left behind

Great post by Kenny Burchard explain to be left behind is better than to be taken :

I n 1969, Larry Norman wrote his song, “I wish we’d all been ready” based on the popularized rapture schema of pre-trib (and mid trib) premillennial eschatology. The chorus says…

There’s no time

To change your mind

The son has come

And you’ve been left behind

In 1972, the movie “A Thief in the Night” (and three other movies that followed it) scared the hell out of millions of people (including lots of lukewarm Christians), by presenting them with scenes of being left behind after “the rapture” to face the perils of a world run by “the Anti-Christ” and his evil system during the future “great tribulation.”

More recently, the popular fiction series of Left Behind books and films continue to reinforce the idea that any day now all true Christians will be removed from planet earth in the rapture, and taken off to a great heavenly feast up in the sky (lasting either seven years or 3.5 years depending on your preferred theological brand and stomach for enduring pain and persecution) with Jesus, while he simultaneously unleashes his vehement wrath upon the earth and all those who have been left behind to suffer.

The idea of the rapture is practically stock-in-trade with millions of primarily north American evangelicals who see the world as an increasingly evil place from which they long to escape into heaven’s bliss before it reaches the apex of evil. The quest to identify the Anti-Christ (was it Hitler, no, Reagan, no, the Pope, no, Barack Obama well — the jury’s still out, no, aha! maybe a Muslim…??), and to properly read the signs of the times (with corresponding charts noting the dates of corresponding world events) is big business!

Proponents of this eschatological system find the fearful imagery of being left behind in the rapture and suffering in the great tribulation primarily in the gospels of Luke and Matthew.

Here’s Matthew 24:36-44 —

36 But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

And here’s Luke 17:26-37 —

26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” 37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

Notice the flow of dialogue after Jesus mentions people being “taken” in vv. 34-35. “One will be taken…” — and they said to him, “Where Lord?” and he said to them… “Where the corpse is…”

This is so important. Jesus did not say that they would be snatched out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to up to a heavenly banquet in the sky. Nope. Just the opposite. Whoever is taken in these events is not going to enjoy what happens next. Being left behind, in both texts is preferable to being taken!

N.T. Wright (thankfully) keeps these texts in their contexts, and emphasizes the peril of midnight invasion by enemies and thieves in the night who take people out of their beds and away from their work, tearing families apart as some watch their loved ones “taken” in judgment while they are “left behind.” He writes in Jesus and the Victory of God…

At that time there would be division between families and colleagues: one would be taken, another left. It should be noted that being ‘taken’ in this context means being taken in judgment. There is no hint, here, of a ‘rapture’, a sudden ‘supernatural’ event which would remove individuals from terra firma. Such an idea would look as odd, in these synoptic passages, as a Cadillac in a camel-train. It is a matter, rather, of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can. If the disciples were to escape, if they were to be ‘left’, it would be by the skin of their teeth [1].

...

What about the “Rapture” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

Here’s what it says…

15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

What are the elements in this text? I propose –

1. The coming of the Lord…
2. In what is pictured as a descent from heaven…
3. Which is preceded by a loud attention-getting command and a trumpet blast…
4. To which both living and dead respond by getting up from where they are — first the dead, then the living…
5. Who rush out to meet the Lord, enraptured with joy at his home-coming…
6. Who live with him forever.

When the King comes home from battle victory!

This is not imagery for a secret snatching away in the middle of the night. There’s nothing secret about it. It’s loud! There is shouting. There are trumpet blasts. There are dead people getting up, and living people getting up. There is no quiet disappearance. It’s all very loud and very visible. It’s imagery of a King returning home from victorious battle, to which all of the people who love him respond with joyful celebration — going out to meet him at the edge of the city, and marching back into the city with him in royal procession! There is an image for this very thing in 1 Samuel 18:5-7.

5 Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Saul’s officers as well. 6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres. 7 As they danced, they sang:“Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”

This seems to be the exact imagery of 1 Thessalonians 4, and it would make a whole lot more sense to people living in Paul’s world to understand this text as the image of a King’s home-coming celebration. What is “rapture?” It is rapturous celebration of victory. It is being “caught up” in the joy of the King’s return, and rushing out to meet him so that you can celebrate his victory. To suggest that the first Christians would have interpreted it as a promise to be removed from the earth before judgment makes no sense. No, they were very familiar with the imagery of rapturous celebration following a King’s victorious home-coming after a successful war campaign. They would hear the trumpet announcing his presence at the border of the city, and they would all leave what they were doing and go out to where the King was stationed, fall in line behind him, and march into the city behind him — right up to the courts where the King would dismount his animal and ascend to his throne — the spoils of his victory being laid at his footstool.

Again, N.T. Wright says that this is a comforting image of hope…

for people like the Thessalonians who were suffering persecution and awaiting God’s vindication. And their ‘meeting’ with the Lord doesn’t mean they will then be staying in mid-air with him. They are like Roman citizens in a colony, going out to meet the emperor when he pays them a state visit, and then accompanying him back to the city itself [2].

The Son will come to those who’re left behind

To make the point further, who was “taken” in the flood and who was “left behind” after it was all over? I propose that Noah and his family were “left behind” (here) while everyone else was “taken” in the water. Who was “left behind” when judgment fell on Sodom? Who was “taken?” I propose that Lot and his family (minus his wife) were the only ones “left” after death “took” everyone else.

Do I believe in the rapture? If we’re talking about the scene described above… you bet! If we’re talking about being taken in the middle of the night up into the sky while God unleashes hell on earth — I’d have to say I can’t find that idea in these texts at all. Nope.

As far as Matthew and Luke are concerned, being taken away in judgment (to “where the corpse is…”) is a bad thing. Being left behind much more preferable. After all, the King is coming Home to the world that belongs to Him, and this is where I want to be when He comes.

——————–

Notes

[1] Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God (p. 366). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

[2] Wright, Tom (2002). Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (For Everyone Series) (Kindle Locations 2232-2234).

love awakens the fear of god

Too many Christians are feigning love by accommodating sin in the lives of other. True love deals with it in a way to promote repentance. Brothers and sisters, we are to judge. Here is Sam Storms' excellent post on When Christians Genuinely Love One Another:

Often we excuse our failure to speak truth into a person’s life because of the pain and emotional discomfort it may cause them. We live under the assumption that genuine love will do whatever it can either to prevent or alleviate the immediate distress in the object of our affection. To permit their pain to continue, or to act in such a way that it might even increase, is in the minds of many misguided folk a sign of cold indifference at best, and calloused hatred at worst.

