Reformed Goad Kicker

Sermon Links Updated

2010-05-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

Over on the right, there is a link to some sermons that I update once every great while. I have added the two most recent sermons given. The first is entitled "What Do I Know" and is about what humans can know about God from creation. The second is "You Know Better" and covers the subject of what responsibilities we have as Christians due to our knowledge of God's will. (EDIT: I fixed the volume problem so they won't be nearly as loud as the originals I uploaded.)

Paul vs. Jesus and James?

2010-01-15T09:48:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that much has been made in the world of modern Christian writing of the difference in style and delivery of the gospel by Jesus and by Paul. Some have even gone as far as to write whole books on how Paul "stole" the gospel from Jesus through his epistles. Many of these books point to the epistle of James as further evidence of this dichotomy, reminding us that it was most likely written by James the brother of Jesus.

This is truly an unfortunate trend, as it not only slanders the Holy Spirit as the ultimate Author of the bible, but it also presents a difference that does not really exist. Yes, there are peculiarities to the writings of Paul that are different than James, but the gospel is the same. These peculiarities should also not be a surprise. If every book in the New Testament were the same in scope and delivery, then it would make for very dry reading indeed. God through the Holy Spirit has been kind enough to us to present us with a New Testament that is multi-faceted, but is also unified and in concert.

Perhaps it would be of some use to investigate some of the idiosynchracies of the epistle(s) (and possibly thus, the authors) of Paul and James to see how each "rightly divided" the gospel of Jesus, but made different use and application of the truths therein.

I. Audience:

One thing a writer must consider before ever putting pen to page is who is going to read what is written. This determines how the information is packaged. This, often, does not change the core information, but it does change the possible applications that will be provided for example as well as the metaphors that can be used for explanation.

Paul had a very specific audience in mind when he wrote his epistles. Jesus had a special mission for Paul (then called Saul, see: Acts 9:11-15) and he was selected especially for service in that mission (Acts 13:1-3). Paul's mission was to be a minister of the gospel to the Gentile (non-Jew) peoples and his epistles are primarily directed to predominantly Gentile regions in which he had preached and converted many souls. Therefore, his epistles have a distinct tone to them - one that would be important for Gentiles to hear.

Gentiles had long been excluded from many of the blessings enjoyed by the Jews, as God had indeed chosen the Jews to be His special people. This is not to say that they had no hope at all, but as following God Almighty had become cultural, it was difficult for those outside "the fold" to be included. Therefore, themes of God's grace (χάρις - charis #5485 | free gifts, see: here), faith (πίστις - pistis #4102 | sure, actionable belief, see: here) and repentence from former ways of life (see: here) are central to most of Paul's epistles.

James, a central figure in the church at Jerusalem for many years (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), wrote his epistle to a different audience. He refers to them as the diaspora (διασπορά), which was a word usually associated with the scattered Jews not living in Jerusalem, here referencing the scattered Christians in different parts of the world. It is not necessary that James' audience was of a predominantly Jewish background, but his use of language as well as his influence within the Jewish Christian community make it a strong possibility.

A notable difference between James' epistle and Paul's is the scarcity of the word "grace (χάρις - charis #5485)." Does this mean that James does not believe in a gospel of grace? Certainly not. An audience of Jewish background would well understand the idea of God's kind gifts to His people. The history of the nation was rife with examples of God remembering His people even when they had not been faithful to Him. God had maintained His kind loyalty to His people for thousands of years. To Paul's audience, this was a new concept, but to James', it went without saying.

James, however, does have one concept that stands out in his epistle; the idea of action brought about by faith, or "works (ἔργον - ergon #2041)." James uses several examples to demonstrate that claims of faith alone are useless if there are no actions to demonstrate that faith. This faith demonstrated is an integral part of the justification process. It echoes many sentiments made by Jesus Himself (Matthew 5:16; 25:31-46) that our actions will be what separates us from the world - something that his audience needed to hear. Their problem was not that they needed to be instructed about God's choosing them, for they were well-acquainted with being God's people. What they still needed to learn was that as God's people, they had a particular behavior that was expected of them, other than simply resting on God's grace as well as their laurels.

This is the point at which many theologians stumble. To their eyes, the idea of justification by works is precicely what Paul taught against in his epistles, favoring the grace of God as being the justifying factor. The problem is that the two ideas are not functionally separable. Paul did, indeed, write that Christians are "justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" in Romans, but that epistle was written to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles whose quarrels had provided an occasion for Paul to write down some very complicated, but important, truths.

