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
Friday, June 27, 2008
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)