For example, we are told repeatedly today, both inside and outside the church, that if we love the homosexual we will accept their orientation and behavior and refrain from words of judgment or any suggestion that their lifestyle might be immoral. If we truly love the sincere Buddhist we will not speak ill of his faith or insist on the exclusivity of Christ, but bless him in his chosen path and embrace him as a child of God. If we truly love our professing Christian brother who has abandoned all local church life because of his disgust with its purported hypocrisy, or for some related reason, we will affirm his decision and wish him well during his time on the golf course or at Starbucks on Sunday morning.

All this reminds me of an interview I recently saw with James I. Packer concerning the reasons for his unwavering stance against the blessing of same-sex unions in the Anglican Church. Packer was asked if this was an expression of love. Yes, he replied, because true love would never tolerate or overlook a fault in the beloved that might well issue in their eternal ruin.

To ignore sin in the name of love is not only unbiblical, it also betrays the very nature of love itself which, by definition, always seeks the ultimate spiritual welfare of its object, even at the expense of immediate personal peace.

It’s also an act of cowardice. Confrontation is hard and we typically prefer finding a way to avoid it. Appealing to our “love” for the person as an excuse for not speaking biblical truth concerning their unrepentant sin is the worst and least loving thing one can do and displays a greater devotion to self than to the sinner. It means, in effect, that we prefer our own emotional peace and sense of well-being above their conformity to Christ and perhaps even their eternal destiny. That hardly qualifies as “love” in any language.

The Apostle Paul says that it was “out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears” that he penned the so-called “severe” letter to the church in Corinth (2 Cor. 2:4). He evidently spoke forcefully and unequivocally about the nature of their sin and the need for repentance. In doing so, he ran the risk of alienating them and ending all hope for future fellowship.

His reputation at Corinth was also very much on the line. Would they dismiss him as a hard-hearted authoritarian, concerned only with enforcing conformity to his own preconceived position? Would they use the letter as another excuse to question the authenticity of his apostolic calling? Worse still, would they tell him that it was precisely for this reason that they wanted nothing more to do with the gospel he proclaimed to them? He could have cited all these and, no doubt, other reasons not to write the letter. “I love these people,” Paul might have said to himself, “and therefore don’t want to induce excessive psychological guilt or to contribute to any further schism in the church. I’ll just leave well enough alone.”

No, it was because he genuinely loved them with the love of Christ (what he called in 2 Cor. 2:4, “abundant love”!) and was burdened by the threat of their spiritual defection that he gathered up courage and spoke the truth (firmly and forcefully, I’m sure, but equally with tears of compassion).

Upon hearing from Titus that the letter had indeed hurt them, he initially regretted writing it. But not for long. His momentary grief soon turned to gladness, not, as he says, because he takes some perverse delight in their pain. He’s no sadist. His joy was stirred by their pain because it ultimately led to their repentance, and that was his ultimate goal.

Let’s look now at precisely how Paul put it:

“For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it- though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the one who did the wrong, nor for the sake of the one who suffered the wrong, but in order that your earnestness for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 7:8-12).

The letter stirred in them a grief or sorrow for sin that was “godly,” or more literally, “according to God” (vv. 9, 10, 11), by which he means that it was agreeable to the mind of God or that it was a sorrow prompted by the conviction that their sin had offended God, and not simply Paul. This he contrasts with “worldly grief” (v. 10) that is evoked not because one has transgressed a glorious and holy God but simply because one got caught. Worldly grief is essentially self-pity for having been exposed and having thus lost stature or favor in the eyes of men (not to mention money!). Godly grief is the sort that we see in Psalm 51:4 where David cried out, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.”

We know the Corinthians were sincere in their sorrow because of the fruit it bore. They didn’t merely grieve, but thoroughly repented and thereby gave evidence that they were truly saved (v. 10a).

If they had formerly been apathetic and lackluster in their response to the apostle, now they are earnest (v. 11a) in their zeal to do what was right. If before they had denied their duplicity, this time they were eager “to clear” themselves (v. 11b), not wanting their failures to reflect poorly on Christ and the gospel. Paul’s letter, through the Spirit, had set ablaze an “indignation” (v. 11c) toward themselves for not defending Paul and for having permitted the situation to get so out of hand (and perhaps also against the wrongdoer for the way his actions constituted a brazen defiance of Paul’s authority).

Paul’s love, as reflected in the letter, awakened the “fear” (v. 11d) of God in their hearts, and perhaps even a little fear of Paul himself. He was, after all, an apostle of Christ, and they knew it. Their “longing” (v. 11e) for him and their “zeal” (v. 11f) for the joy of renewed fellowship were undeniable (cf. 2 Cor. 7:7). If this meant pursuing the “punishment” (v. 11g) or discipline of the guilty person who was ultimately responsible for the rift, so be it.

I suppose an interested observer might have taken note of the distress and discomfort of the Corinthians and simply assumed that they had been victimized by a cold and uncaring leader. If he truly loved them, or so they thought, he would have done whatever was necessary to spare them such suffering. Right? Well, no, I don’t think so.

Paul was more than willing to endure the heartache of their short-term discomfort if it yielded the fruit of long-term transformation and, eventually, eternal bliss.

“So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the one who did the wrong, nor for the sake of the one who suffered the wrong, but in order that your earnestness for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God” (v. 12). Here the letter’s purpose is being viewed retrospectively, in light of its effects. Let’s not forget that when Paul wrote the letter he was uncertain of how they would react. He was, according to his own testimony, restless (2 Cor. 2:13) and fearful (2 Cor. 7:5) about its outcome.

It would seem, then, that Paul is using a Semitic idiom in v. 12 in which a comparison (“not so much X, as Y,” or “not primarily X, but Y”) is stated as a blatant and unqualified contrast (“not X at all, but only Y”). For example, when God says “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6; quoted in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) he doesn’t mean that he has no desire at all for sacrifice or burnt offerings but that he much prefers love and knowledge. Therefore, here in v. 12 “Paul is comparing two secondary purposes with his primary object that he recognized clearly in retrospect” (Harris, 545).

On the one hand, yes, he hoped the severe letter would stir them to apply discipline to the wrongdoer. And yes, he also intended that the letter would vindicate the person who had been wronged (which, by the way, was Paul himself). But exceeding these two aims was his desire to make clear to the Corinthians themselves, in the sight of God, that they were genuinely devoted to him. How they responded to the letter thus served as a measure or gauge of their affection for the apostle.