II. Occasion:

The Jewish and Gentile backgrounds of the Christians in Rome seem to have sparked a controversy that Paul wrote to address. In this epistle, Paul goes to great lengths to provide some clarity on how the gospel is universal and provides true equality in God through His Son's redeeming sacrifice. This universality is achieved through the idea that all people are equally sinners before God and therefore all equally need His forgiveness (Romans 3:19-26). Just as the sin is universal, so is the forgiveness. All are then brought into one relationship with God (Romans 5). It is in light of this truth that Paul talks about the new life that every Christian lives for God and how that directs their steps (Romans 6). This life cannot be achieved by rules alone (Romans 7), but it has to be a battle every day against worldliness, but it is a battle that they could win because God is on their side (Romans 8). After an interlude concerning Paul's concern for his Jewish brethren still not come to Christ (Romans 9-11), he then dedicates two whole chapters (Romans 12-14) to the idea of how to live for God in this new relationship. In short, he lists works that are a part of a life dedicated in sacrifice to God (Romans 12:1-2). Paul found an occasion to write a beautiful and profound work to a people trying to live the gospel in their lives. His sentiments are honest and caring, but his ideas are not new or at odds with anything said by Jesus or written by James.

III. Background:

Possibly what makes Paul's epistle to Rome so amazing is the personal touches that seem to reflect a faith shaped by his unique personal experiences. We remember that Paul did not come to Jesus upon his first hearing of the gospel. What was "good news" to some was an anathema to Paul's pharisaically-shaped theology. Paul, then Saul, was well on his way to being a very influential member of the Jewish community (Galatians 1:13-14). He was a rising star from a major city in a powerful theo-political movement and had all the right connections to ensure that he would continue on that track (Acts 22:3). Jesus, however, had different plans. This man with a history of being in the ruling classes and following a very physically-oriented form of Judaism was shown the beauty of a spiritual relationship with God and a total reliance upon Him and His grace. These beautiful truths are an integral part of Paul's teaching because they are a part of Paul.

James, on the other hand, was not a member of a powerful political party. He likely did not attend influential schools. He was the son of a working-class tradesman from a backwater region of Judea. He was far from the religious epicenter of the region and was probably greatly influenced by the humble faith of his mother. To James, faith seemed to be much more practical than theoretical and his epistle reflects such.

The true beauty of the gospel is that people who are from immensely different backgrounds can all find enlightenment and encouragement and can also share those truths with others. That it teaches different people different things does not mean it is a different gospel, but that it is perhaps bigger than we can sometimes fathom. It is appropriate for communication to any audience humble enough to listen, on any occasion in which people need instruction (which is any occasion) and to people of any background because no matter what lies in the past, anyone can be directed toward a blessed future.

New Sermons Updated

2009-08-23T07:51:00.000-07:00

I have updated the sermons being hosted on this site to the right in the box folder. Since there are three sermons and three slideshows that follow a particular logical order, I figured I'd give the reader (listener) a rundown of how exactly they are to be listened to.

#1 - Do the Holy Spirit's Scriptures Tell the Truth?
Be kind. I was a bit messed up on this one. Good content - wobbly delivery.

#2 - Does the God of the Old Testament Tell the Truth?
Much better delivery and content. Delivered exactly how I wanted.

#3 - Does the Jesus of the New Testament Tell the Truth?
Wobbly intro, I was nervous about some unpredicted guests. Good wrap-up.

Enjoy. Or argue with me. Either is fine.

The Game

2009-07-11T19:55:00.000-07:00

I want to propose a scenario. Read it through once before investigating the footnotes.

Imagine a card game. The players are seated across from the dealer. All the players are dealt as many cards as make up a whole deck of red cards. The players then play a simple version of a trick-taking game. All played cards go into a pool to be recycled into play. The dealer then enters the game as a player, but playing from an entirely different deck of blue cards. The dealer also explains how to win the game.¹

The dealer explains that he will continue to play the cards in his hand and then he will be "out."² None of the other players can win unless the dealer is out of the game. ³

Once the dealer is out of the game, he explains, winning will be possible. He continues that no one playing with red cards can win. ⁴ Blue cards (now in play) can be played at will, but he explains that the last red card in each player's hand cannot be played. ⁵ The game will end abruptly at a pre-determined time and any players with red cards still in their hands will lose. ⁶

The dealer explains that the only way for a player to get rid of all the red cards in their hand is to ask the dealer for a new hand once the dealer leaves play. ⁷ The dealer then says that the player must lay down all the cards in their hand and the dealer will take away all the red cards and replace them with blue cards. ⁸ Once the dealer give the player the new hand, the rules of play are different because the player is then on the dealer's team. ⁹

The new rule for a player on the dealer's team is that they will play for the benefit of the other players. Instead of playing their high card, they will attempt to play the low card. ¹⁰

Invariably, as a player on the dealer's team replenishes their hand, they will draw red cards. The dealer explains that any player on his team can ask the dealer to remove the red cards and the dealer will replace them with blue cards, to ensure that they do not lose. ¹¹

When the game is over, the only winners will be players on the dealer's team. ¹² Any questions?

