentant sin, He is saying that He Himself will stand beside them in agreement with that decision putting the stamp of Heaven on it. This is a place where Christ's presence I believe acts as a reassurance to the leadership particularly that they have done the right thing, but also as a warning to us who might consider resisting the discipline process if we are found in sin.
However, I think there is another Scripture that tells us of God's presence in a place where we're not accustomed to seeing it. In 1 Corinthians 10, the Apostle Paul is exhorting the Corinthian Christians to flee from idolatry and in doing so gives us a profound insight into the Lord's Supper. He writes: "Therefore my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? ...the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons." (1 Corinthians 10:14-16;20 NKJV).
Paul tells us that when we partake of the cup, we are communing with Christ's blood! Similarly, taking the bread means to commune with the body of Christ! It is plain that in order to commune with someone, they have to be manifestly present. Also, it is clear in verses 20 and 21 that Paul is contrasting the Lord's Supper, which is an act of worship to God, with idol worship which results in fellowship with demons, which implies that demons are manifestly present during idol worship. But if demons are present in idol worship, then clearly God (or rather in this case, Christ who is God the Son) is present with us during the Lord's Supper.
So then, let us enter God's presence joyfully, during times of corporate and individual singing, during our meeting times with other believers, but particularly when we come to the Lord's table to commune with Him in His presence.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Christian
Another interesting place where God manifests His presence is in the exercise of Biblical Church discipline, which is outlined in Matthew 18:15-20. Specifically verse 20 says: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them."
Now in the context, I believe that Jesus is saying that when the leadership of the Church makes the difficult decision to disfellowship or excommunicate someone because of willful, continual, unrepentant sin, He is saying that He Himself will stand beside them in agreement with that decision putting the stamp of Heaven on it. This is a place where Christ's presence I believe acts as a reassurance to the leadership particularly that they have done the right thing, but also as a warning to us who might consider resisting the discipline process if we are found in sin.
However, I think there is another Scripture that tells us of God's presence in a place where we're not accustomed to seeing it. In 1 Corinthians 10, the Apostle Paul is exhorting the Corinthian Christians to flee from idolatry and in doing so gives us a profound insight into the Lord's Supper. He writes: "Therefore my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? ...the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons." (1 Corinthians 10:14-16;20 NKJV).
Paul tells us that when we partake of the cup, we are communing with Christ's blood! Similarly, taking the bread means to commune with the body of Christ! It is plain that in order to commune with someone, they have to be manifestly present. Also, it is clear in verses 20 and 21 that Paul is contrasting the Lord's Supper, which is an act of worship to God, with idol worship which results in fellowship with demons, which implies that demons are manifestly present during idol worship. But if demons are present in idol worship, then clearly God (or rather in this case, Christ who is God the Son) is present with us during the Lord's Supper.
So then, let us enter God's presence joyfully, during times of corporate and individual singing, during our meeting times with other believers, but particularly when we come to the Lord's table to commune with Him in His presence.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Christian
Saturday, May 24, 2008
How I Became the Vineyard Calvinist, Part 5
Well it's time to wrap this up! In late July of last year I returned to VCF Tampa to try to find a real church home where I could be raised up as a leader and find a place where all the gifts of the Spirit are practiced. Knowing that the pastor was reformed in his soteriology and the close proximity of the church to our home made it an easy decision.
I have since enrolled at the Vineyard Bible Institute to take online classes while at the same time being mentored by our pastor. Katie enjoys it a lot having met some good believing women to get close to and we have both joined the praise band with her singing backup and me alternating between the bass and electric guitar (I play a Fender Stratocaster).
I went last October to the annual conference of the ACRC and have networked with a lot of great reformed/continuationist pastors and others.
I truly thank God for taking me everywhere He has and I know that all of it was done, is being done, and will be done for His glory forever and forever.
Soli Deo Gloria!
-Christian
I have since enrolled at the Vineyard Bible Institute to take online classes while at the same time being mentored by our pastor. Katie enjoys it a lot having met some good believing women to get close to and we have both joined the praise band with her singing backup and me alternating between the bass and electric guitar (I play a Fender Stratocaster).
I went last October to the annual conference of the ACRC and have networked with a lot of great reformed/continuationist pastors and others.
I truly thank God for taking me everywhere He has and I know that all of it was done, is being done, and will be done for His glory forever and forever.
Soli Deo Gloria!
-Christian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