All told, it was initially an unpleasant experience for everyone concerned. But in the end, it yielded the harvest of repentance, restoration, and joy. Such is the nature and preeminent aim of genuine Christian love.

the dilemma

Doug Wilson writes:

Our baptist brothers see the problem, and (in my view) want to uproot the tares before it is time. They wind up damaging the wheat. The sacramentalists, I believe, are too careless about letting everything grow together, until eventually, like the Episcopal Church, they think that morning glory is wheat. And why shouldn’t we ordain this morning glory as a bishop? His relationship with the ragweed is a mutually affirming and caring relationship (Against the Church, p. 35).

The practical addressing of error is real and desperately needs to be discussed - within the confines of the Church. By definition of Church, we must be of one Spirit. Too many (myself included) are trying to resolve this via Facebook and the like. We err to either extreme described by Wilson and others seeing that, choose to not deal with it - also not ok. Church, please, sit down together and wrestle with the Word.

what you really need

Mark Altrogge posts this helpful piece on What You Really Need In Marriage at his blog The Blazing Center:

Our culture is extremely self-oriented. We are continually bombarded by messages that tell us we need greater self-esteem. We begin to think, I need to do this for me, I need to be validated, I need to feel good about myself, I need to think about my desires for a change, etc.

It’s so easy to bring this mentality into marriage. We can think we “need” certain things from our spouse. But in reality, we often take our desires, which may not be wrong in themselves, and elevate them to the level of “need.” “I want” becomes “I won’t be happy unless I get…”

Of course, there’s a place for talking to your spouse about your desires. There are things husbands and wives should do for one another. They should serve one another. They should seek to bless each other. Each should bear their share of the load of caring for the children and household chores.

But be careful with desires. But what if your spouse fails to meet your desires?

I would first ask this: how much do believers in Jesus really “need” from their wives or husbands? I would submit that you DON’T “need” your spouse:

To satisfy you

To serve you

To make you feel good about yourself

To meet all your expectations

To fulfill you

It’s wonderful if you have a wife or husband who cares for you, serves you and blesses you. But remember, ultimately no human being can meet all of another human being’s needs. No human being can satisfy another human. It’s just not going to happen. Only God can meet all our needs and truly satisfy us.

We take vows to love our spouse for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in good times and bad. What will you do if your spouse gets hurt or sick and is completely unable to do anything for you? What if you have to care for him or her for years? You will have to look to the Lord for contentment, satisfaction and joy.

So what do you really need?

You need…

To love your spouse. Husbands, God commands you to love your wife, as Christ loved the church and laid down his life for her. Believers are all called to love one another and look to the interests of others. We’re not called to make sure others are serving us and looking to our interests.

You need…

To be a servant. Rather than dwelling on how much your spouse is serving you, determine to be the biggest servant in the house. And serve as unto the Lord, knowing that he will reward you.

You need…

To be patient and long-suffering

To forgive

To ask forgiveness

To pray

You need grace

AND you also need:

To have low expectations. Yes, there are things husbands and wives should do for one another. Most of us do them very imperfectly. If you have high expectations, then you’ll constantly be disappointed and frustrated.

You need…

To expect your spouse to have many weaknesses and failures.

You need…

To expect your spouse to be slow to change. Even believers who pursue God wholeheartedly change slowly. Sanctification is a long process. Character doesn’t change overnight.

If you are frustrated, examine what it is you aren’t getting. Have you taken a desire, perhaps a legitimate one, and elevated it to the status of a need? Are you seeking a human to satisfy you or are you seeking to be content in Jesus?

prayer model step 3

If you liked the Diagnostic Decision, you will love Prayer Selection. Here is JRW on Step 3 of the 5-Step Prayer Model.

)

eternal life

Thomas Boston in The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: Human Nature in Its Fourfold State and a View of the Covenant of Grace, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 8:

It is not only life that is promised, but life eternal, life for evermore, Psalm 133:3; which, from the moment it is given, shall never be extinguished, through the ages of time and eternity. In the style of the Scripture, eternal life is not restricted to the state of glory in heaven. But the life communicated to a sinner, in the first moment of his union with Christ, is eternal: it is the eternal life promised in the covenant, according to the Scripture, John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life.” See chap. 5:24; 1 John 5:11, 12. Hence, from the promise of the covenant, “The just shall live by faith,” the apostle proves the perseverance of the saints, Heb. 10:38. A plain evidence, that perseverance in grace, in this our state of imperfection, is a part of the eternal life promised in the covenant, as well as heaven’s happiness. And thus the covenant-life extends to that which now is, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4:8.

(via)

prayer model step 2

JRW on Step 2, the diagnostic decision, of the 5-Step Prayer Model.

graham on repentance and conversion

Billy Graham on true repentance and conversion:

“If repentance could be described in one word, I would use the word renounce. ‘Renounce what?’ you ask. The answer can also be given in one word – ‘sin.’…

“Not only are we told that we must renounce the principle of sin but we are also to renounce sins – plural. We are to renounce the world, the flesh and the Devil. There can be no bargaining, compromise or hesitation. Christ demands absolute renunciation…..

“…repentance and faith go hand in hand. You cannot have genuine repentance without saving faith and you cannot have saving faith without repentance….

“…[To repent] means a great deal more than just regretting and feeling sorry about sin. The Biblical word repent means ‘to change, to turn.’ It is a word of power and action. It is a word that signifies a complete revolution in the individual. 

“When the Bible calls upon us to repent of sin, it means that we should turn away from sin, that we should do an about-face and walk in the opposite direction from sin and all that it implies….

“….True repentance means ‘to change, to turn away from, to go in a new direction.’ To be sorry is not enough in repentance….

“….repentance cannot take place unless first there is a movement of the Holy Spirit in the heart and mind….”

“….There must be a determination to forsake sin – to change one’s attitudes toward self, toward sin, and God; to change one’s feelings; to change one’s will, disposition and purpose.

“Only the Spirit of God can give you the determination necessary for true repentance….

“There is not one verse of Scripture that indicates you can be a Christian and live any kind of a life you want to. When Christ enters into the human heart, He demands that He be Lord and Master. He demands complete surrender….

“…He must have first place in everything you do or think or say, for when you truly repent you turn toward God in everything.

“We have the warning of Christ that He will not receive us into His kingdom until we are ready to give up all, until we are ready to turn from all sin in our lives. Don’t try to do it part way. Don’t say, ‘I’ll give up some of my sins and hang on to some others. I’ll live part of my life for Jesus and part for my own desires.’”

“God demands a total change, a total surrender.”

-- “Peace with God," pp. 100-107

(via)

love really wins

Edmund P. Clowney in Christian Meditation:

Love is not the upward ascent of our souls that sublimates us into union with the deity. Rather, love is the descent of God’s royal grace that conquers our rebellion, atones for our guilt, and draws us into sonship.