Footnotes:
1) "The dealer has come to teach the losers how to win."
2) From that time the dealer began to show to the players that he must leave play.
3) "For even the dealer did not come to win, but to lose so many could win."
4) "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one gets a new hand, he cannot win the game."
5) "Therefore let it be known to you, players, that through this dealer is offered to you the removal of your red cards."
6) "Therefore I said to you that you will lose with your red cards in hand; for if you do not believe that I am the dealer, you will lose with your red cards."
7) "He who asks and lays down his cards will win; but he who does not ask will lose."
8) "Therefore we lay down our cards like losing, that just as the dealer plays and wins even so we also play our blue cards."
9) "...The game I now play I play because of the dealer, who helped me and went out of the game for me."
10) "...put off the old hand with its red cards, and have picked up the blue..."
11) "...he is faithful and just to take our red cards..."
12) "No one wins except through me."

This is, obviously, an imperfect metaphor. I had limited purposes when I put it together. My main purpose was to re-frame the interaction between Jesus and the believer as it is recorded in the New Testament in simple and clear terms. There are those in the religious world who muddy the waters when it comes to the plan of salvation. Their intent is not of primary importance for this post, but their effect is. The effect is that many otherwise faithful Christians are confused about the idea of salvation because the terms have been warped and skewed so that they do not have their original meaning or impact.
The teaching of a false dichotomy of grace versus obedience, an inability to gain a truly clean conscience and a complete misrepresentation of the necessity of baptism for salvation are all outcomes of a lack of understanding about salvation's plan - and that is not to mention the many that may have a false sense of security pertaining to the future of their souls.

What I had hoped to accomplish with this metaphor was to possibly give someone a fresh way to look at the concepts integral to the plan of salvation.

With the requirements for salvation laid out as plainly as a card game, can you say that you will win?

On sacrifices...

2009-07-09T19:46:00.000-07:00

I recently heard a sermon that mentioned the Old Testament sacrifices in connection with the revivalist practice of referring to the stagefront benches or steps in a church building as “the altar.” The usage of this term in such a way made it sound as though the weeping or praying or whatever public display went on there were “offering sacrifice,” and that those who practiced this (or practice, as I know many congregations still do) were bringing a sacrifice of themselves each time they did. Now, it says in Psalm 51 that the sacrifices of God are a broken heart and a contrite spirit, but he's not talking about just a show of emotion, because directly after that he says God will delight in the burnt offering, etc.; and we know from 2 Samuel 12 that David confessed his sin right there and the prophet told him he was forgiven, though the child conceived in his sin would die. David understood that the sacrifices were not about having a barbecue for God, or just following the rules, but being genuinely repentant for the sins and receiving an opportunity to be right with the Lord, since the point of all the rules was to have a relationship with the Lord. So, hearing the terms surrounding the idea of sacrifice used in such a way has made me want to study how the Bible uses them, and explore a few ideas about sacrifice and how this relates practically to our lives as disciples of Christ.

In the Old Testament, sacrifice was instituted by God as an atonement for man's sin. While it's not specifically named as a sacrifice, the first thing God did after Adam and Eve sinned was to cover them with animal skin (Gen 3:21). In order to assuage the knowledge of the nakedness (or vulnerability) that was caused by sin, something had to die. After the Flood, Noah offered sacrifices to God (Gen 8:20-21). The firstborn sons of Egypt died in God's judgment against the unbelieving, and lambs were offered in order to escape that judgment for those who heeded God's command (Ex 12:23-27). And (where most people usually think of SACRIFICES), we have the inception of the sacrificial system at the birth of the nation of Israel. From what I can see, there were two main kinds of sacrifice: a sacrifice for sin (the sin or trespass offerings) and a sacrifice of free will (the burnt, grain, and peace offerings- see Leviticus. Yes, all of it.). Now, we know that in the New Testament, Christ has made himself the offering for sin (I Cor 5:7; Eph 5:2), and that once for all (Heb 7:27; 9, esp. v. 12, 26-28; 10:9-18). But what about us? What is our sacrifice? It's not like salvation comes for free, in the sense that it is not foisted upon those who reject it. If that was true, every human would be saved whether they repented or not, whether they even wanted it or not. So how does God want us to look at sacrifice and its application to our lives?

Christ became a man, and lived a perfect life, and offered Himself in order to redeem our lives from the judgment we deserve. We are told to believe, repent and be baptized in order to enter into this redemption (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16). Christ states that we must “take up our cross” (Matt 10:38-39, 16:24-26). A cross isn't something we carry around forever- it's an implement of death. We die with Christ, and are raised to life in Him. Romans 12 begins, “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service (or reasonable - Grk: logikos - act) of worship.” A single sacrifice can't be offered over and over- Christ died once for all, and we die once to join Christ's kingdom. The rest is living. Chapter 12 continues on to delineate what this being a living and holy sacrifice looks like (as do most of the epistles in the New Testament). Unlike the Old Testament system, the new covenant does not require repeated sacrifice for sins. If indeed we are “partakers of Christ,” then our hearts are “sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” (Heb 9:14, 10:22). It seems then, that our sacrifice is a free will, rather than sin offering. We were unable to make any sacrifice for our sin other than the perfectly just one which would result in our death. That is not redemption: it's justice. But that's not to say that our sacrifice is unnecessary, either. Without our free will sacrifice, we can't enter into Christ's sacrifice, and won't be saved. It comes back to the faith and works question: Are we saved by faith or works? The answer is clearly “yes.” If we have faith, we will practice the “works” in accordance with a life in Christ. We can't claim to have faith and practice “works” in accordance with the world. There is no such thing as faith without works, as the book of James teaches so well. And as it says in Romans 6:16, “Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” and in verse 23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Our actions show our true loyalty, intention, and destination. We can't redeem ourselves, but we can't be redeemed without our participation.

So to sum up, the role of sacrifice in a Christian's life is neither small nor incidental. Christ gave up His life so we could be redeemed, and the way we enter that redemption is by sacrificing ourselves- dying once at baptism, and being raised to shed the old man and live in Christ. We don't have to pretend to offer our hearts again and again, we need to continually make choices that give evidence that we have already died to the hold the world had on us. The Christian sacrifice is a whole life of service, not the occasional tears of sorrow.

An Open Letter to Answers in Genesis

2009-05-16T05:52:00.000-07:00

James 3:1 tells us that teachers will receive a stricter judgement, and it is in this spirit that I write to you. The fellows at Answers in Genesis are teachers. Their posts are informative as well as encouraging to the Christian who battles naturalism and humanism every day. There are countless occasions on which the faith of Christians that I know personally (myself included) has been strengthened by an article written by Ken or other teachers at Answers in Genesis. This influence is no small thing to wield, hence the stricter judgement. If error is taught by one who leads Christians to the detriment of those Christians' faith, Jesus pronounced a graphic "woe" to him (Matthew 18:6).

With all of this in mind, I wish to address a certain article written by Bodie Hodge on April 21st. I cannot -and will not- assume that the error was intentional, only our Lord can judge hearts. Therefore, I will write this with the intent to inform in a hope that the error can be highlighted and corrected for the sake of the many readers that it may affect.

The title of the article in question is "What Does It Mean to Be 'Saved'?" As a Christian and as an occasional evangelist, I have had to answer that question more than a few times. Like Bodie, I know that the answer in is the Bible. However, I am afraid that the bible's answer was not presented completely, and in doing so may have caused harm to many "seekers" and even young Christians.

The main point of the article covered an important question, as people desperately need to know from what they need to be saved. For the most part, I think Bodie did a fair job presenting a layman's explanation of the lost state of all men not in Christ. (It is not my intention to discuss Bodie's "neo-catholic" use of the term "original sin," as he does intimate, factually, that individual sin causes individual death. It is also not my intention to discuss the Calvinist tint of "prone to sin" or the use of the NIV's mis-translation of flesh (sarx) as "sinful nature." Information on that can be found here) The end of the article, on the other hand, covered an equally important question that Bodie does not answer as the bible does. Frankly, Bodie gives a different answer completely.

The question of what must one do to be "saved" is answered most easily by reading a narrative in which people are saved. Bodie appropriately cites Luke's account of the Apostles carrying out the Great Commission, in which Jesus tells them to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." When we read the Acts of the Apostles, this is exactly what is done. Mr. Hodge, presumably through ignorance, re-frames this injunction, and by extension the teaching of the Apostles. In his only quote from Acts, he makes it seem that the Apostles held and taught that belief (and that alone) was the vehicle for salvation. His closing remarks seem to say the same, only with the added "sinner's prayer" - a practice constructed whole cloth from the mind of man and found nowhere in the bible. Other verses are quoted for other actions that are related to salvation, but Mr. Hodge's closing remarks seem to paint these other actions as merely trappings or after-thoughts as opposed to integral elements in the process of salvation.