(via)

prayer model step 1

JRW on Step 1, the interview, of the 5-Step Prayer Model.

the glory of regeneration

John Flavel in The Whole Works of the Reverend John Flavel, Volumes 1-6, vol. 5:

Man, by degeneration, is become a most disordered and rebellious creature, contesting with, and opposing his Maker, as the first cause, by self-dependence; as the chiefest good, by self-love; as the highest Lord, by self-will, and as the last end, by self-seeking; and so is quite disordered, and all his acts irregular: His illuminated understanding is clouded with ignorance, his complying will full of rebellion and stubbornness; his subordinate powers, casting off the dominion and government of the superior faculties.

But by regeneration this disordered soul is set aright again: sanctification being the rectifying and due framing, or as the scripture phrases it, the renovation of the soul after the image of God, Eph. 4:24 in which self-dependence is removed by faith; self-love by the love of God; self-will by subjection and obedience to the will of God; and self-seeking by self-denial. The darkened understanding is again illuminated, Eph. 1:18 the refractory will sweetly subdued, Psalm 110:3 the rebellious appetite, or concupiscence gradually conquered, Rom. 5:7 per tot. And thus the soul which sin had universally depraved is again by grace restored and rectified.

(via)

practice of sinning

John Piper preaching No One Born of God Makes a Practice of Sinning based on 1 Jn 3.1-10.

No One Born of God Makes a Practice of Sinning from Desiring God.

Here are some of the points that jump out at me at this time:

...

John’s first letter, more than any other book in the Bible, seems to be designed to help us in this practical, daily battle. Consider 1 John 5:13: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” This book is written, he says, to help believers have the full assurance that they have been born again—that is, that they have new, spiritual life in them that will never die. John wants you—God wants you—to experience something in this letter that makes you profoundly confident that you have passed from death to life.

First John 3:14 says, “We know that we have passed out of death into life.” Jesus says in John 5:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” So John and Jesus are jealous for us believers to know that judgment is behind us, and death is behind us, because our judgment happened when Jesus was judged in our place, and our death happened when Jesus died in our place. And therefore, new life is in us and this life cannot perish and cannot be taken away. It’s eternal. That’s the assurance John and Jesus want for you. “I write these things to you . . . that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

... consider 1 John 3:9: “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” The practice of sin is the evidence and confirmation that one is not born of God. Doing confirms being. Not practicing sin is the evidence and confirmation of being born again.

And the reason the new birth inevitably changes the life of sinning, John says, is that when we are born again, “God’s seed” abides in us, and we “cannot keep on sinning.” That’s how real the connection between the new birth and daily physical life is. The seed may be the Spirit of God or the Word of God or the nature of God—or all three. Whatever it is specifically, God himself is at work in the new birth so powerfully that they cannot keep on practicing sin. God’s seed cannot make peace with a pattern of sinful behavior.

... false teachers [make a disconnection] between who you are and what you do [leading] them ... to say that Christians never really sin. How could they? They’re born of God. They’re new creatures. They have the seed of God in them. So John levels his guns at this error three times. It’s important that you see them.

1) There Are No Sinless Christians.

First John 1:8: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” We! We born-again Christians. In other words, don’t let the deception of these false teachers work its way into your own self-deception. There are no sinless Christians.

2) The Born Again Have an Advocate.

First John 2:1: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” In other words, John does not assume that if you sin, you are not born again. He assumes that if you sin, you have an Advocate, Jesus Christ. And only those who are born again have this Advocate.

3) There Is Sin That Does Not Lead to Death.

First John 5:16-17: “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.”

Notice that last clause: “There is sin that does not lead to death.” This is why you cansee your brother committing sin. He is your brother. He is born again. And he is sinning. How can this be? Because there is sin that does not lead to death. I don’t think he has particular kinds of sins in view, but rather degrees of rootedness and habitual persistence. There is a point of confirmed sinning which may take you over the line of no return and you will be like Esau who sought repentance and could not find it (Hebrews 12:16-17).

How Do the Born Again Deal with Their Sin?

Now we come to the question we raised at the beginning: How do people who have experienced the miracle of the new birth deal with their own sinfulness as they try to live in the full assurance of their salvation? My answer is: You deal with it by the way you use John’s teaching. John warns against hypocrisy (claiming to be born again when your life contradicts it), and John celebrates the Advocacy and Propitiation of Christ for sinners.

The question is: How do you use these two truths? How do you use the warning that you might deceive yourself? How do you use the promise, “If we do sin, we have an Advocate”? The evidence of your new birth lies in how these to truths function in your life.

Here’s the way they function if you are born again:

1) Fleeing Presumption, Flying to the Advocate

You are slipping into a lukewarm, careless, presumptuous frame of mind about your own sinfulness. You are starting to coast or be indifferent to whether you are holy or worldly. You are losing your vigilance against bad attitudes and behaviors—and starting to settle in with sinful patterns of behavior.

When the born-again person experiences this, the truth of 1 John 3:9 (“No one born of God makes a practice of sinning”) has the effect, by the Holy Spirit, of awakening him to the danger of his condition so that he flies to his Advocate and his Propitiation for mercy and forgiveness and righteousness. He confesses his sin and receives cleansing (1:9), and his love for Christ is renewed and the sweetness of his relationship is recovered and the hatred of sin is restored and the joy of the Lord again becomes his strength.

2) Fleeing Despair, Flying to the Advocate

You are sinking down in fear and discouragement and even despair that your righteousness, your love for people, and your fight against sin are just not good enough. Your conscience is condemning you, and your own deeds seem so imperfect to you that they could never prove that you are born again.

When the born-again person experiences this, the truth of 1 John 2:1 has the effect, by the Spirit, of rescuing him from despair: “My little children [he wants to be tender with their consciences], I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

John’s warning of hypocrisy calls you back from the precipice of presumption. John’s promise of an Advocate calls you back from the precipice of despair.

The Redemptive Power of God’s Word

New birth enables you to hear Scripture and use Scripture helpfully, redemptively. New birth doesn’t use the promise “We have an Advocate” to justify an attitude of cavalier indifference to sin.

New birth doesn’t’ use the warning “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning” to pour gasoline on the fires of despair. New birth has a spiritual discernment that senses how to use John’s teaching: The new birth is chastened and sobered by the warnings, and the new birth is thrilled and empowered by the promise of an Advocate and a Propitiation.