When we carefully examine the Acts of the Apostles in spreading the "good news" of the name of Jesus, certain themes begin to arise:

When Peter brings his first sermon to a close in chapter 2, the magnitude of the audience's sin had become apparent. The question of what to do about that sin is asked. Peter answers quite directly. He tells them to "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Does Peter tell them to believe? No. We read in verse 37 that their beliefs had changed about Jesus and this affected their feelings about what they had done. They believed that Jesus was "both Lord and Christ" and they were to blame for His death. They know that their sin had to be removed from them. Peter told them how to remove that sin - and no prayer to Jesus is mentioned. What is mentioned is repentance and baptism.
Further exhortations are made to the crowd. In verse 40 Peter called those in Jerusalem to "(b)e saved from this perverse generation." Those that accepted Peters invitation were baptized. Did they believe? Yes. Was that what added them to the church (47)? Luke says it was baptism.

In the 8th chapter of Acts, Philip went to Samaria and "preached Christ to them." Luke details a conflict with the Samaritans. Philip was up against a popular Sorcerer named Simon in a contest for the hearts and minds (and ultimately souls) of the people. Philip won over many of the people with the power of the message, not with wonders. When the people believed the message, Luke details that they were baptized - even Simon himself. In verse 14, Luke calls these actions "receiv(ing) the word of God."
This same Philip is sent to evangelize to the Ethiopian eunuch in verses 35-39 of chapter 8. Luke tells us that Philip "preached Christ" to the eunuch. Mission accomplished, yes? Not according to Luke. Something in Philip's preaching Christ to the new believer prompted a question about baptism when water came into view. Luke tells us specifically that the area where they travelled was desert (or at least deserted). After the eunuch is baptized, Philip is taken by the Holy Spirit to another location. The eunuch is reported to rejoice after his baptism - not before. When was the eunuch saved? If it was at belief, why did the Holy Spirit not take Philip up then? Why did the eunuch not rejoice then? When Philip preached Christ to this Ethiopian courtier, baptism was the event that would move him from a lost to a saved condition.

Paul, the Apostle "born out of due time" recounts his conversion in three sermons throughout Luke's apostolic narrative. Chapters 9, 22 and 26 all cover the same event. By reading these accounts together, we get a fuller picture of the event that took place. On the road to Damascus, Paul (Saul) is confronted by our Lord. Does Paul believe in the risen Christ? I would think so, he calls Jesus Lord and offers obedience (9:6). Is Paul saved? Jesus tells him that there is more that he must do. He must be told by another agent what he must do. Ananias is called by Jesus to contact Paul, and after a bit of discussion, he does so. Ananias tells Paul of the Holy Spirit that is come on him and that he is to receive his sight again. Immediately, Paul can see again. Surely, he is saved if belief is the sole catalyst - but that is not what Luke describes. Paul has not eaten in 3 days. He now can see and he believes in the risen Christ that appeared to him to send him on a mission, but he does not take food yet. Something is still left undone. Saul is baptized first.
When Paul recounts the event in chapter 22, we may be able to see why. Ananias was not done speaking when Paul's sight returned. Ananias fulfilled what Jesus said would happen. Paul was told what he must do.
"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
There can be no doubt that Paul understood the implications of Ananias' language that was reminiscent of the Joel passage that Peter quoted to the men at Jerusalem in chapter 2 verse 21: "And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." Ananias told Paul how to call on the name of the Lord - and it was not through a "sinner's prayer." It was through baptism that would wash away the sins that Saul had committed.

The first Gentile convert's story does not deviate from this similar pattern. Some of the elements present from other salvation stories are present and others not, with the culmination being baptism. If we read Acts 10-11 we can see that the Holy Spirit carefully orchestrated a circumstance that would lead all parties to the right place and Peter comes to the conclusion that Gentiles could, in fact, be saved under the new covenant of Christ (11:18). Peter states that "through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins (10:43)." At that point, did Cornelius and his household believe? We are not told, but I have to assume they did as they received the power of the Holy Spirit like the Apostles had in the second chapter. We are also told that through the Holy Spirit's power of speaking in languages not studied, they were praising God. Was Peter's job finished? We read that Peter felt that there was one step still left untaken. All of the evidence pointed to one conclusion. These Gentiles could be baptized.

Mr. Hodge presented a portion of Luke's account of the conversion of the Philippian jailer, but truncates the passage in a way that may lead one to believe that faith was the only factor present in the man's conversion. A further look at the text reveals a different story. When the jailer - surely afraid of death at the hands of his superiors - inquires what must be done to change the course of his life, Paul does, in fact, instruct him that he must believe. Repentance and confession are not mentioned as they are in other narratives. Paul promises that salvation is available through belief - but the story doesn't end there. Paul preaches to the man and his household. The next verse describes that Paul and Silas were taken "that same hour" to have their wounds cared for. Immediately following this, Luke informs us that the jailer and all his household were baptized, after which Paul and Silas take food. We must remember that this is well after midnight on a day when Paul and Silas had been beaten with rods and had survived an earthquake. Something about being baptized was important enough to ensure that it happened immediately - even at a late hour on a strenuous day and before bread was broken.
Luke then says that the jailer rejoiced, "having believed in God with all his household." Let us review: Paul tells the man to believe, the man is baptized, then man then rejoices, having believed - him and all his household. We can see through Luke's use of metonymy (or synecdoche to be precise) that "believe (pisteo)" covers more than just belief. I am sure that this man and his family were told to repent and did so - although we are not told. I am sure that they also confessed Jesus, but again, we are not told. If Luke were to list every step of conversion in every case, it would seem strange, because we naturally understand synecdoche in language. (It is, however, very telling that of the eleven conversion narratives in Acts, the specific citing of baptism is present in all but 2.) So, to say that belief is all that is required for salvation using this conversion as an example is not exactly intellectually honest.