May the Lord confirm your new birth by both of these responses to the word of God. May he grant you to embrace both the warning and the comfort and put them to proper spiritual use in preserving the full assurance of your salvation.

the foundation of your gladness

John Piper in God is the Gospel:

The acid test of biblical God-centeredness — and faithfulness to the gospel — is this: Do you feel more loved because God makes much of you, or because, at the cost of His Son, He enables you to enjoy making much of Him forever? Does your happiness hang on seeing the cross of Christ as a witness to your worth, or as a way to enjoy God’s worth forever? Is God’s glory in Christ the foundation of your gladness?

(via)

prayer model intro

Here is John Wimber's intro to the 5-Step Prayer Model ... nothing too amazing here but I post for some background to future posts.

   

unity and the spirit

Charles Hodge, in his exposition on 1 & 2 Corinthians:

Every organism, or organic whole, supposes diversity and unity. That is, different parts united so as to constitute one whole. The apostle had taught that in the unity of the church there is a diversity of gifts. This is illustrated by a reference to the human body. It is one, yet it consists of many members. And this diversity is essential to unity; for unless the body consisted of many members, it would not be a body, i.e. an organic whole.

Charles Colsonin The Body:

Diversity within the Body, while it may chafe and bind and even pain, provides a healthy corrective ... The fact is, we can learn from one another ... Respecting and appreciating different traditions not only teaches us more about our faith, but encourages a measure of theological humility. This attitude helps us avoid the kind of rigid conformity that says everyone must look, act, talk and think alike. And this also helps us make the gospel accessible to all people.

Marlene Nathan on 1 Co 12.12-30:

The very thing that Paul says here will create our unity is now a source of division and disunity: the Holy Spirit. Christians are more divided over the person and work of the Holy Spirit than almost anything else. When we reject the means for unity that God has provided, then we are forced to substitute man-made alternatives (external standards and conformity to rules) in order to be united.

to church or not to church

Imagine for a moment the below is not a direct rebuke of the Donald Miller post. Imagine Jared Wilson was not presuming Miller's heart/motives. If one could read Wilson's post without these and use his words as a personal challenge or a reminder of a weltgeist we come against far too often, then I think the below is very, very helpful. Here is Wilson's post:

But the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. – Habakkuk 2:20

Do you know the Greek myth of Echo the Oread? She was a nymph who loved hearing her own voice. And, as the mythology goes, she fell into a romance with Narcissus.

I think a lot of the rejections in evangelicalism today of God’s sovereignty and biblical infallibility are not unrelated to the more recent conversations about the need to attend regular local church services. They are all simply manifestations of a rejection of authority, and while of course those who make these rejections will not say they are rejecting God — but rather the artificial or modernist fabrications of those who claim to speak for God — the treasured principle nevertheless does not seem to be what God has actually said but what one feels in the heart (or some similar thing). I think it’s because we don’t want anyone being the boss of us, and because doctrines like biblical infallibility (and biblical perspicuity) and experiences like church services are too restrictive, too conforming, too narrow a space for “me to be me.”

Frank Viola wrote back in 2011:

I know a lot of very well-known teachers and preachers . . . What’s interesting is that many of them don’t belong to any church. None at all. And neither do their families. Nor are they part of any ministry team wherein there is close-knit fellowship and mutual submission.

There’s probably lots of reasons for this, but some of them are teased out in Donald Miller’s recent post where he triple-downs on his admission of not attending church services. It has something to do with embracing the “agency” taught in Hebrews apparently, and embodying the “organized chaos” of Acts. You know, the Hebrews where we’re told not to forsake the regular worship assembly and the Acts where we’re told the church gathered regularly in devotion to the apostles’ teaching and to hear a guy preach.

And so I think we ought to see the talk about agency and enjoying the church outside formality and institutions and the traditions of singing songs and listening to monologue teaching for what it really is: self-worship. A self-indulgent love of our own voices and preferring of them above all others. In church, after all, no one can hear you tweet.

Certainly one can be self-centered inside a church gathering, but the church gathering is nevertheless where all the sinners ought to be at the appointed time, smack-dab in the middle of a congregational experience specifically organized against the idolatry of personal preference. Not just because God says to do it — although that’s reason enough — but because it is good for us to have our singular voice lost in the sea of corporate praise and it is good for us to shut our social-media-motor-mouths for a bit and hear “Thus saith the Lord.” We should go to church — not mainly, but nevertheless — because it confronts and stunts our spiritual autonomy and individualism. We should go lest we become Cainites, saying “I’m not my brother’s keeper.” Or reverse Cainites, “My brothers aren’t my keepers.”

Of course most of us prefer to worship at the First Church of Hanging Out With My Friends at The Coffee Shop. Of course the more elite of us prefer to worship at My Own Speaking Engagements Community Church. Because, we believe, we “learn better” when we’re the ones doing the talking.

But something happens when you stop submitting to the communal listening of congregational worship and start filling the air with your own free range spiritual rhetoric. Your talk of God starts to sound less like God. He starts sounding like an idea, a theory, a concept. He stops sounding like the God of the Bible, the God who commands and demands, the God who is love but also holy, gracious but also just, et cetera. He begins to sound less like the God “who is who he is” and more like the God who is as you like him.

In his sermon on Genesis 3, as Martyn Lloyd-Jones details the origin of sin in human history, the deceit resulting from the question, “Did God actually say…?”, he talks about the fellow who talks about God with his hands in his pockets and a cigarette in his mouth. I don’t think he means at all to say one could not speak rightly about God in casual clothes or even in a casual position, but he means to say that the fellow could easily be speaking about the weather or politics or the local sports team. There is no evident reverence. “The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth blog about how cool he is with, you know, whatever your deal is, man.”

Awe and reverence. Authority and submission. Proclamation and supplication. Command and obedience. We fear these dynamics because we fear losing our selves, but we know what Jesus said to do to find yourself. If what Jesus says is true, maybe saving reverence for God is lost in the refusal to put one’s self in positions of difficulty, vulnerability, self-denial. Maybe seeking to find our own true path away from the “stifling confines” of the “traditional church” has actually taken us out of the garden of worship and into the wilderness, right into the rubble of Babel in fact.

What you talk about when you talk about God outside the self-denial and obedience God calls us to doesn’t sound like God. It sounds like your god is you.

In Nehemiah 8, “all the people gathered as one man,” it says (v.1), to hear Ezra preach. One guy doing the talking. And he essentially just read them the Law. While they stood there in the morning sun. For about a four-hour sermon reading. So if you think your church service is long and stifling, keep Nehemiah 8 in mind.

Nehemiah 8:3 says that “the ears of all the people were attentive.” I suppose this would include those whose spiritual learning styles were more wired for dialogue or, I guess, whitewater rafting or whatever. But they were a people who valued “Thus saith the Lord,” who thought “Thus saith the Lord” might be vital for them to hear and that being quiet could help them hear it. And the response to the sermon is telling. Verse 9 tells us they wept when they heard the Law. They didn’t object; they didn’t scoff; they didn’t cry out, “Yahweh’s not the boss of me!” (Or “You either, Ezra, acting so high and mighty up in that pulpit!”) No, they wept out of conviction, out of despair of themselves, out of reverence for “Thus saith the Lord.” When they talked about God, they did it through sobs.

But Ezra tells them to stop crying, to go home and feast (v.9). He tells them to eat fatty foods and drink wine and to share those things with others. See, God is not withholding such joys from us. He doesn’t want us out of the coffee shops or the pubs or wherever else it is we suppose we’d rather be than hearing “thus saith the Lord” from some religious spokesperson. He simply wants us there through the cross.

The truth is we need “thus saith the Lord.” We need to talk like God owns us when we talk about God. Even like he owes us wrath. Otherwise all of our talk of grace and mercy and freedom and finding ourselves and whatever else will keep ringing more and more hollow. The people listening to Ezra needed the terror from the declaration of the holy righteousness of God which is damning to get to the boundless joys of the proclamation of the holy righteousness of Christ which is saving. And when you think about what Christ willingly went through to deliver us, losing our autonomy and personal platform in the mess and discomfort of the parts of life in his Body we most want to avoid doesn’t seem like such a huge price to pay.

If your local church is doing things right, it will be seeking to provide a spiritual environment for your growth predicated on God’s terms — which is to say, not yours. Let’s not neglect to approach that holy ground, and take our shoes off in reverence when we get there, even if it means shoving one of them in our mouths.

hated

A recent study group expressed concern over Christians being viewed negatively by the world. While there is a right and wrong way to deliver a right and wrong message, that wasn't the issue. These young believers seemed to be stuck on the notion that we may be disliked. They thought we should be attractive. They had no idea how to respond (and acted as if they had never heard before) when I read Jn 15.18-21:

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.

The Randy Alcorn posts this timely and encouraging reminder:

In an interview I was asked, What is your advice on how believers should deal with a culture that is increasingly hostile to Christianity?

Jesus said, “No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:20). Followers of Jesus should expect injustice and misrepresentation. I’m grateful there are organizations working to protect the rights of Christians. But I’m concerned if we view ourselves as one more special interest group, clinging to entitlements and whining when people don’t like us. God’s people have a long history of not being liked.

Of course, this does not mean being hateful or seeking to be hated. It's important that we represent the Gospel well, and I am all for graciousness, kindness and servant-hearted love as we speak the truth. Romans 12:18 says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."

But the fact is, while the gospel is good news, it is also insulting. Many people don’t like being called sinners and told they deserve to go to hell. Peter said, “Don’t be surprised at the fiery ordeal you are suffering as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12).

If our eyes are on anyone but Jesus, we’re not going to have the stamina to put up with criticism or outright hostility. Paul said, “If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).

Jesus is the Audience of One. We will stand before His judgment seat, no one else’s. We should long to hear Him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” What other people think won’t matter.

something more

Wow!



Something More from Moving Works.

knowledge exposed

From John Frame  in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God:

Knowledge exposed to God's presence. We commonly distinguish between knowledge of facts ("knowing that . . ."), knowledge of skills ("knowing how ..."), and knowledge of persons ("knowing whom ..."). These three are related, but they are not identical with one another. Knowing a person involves knowing facts about him (contrary to some "personalistic" theologians), but one can know facts about someone without knowing him, and vice versa. A political scientist may know many facts about the president of the United States without being able to say that he "knows" the president. The White House gardener may know far fewer facts and yet be able to say that he knows the president quite well.

All three kinds of knowledge are mentioned in Scripture, and all are important theologically. A believer must know certain facts about God-who He is, what He has done. Note the importance of the "historical prologue" within the covenant structure: the Lord begins the covenant document by telling what He has done. The covenant begins in grace. Those who disparage the importance of factual knowledge in Christianity are in fact disparaging the message of grace (cf. Ps. 100:3; Rom. 3:19; 6:3; 1 John 2:3; 3:2-random examples of factual knowledge that is vital to the believer). Furthermore, a believer is one who learns new skills-how to obey God, how to pray, how to love-as well as skills in which believers differ from one another-preaching, evangelizing, diaconal service, and so forth (cf. Matt. 7:11; Col. 4:6; 1 Tim. 3:5). But (and perhaps most importantly) Christian knowledge is knowledge of a person. It is knowing God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

Sometimes in the Scriptures, "knowing" a person refers mainly to knowing facts about him, but most often it means being involved with him either as a friend or as an enemy (cf. Gen. 29:5; Matt. 25:24; Acts 19:15; 1 Cor. 16:15; 1 Thess. 5:12. The common use of know to refer to sexual intercourse should also be noted at this point, e.g., Gen. 4:1). When Scripture speaks of God "knowing" men, generally the reference is not to factual knowledge at all (since it goes without saying that God knows the facts). In such contexts, knowing generally means "loving" or "befriending" (note Exod. 33:12, 17; Ps. 1:5f.; Jet. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Nahum 1:7; Matt. 25:12; John 10:14, 27). This is frequently an important exegetical point, especially in Romans 8:29. The statement there that God "foreknew" certain persons cannot mean that He knew that they would believe, and thus it cannot teach that predestination is based on God's foresight of man's autonomous choices. Rather, the verse teaches that salvation originates in God's sovereign knowledge (i.e., love) of His elect. Hence Scripture almost never speaks of God "knowing" an unbeliever; the only examples I can find of that (John 2:25; 5:42) clearly refer to factual knowledge.

Man's knowledge of God, then, is very similar to God's knowledge of man. To know Him is to be involved with Him as a friend or as an enemy. For the believer, to know Him is to love Him-hence the strong emphasis on obedience (as we have seen) as a constitutive aspect of the knowledge of God. Here, however, we wish to focus on the fact that the God whom we know and whom we love is of necessity present with us, and therefore our relationship with Him is a truly personal one. The intimacy of love assumes the present reality of the beloved. We can love someone at a distance but only if that person plays a significant, continuing role in our thoughts, decisions, and emotions and in that sense is near to us. But if God controls all things and stands as the ultimate authority for all of our decisions, then He confronts us at every moment; His power is manifest everywhere, and His Word makes a constant claim on our attention. He is the most unavoidable reality there is and the most intimate, since His control and authority extend to the deepest recesses of the soul. Because of the very comprehensiveness of His control and authority, we may not think of God as far away. (Earthly controllers and authorities seem far away precisely because their authority and control are so limited.) Thus God is not merely a controller or authority, He is also an intimate acquaintance.