There is much said about the necessity of baptism that presents a false dichotomy of grace versus works in the realm of salvation. James 2:14-26 tells us that even faith is useless unless one's works back it up. It is true, salvation cannot be earned, but only ignorance of the facts (deliberate or otherwise) would cause one to characterize baptism as a "work." For a better understanding of how baptism fits theologically into the plan of salvation, please read the following:

I appreciate immensely the work that Answers in Genesis does for the Christian community and your dedication to the work of the Lord is very encouraging. I write to you as brothers, hoping that you will read these things and see that they are of value, not because they are my words, but because they are from God's word. If I have misunderstood anything that was said in the article, please do not hesitate to correct me - and maybe consider writing an article to better explain your position, so that others do not misunderstand. If you disagree with my stance and wish to retort, I welcome the chance to further explore this important topic so that we can both be edified.

Grace and Peace,

Jeremy Hodges

P.S. Full Disclosure: If no response or further posts are made by AIG concerning this topic, my intention is to post this letter (in its entirety) along with a link to the original article as an open letter of disagreement. My intent is not to slander, but to educate and encourage those that may be harmed by teachings that are not from our Lord. I will still continue to support AIG in its science education.

Here Comes the Flood

2009-03-15T21:06:00.000-07:00

Who do the facts favor?

It is commonly stated as fact that the creationist cannot overcome the "flood" (pun intended) of evidence that speaks to the validity of the old-age-Earth theories held by the majority of Darwinist scientists.
The funny thing about evidence is that it has to be interpreted. Everyone has the same evidence before them, evolutionists and creationists alike. The difference being the way the evidence is interpreted. Darwinists will, of course, claim that their interpretation is the only viable explanation of the origins of the Earth. Is that really the case?

Andrew Snelling has complied a series of facts. The facts are incontrovertible. His interpretation of the facts is not. The real question is, are his interpretations valid? I invite the creationist and evolutionist alike to read the links and weigh the possibilities. I offer this as a counter to the ad nauseum arguments of the New Priesthood.

#1 - High & Dry Sea Creatures
#2 - The World’s a Graveyard
#3 - Transcontinental Rock Layers
#4 - Sand Transported Cross Country
#5 - No Slow and Gradual Erosion
#6 - Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

Of Love and Spit

2009-03-01T14:44:00.000-08:00

There is a raging debate going on in this country that I was sure was settled. The facts are plain - but the debate rages on. Sadly, I have come to find that I was on the wrong side of the debate. The facts are against me.
The debate in question pertains to the origin of the phrase, "the spittin' image." Many people from many locales are familiar with the phrase - though few attempt to investigate its origin. I was told early on in my life (as my parents are both quite amused by etymology) that the phrase was derived from "spirit and image." Being from the South, this explanation seemed more than sufficient - as well as providing for an interesting anecdote. That is, until twenty minutes ago. In researching for this article - I was found to have been perpetuating a myth. The origin is actually as similar as "spit and image." Spit, in this case, is a stand-in for the internal make-up of a person and image, naturally, the external.
For the purposes of this article, the debate is moot. In either case, the point is the same. The child in question is so similar to the parent that they are said to be made up of the same stuff - both inside and out. I was accused of being the "spittin' image" of my father not a few times in my youth by my mother - specifically regarding my behavior, and frequently when the behavior was irritating her. It wasn't as if I could help it, of course. I had inherited a lot from my father genetically, and continued to have him as an example after which to model myself.

With all of this in mind, I would like to explore brotherly love. Nice segue, huh?
I Peter 1:22-25 says the following:

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again - not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF, BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER." And this is the word which was preached to you.

OBEDIENCE IS PRIMARY
Notice that Peter begins with the idea of obedience. As a matter of fact, obedience is a major theme in this chapter.

In 1:2, he states that obedience brings us to be sprinkled by Jesus' blood.
In 1:8, we love Christ without knowing Him (Christ said we demonstrate our love for Him by obeying Him).
In 1:14 we obey in the likeness of children - through imitation.