The covenantal language of Scripture brings out this intimacy. God speaks to Israel using the second person singular, as if the whole nation were one person; God uses the language of "I and thou." He proclaims to His people blessings and curses, the mark of His continuing (priestly) presence. As the history of redemption progresses, the covenant relationship is described in terms of marriage (Hosea; Eph. 5; etc.), sonship (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14-17; etc.), and friendship (John 15:13-15).

The sense of the believer doing all things not only to the glory of God but in God's presence (coram deo) has been a precious truth to Reformed people. God not only controls and commands, but in all of our experience He is, ultimately, the "one with whom we have to do." Nothing can be farther from the deterministic, impersonalistic, intellectualistic, unemotional brand of religion represented in the popular caricature of Calvinism.

connecting jesus and the kingdom

In contrast to what men can and cannot do with respect to the Kingdom, Philip Bethancourt posts 10 Connections Between Jesus and the Kingdom of God. I like his list although his concluding comment could be more forceful/comprehensive.

The kingdom of God is, in essence, God's redemptive reign. Yet it can be easy to overlook this prominent theme in the life of Jesus, and tempting to assume rather than investigate the importance of the kingdom for Jesus. When we miss the significance of the kingdom to Jesus, however, we can miss the significance of the kingdom for biblical theology and ethics.

So how important was the kingdom of God to Jesus? What was his relationship to the in-breaking of the eschatological kingdom? Let's examine ten ways Jesus related to the kingdom.

1. Jesus inaugurates the kingdom. With the coming of Christ, the kingdom begins not in the coronation of a mighty king but in the birth of a crying baby. Yet as Jesus' ministry begins in Mark, he announces, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). What Israel had long awaited, Christ had now inaugurated.
2. Jesus is the kingdom. Where the king is, there is the kingdom. This is precisely why Jesus says to the Pharisees, "The kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 17:21). As Graeme Goldsworthy teaches, Jesus embodies the kingdom motif of God's people in God's place under God's rule. Jesus is both the faithful ruler and the righteous citizen of the kingdom.
3. Jesus purposes the kingdom. Jesus reveals that his purpose is to proclaim the kingdom. Jesus described his mission saying that he "must preach the good news of the kingdom of God" (Luke 4:43).
4. Jesus declares the kingdom. Through his words, Jesus explains the kingdom and invites people to enter into it. Luke summarizes Jesus' ministry as "proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God" (Luke 8:1). The declaration of the kingdom often came through the parables of Jesus that illustrated what it was and how it worked.
5. Jesus demonstrates the kingdom. Through his works, Jesus shows the power of the kingdom and his authority over the prince of darkness. As Jesus explains, "If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20). Jesus not only declares the kingdom in his words but also demonstrates the kingdom in his works.
6. Jesus deploys the kingdom. Jesus sends his followers out as ambassadors of the kingdom to herald its arrival. This deployment happens in Luke 10 as Jesus sends out the 72, instructing them to say, "The kingdom of God has come near to you" (Luke 10:9). In the great commission, king Jesus issues his discipleship battle plan to the church because he possesses "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18). Jesus sends his soldiers to the front lines to engage the kingdom of darkness.
7. Jesus transforms the kingdom. Israel's messianic hopes focused on the coming of a military conqueror who would rescue them from their geo-political enemies. That is why they sought to make Jesus king (John 6:15). But Jesus reorients their vision by declaring, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Jesus transforms the kingdom, showing it is holistic in its nature, redemptive in its mission, and cosmic in its scope.
8. Jesus purchases the kingdom. Through his victorious death and resurrection, Jesus redeems the kingdom. As he satisfies the wrath of God poured out for those who rebel against his rule, Jesus defeats Satan, sin, and death (Col 2:14-15). He overcomes the world, the flesh, and the Devil by destroying the power of the kingdom of darkness. By purchasing a kingdom people at the cross, Jesus proves himself to be the rightful ruler of the restored kingdom.
9. Jesus concludes with the kingdom. In his final words to his people, Jesus concludes his earthly ministry by clarifying the kingdom. Just before his ascension, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Even at the conclusion of his earthly ministry, Jesus resolved confusion about the kingdom. So the kingdom was key to the start of Jesus' earthly ministry and its culmination.
10. Jesus returns the kingdom. In the second coming of Christ, Jesus returns as a triumphant warrior king. As he returns to achieve final victory, the name scribed on his body is "King of kings and Lord of lords" (Rev 19:16). At last, he places all his enemies under his feet as he launches a new creation kingdom that fully reflects his righteous reign. He consummates the conquest that began with his birth.

If the kingdom of God was central to Jesus' life and ministry, then it remains crucial to our theology and ethics today.

forgetting sin

A thought by Raymond Brown in The Message of Hebrews on forgetting sins:

When our sins and iniquities are confessed, God pledges himself to forget them. We are incapable of making up our minds to forget. If we determine to forget anything, it is only likely to impress the fact more deeply on our memories. But God says, ‘I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more’ (8:12). God remembers his mercy and forgets our sins. It is the devil who tries to remind us of both our former sins and our present weakness. 

(via)

true marriage equality

Ryan T. Anderson on True Marriage Equality: Man and Woman followed by Justin Taylor's brief summary.

Unrelated, for posterity, here's a great resource for those who are honestly wrestling with issues around homosexuality.

Starts around 7:15 ...

Marriage is based on:

• the truth that men and women are complementary,
• the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and
• the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

healing in atonement

Sams Storms attempts to articulate the how healing is found in the atonement and delineate between "third wave" thinking and traditional charismatic thinking.

Here in 1 Peter 2:24-25 the apostle is very clearly alluding to Isaiah 53:4-5. There the prophet declared:

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”

In order to understand what Peter had in mind in quoting this OT passage, I need to address a very controversial question: Is there healing in the atonement?

Some believe that just as God the Father made Jesus to be “sin” for us on the cross he also made him to be “sick” for us on the cross. Word of Faith advocate Gloria Copeland once wrote: “Jesus bore your sicknesses and carried your diseases at the same time and in the same manner (emphasis mine) that he bore your sins.” Another author put it this way:

"When Jesus stood bearing the lashes from the Roman soldiers, all our physical pain and sicknesses were being heaped upon him. . . It is as if one lash was for cancer, another for bone disease, another for heart disease, and so on. Everything that causes physical pain was laid on Jesus as the nails were driven into His hands and feet” (Colin Urquhart).

What is being said is that Christ bore our sicknesses in the very same way that he bore our sins. Another once wrote that “Christ endured vicariously our diseases as well as our iniquities.”