ONLY OBEDIENCE PURIFIES
Peter says that our souls were purified through obedience. Later on, in chapter 3, Peter draws a specific illustration demonstrating this using the relationship between the flood and baptism. The Earth was purified by water with only what God wanted being saved - and so were we. All of what kept us from a relationship with God died in the water. (More on this.)
The writer of Hebrews in 10:19-22 explains baptism as our acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice that purifies us from sin in a way that no animal sacrifice could.
Paul - having just realized his error in persecuting Christians - is encouraged by Ananias to quickly be baptized to "wash away" his sins.
In chapter 3, Peter reminds his readers that baptism (immersion) isn't just taking a bath - so how do we get from obedient immersion to purification?

PURIFICATION REQUIRES RE-BIRTH
Paul narrates to the Colossians the process of re-birth into Christ in 2:8-14. He likens it to the Jewish rite of circumcision (which was an institution that inducted one into God's old covenant). The fleshly (sinful) part of the person is "cut away" in burial with Christ and God raises us up purified.
Romans (Paul's magnum opus) also discusses in the sixth chapter that baptism allows us to put the sinful self to death with Christ, be buried with Christ in water and, like Christ, are raised by God to walk in a new manner. A sinless manner. A pure manner.
Jesus told the Jewish teacher in John 3 that re-birth was necessary to be a part of the kingdom of God. He said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." To be purified, one must put the old self to death with Christ and be re-born.

BIRTH REQUIRES SEED
Peter's idea of re-birth includes the implanting of a seed - and that seed is the word.
Jesus used language like this in the parable of the sower.
Peter's language seems to be initially indicative of human procreation. To be born,(in this case, again) one needs a "seed (spora)." Seeds contain genetic information. What kind of genetic information will indicate what kind of thing will be born. See: Matthew 13:24-30 and John 8:38-44.
The seed that caused us to be re-born was the word of God. Just like in the parable of the sower, the word found good soil and grew. What grows in us, unlike anything physical, will live forever. This new creature has an eternal inheritance.

SEED DETERMINES FRUIT
Switching metaphors, Peter quotes Isaiah 40:6-8. Using agriculture as his model, Peter opens this idea to include what kind of plants we might be. In the New Testament, fruit is the ultimate indicator of what kind of tree (or plant) you are. If our seed was the word of God, what kind of fruits should we expect to bear?
Paul's letter to the Galatians describes the fruit that we, as Christians, should bear. In 5:16-26 we can read about this fruit. Since the English word "fruit" can either be singular or plural, some incorrect thinking can creep in to how we read this passage. Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are not a list of ingredients for a Spiritual Fruit Salad. They are not different fruits. They are all elements of one fruit. How do we know this? How many trees bear 9 different kinds of fruit? If this does not describe the fruit we are producing - it stands to reason that we have the wrong seed.

SINCERE LOVE
Peter's point in this whole passage is love. Peter says that our souls have been purified so we can love the brethren. We have had all the selfish, unloving, hurtful person washed away. In their place, we have been born again with God's incorruptible word as the seed. If this is the case then we should be growing up to exhibit His attributes. That is what the Word, His son, did. We should be growing to resemble Him - inside and out. We will not just look like we care for His creation - we will care for them from the inside out.
When we have God's values as our values, we see our brothers (and the rest of the world) the way He does. Every soul is valuable. Jesus saw every soul as valuable enough to die so that they might be saved - and that wasn't just the souls that treated Him right. With God's values as our values, it is no difficult thing to love in deeds as opposed to just words. We learn that it is only right to love without playacting. We use our opportunities to be kind to brothers and the rest of the world too.

Of whose stuff are you made up? In whose image are you?

Out to Pastor

2009-01-18T16:07:00.000-08:00

Say what you want about Napoleon, he was a man who knew how to get things done. He was a popular and effective general, but when he felt that the Directory (the standing government) was irreparably unpopular and slow, he and a few other Directors brought in troops and staged a bloody coup. Napoleon then had a small legislature with him as “First Council” - but the honeymoon was soon over. Soon, conspiracies and rebellions were brewing and Napoleon decided that the only way to secure his power was to kill his enemies and crown himself Emperor. At that point, Napoleon's commands went unchallenged. Not surprisingly, with no council to answer to and an entire country under his command, he put his hand against almost all of his neighbors and made havoc of the majority of Europe. After a short time, things began to go downhill and Napoleon lost everything he had gained.

There are a few lessons we can learn from this bit of history. The idea that one man cannot run everything is not one on which I will be concentrating. There are several cases that disprove that point. What I do wish to highlight is that in the quest for fleshly power, there are bound to be some winners and some losers; and the losers pay a high cost. More pointedly, winners win at the expense of the losers.