We know what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God “made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf." He was declaring that the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ and that it was because of that guilt that he was punished in our place. But what can it possibly mean to say God made him “to be sick” on our behalf?

There is no guilt in disease or sickness. Having diabetes or a head cold is not sinful. The Bible tells us to pray “forgive us our trespasses” and urges us “to confess our sins,” but nowhere does it say that we should pray “forgive us our arthritis” or “Lord, I confess that I have the flu.” Sickness is not sin. The Bible never issues the command, “Thou shalt not commit cancer,” or “Flee the flu.” Nevertheless, many insist that Jesus “bore the penalty for our sins and sicknesses." But if sickness is not a sin, how can it incur a penalty?

Of course, ultimately all sickness is a result of sin, but only in the sense that Adam’s fall introduced corruption and death into the human race. But that does not mean that every time we get sick it is because of some specific sin we have committed. It does mean that had Adam not sinned, there would be no sickness. Sickness is the effect of sin (just like tornadoes, weeds, and sadness). But that is altogether different from saying that sickness is sin. We do not repent for having kidney stones, nor do we come under conviction for catching the measles. I didn’t rebuke my older daughter for coming down with the chicken pox, and I certainly didn’t ask my younger daughter to ask for forgiveness when she caught it from her older sister.

Jesus was not punished for our diseases. Rather, he endured the wrath of God that was provoked by our willful disobedience of the truth.

So what does it mean in Isaiah 53 and in 1 Peter 2 when it says that he bore our sicknesses and carried our pains and that by his stripes or wounds we are healed?

As I’ve already said, Christ “bore our sins” in the sense that he bore the wrath of God of which our sins were the cause.

In the case of Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2 we are being told that he carried our pains, not in the sense of personally experiencing stomach viruses and ulcers and earaches and gallstones as he hung on Calvary’s tree, but by enduring the wrath of God against that willful human wickedness which is ultimately the reason there are such things as pain and infirmity. By his death at his first coming he has laid the foundation for the ultimate over-throw and annihilation of all physical disease, which will occur with the resurrection of the body at his second coming. Thus it is theologically misleading to say that Jesus bore our sicknesses in the same way he bore our sins. Rather he paid the price of our sins in order that one day, when he returns to glorify his people, he may wholly do away with all of our sicknesses.

May we conclude that there is healing in the atonement? Of course! Were it not for Jesus making atonement for sin, we would have no hope of healing in any form, either now or later. The redemptive suffering of Jesus at Calvary is the foundation and source of every blessing, whether spiritual or physical.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is healing through the atonement rather than in the atonement, insofar as the atoning death of Jesus is the basis for God healing us. In this way we avoid suggesting that because of Jesus' death we are guaranteed healing in this life.

To ask, “Is there healing in the atonement?” is like asking, “Is there forgiveness of sins in the atonement?” or, “Is there fellowship with God in the atonement?” There is even a sense in which we may say that the Holy Spirit is in the atonement! We are told in John 14:16-17,26; 15:26; and especially 16:7-15, that the Holy Spirit’s present ministry is a result of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus.

Everything we receive from God finds its ultimate source in what Christ did for us on the cross. Therefore, the question is not whether our bodies receive healing because of the atonement of Christ, but when. We are forgiven of our sins now because of Christ’s atoning death, but we await the consummation of our deliverance from the presence of sin when Christ returns. We experience fellowship with God now because of Christ’s atoning death, but we await the consummation of that blessed relationship when Christ returns. We profit immensely now from the Spirit’s work in our hearts, but who would dare suggest that what the Holy Spirit is doing in this age is all that he will ever do? There is a glorious harvest reserved in heaven for us of which the present ministry of the Holy Spirit is merely the first fruits!

In other words, it is a serious mistake for us to think that every blessing Christ secured through his redemptive suffering will be ours now in its consummate form. All such blessings shall indeed be ours, let there be no mistake about that. But let us not expect, far less demand, that we now experience fully those blessings which God has clearly reserved for heaven in the age to come.

Life for the believer in this present age is a life of tension between the already and the not yet. We already have so very, very much. But we have not yet experienced it all. There is much yet to come. One of the “not yets” in Christian experience is the complete redemption and glorification of the body (see Phil. 3:20-21). Yes, we believe God heals today and that any healing that occurs is because of what Christ has accomplished in his death and resurrection, and yes, we will pray fervently for healing of the body in the present. But that doesn’t mean that because of what Christ accomplished then that we will always experience complete healing now.

We must also remember that frequently in Scripture the sinful condition of the soul is portrayed as analogous to a body suffering from various wounds. Forgiveness and restoration are therefore described in terms of a bodily healing. By his atoning death the great Physician has truly “healed” our hearts. We were continually straying like sheep, but by the redemptive grace of Jesus we have been enabled to return to the shepherd and guardian of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Thus the context of 1 Peter 2:24 clearly tells us that it is primarily spiritual healing from the disease of sin, not physical restoration of the body, that the apostle has in mind.

The sickness was that of having strayed from God. The disease was that of having departed from him. The healing provided by Christ, therefore, is bringing us back to God and restoring our relationship with him.

This is clearly the case in our passage when we take note of the word “for” with which v. 25 begins. The word “for” or “because” indicates that the “healing” in v. 24 is from the punishment we deserved for the wandering in v. 25.

In the next article we’ll take note of how this is made clear from what Paul says in Romans 8:1.

affections

"Look to the cross, think of the cross, meditate on the cross, and then go and set your affections on the world if you can." ~ J.C. Ryle

(via)

comfort in election

Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2: God and Creation:

Both for unbelievers and believers, the doctrine of election is a source of inexpressibly great comfort. If it were based on justice and merit, all would be lost. But now that election operates according to grace, there is hope even for the most wretched. If work and reward were the standard of admission into the kingdom of heaven, its gates would be opened for no one. Or if Pelagius’s doctrine were the standard, and the virtuous were chosen because of their virtue, and Pharisees because of their righteousness, wretched publicans would be shut out. Pelagianism has no pity. But to believe in and to confess election is to recognize even the most unworthy and degraded human being as a creature of God and an object of his eternal love. The purpose of election is not—as it is so often proclaimed—to turn off the many but to invite all to participate in the riches of God’s grace in Christ. No one has a right to believe that he or she is a reprobate, for everyone is sincerely and urgently called to believe in Christ with a view to salvation. No one can actually believe it, for one’s own life and all that makes it enjoyable is proof that God takes no delight in his death. No one really believes it, for that would be hell on earth. But election is a source of comfort and strength, of submissiveness and humility, of confidence and resolution. The salvation of human beings is firmly established in the gracious and omnipotent good pleasure of God.

(via)