Jesus was another man who knew how to get things done. Unlike Napoleon, he had a completely different agenda and it was demonstrated in His ideas of “power” and “winning.” Jesus showed His power by becoming a servant for His followers and He won by dying for them. Jesus was the Messiah because He was the Suffering Servant prophesied by Isaiah (Isaiah 53). By human (fleshly) standards, that looks a lot like losing. We are so blessed that Jesus did not operate according to our standards.

Jesus did not intend for that kind of leadership to stop with Him. Servant leadership was what He taught to His disciples as the only way to continue to lead His people. (Example 1; Example 2) Jesus taught that His kind of leadership was like that of a shepherd over a flock. He used this analogy to talk about His own relationship to believers (Example 1; Example 2) as well as those that He left in charge of spreading the truth of His kingdom. Jesus used this analogy to communicate the level of dedication and self-sacrifice He wished for His flock – as well as the seriousness of the charge. If a shepherd did not have the flock's best interests at heart, the sheep would almost certainly die.

This analogy of a leader as a shepherd did not originate with Jesus and His teaching. Many writers from antiquity (including Hammurabi and Homer) make the shepherd/leader connection. This is not surprising given the landscape (both cultural as well as geographical) of the region. As a matter of fact, almost all of the Hebrew Patriarchs were shepherds and many of their descendants practiced the trade. It makes sense then that God should use this imagery to communicate certain truths to His people. The most notable of these truths would be God's condemnation of the Jewish leaders that were taking advantage of the people and forgetting their responsibility to God. This is the kind of leadership Jesus condemns in John 10. This is typical human leadership.

Peter wasn't the only follower of Jesus to be charged with shepherding Jesus' sheep. After all, Peter wouldn't live forever and as anyone familiar with them will know, sheep NEED a shepherd. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come after His death and ascension and guide His apostles into “all the truth,” which we see happening beginning in Acts 2. This guidance continued when the church spread from Jerusalem and when Saul (later called Paul) and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to spread the word to the known world. On the trip back to the church that sent them, Paul and Barnabas did something interesting; they appointed elders in every one of the newly formed churches. Luke had previously mentioned that the church in Antioch had elders and takes it for granted that the reader would be familiar with the position.

The use of the term “elder” in the gospels points to an unofficial position within the Jewish leadership (See here) that goes back to the Egyptian captivity. The Hebrew word (zaquen) meant no more than “old man” but in certain contexts connoted an older man in a position of authority. The gospel's use of the term (presbyteros from where we get our word presbyter) is exclusive to this meaning and usually in conjunction with scribes, and chief priests and is occasionally shorthand for members of the Sanhedrin. The word does not occur in relation to a church of Christians until Acts 11:30 (as mentioned above). Thus, the word “elders (presbyteros)” carries with it the connotation of older men in a council-like position of authority. This is what Paul and Barnabas appoint in all the churches, presumably under (certainly not in opposition to) the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Was this the leadership Jesus had in mind for His church?

Paul became quite close to a church in Ephesus. He spent close to three years with them teaching in various locations and during various trials. When he was traveling to Jerusalem, he met with the elders of that church. During an emotional farewell speech, Paul encourages them to, “take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos), to shepherd (poimainō) the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Paul indicates here that these elders had been appointed to be overseers (or superintendents) and that it was their duty to shepherd the flock. Paul obviously equates the position of elder to that of an overseer and shepherd. He also appeals to the authority of the Holy Spirit and charges them to act in accordance with his understanding of the role. Is Paul alone in this understanding? Is he acting as a rogue apostle in this matter?

Peter was told by Christ to act as a shepherd over his flock. Would Peter disagree with Paul's assertion that it was an elder's duty to shepherd and oversee a church? Peter wrote an epistle to Christians in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and in it he addresses the elders of these churches:

“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:

Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.”

Peter would by no means disagree with Paul's equation of the role of an elder with that of an overseer or a shepherd, because he was one. The leadership that Christ demonstrated was to continue in His church through appointed elders that served the flock because they served Him.

That's a lot of trust to put into a few men. That's quite a responsibility to take on if you're one of those men. How does one then choose what kind of men to appoint? Thank goodness the Holy Spirit didn't leave it to us to figure that out. Being inspired, Paul wrote to Timothy about what kind of man would be qualified to serve in such an important position. The list is impressive. To be qualified, he must be:

“blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

With a list like that, one might be tempted to assume that Paul didn't want the churches to actually have any overseers. But, with the kind of responsibility one is entrusting to a man as a shepherd, it is not unreasonable to have high standards. After all, these men, if they proved to be good overseers could be paid by the church if they worked in the word.

This brings us to the point at hand: power.

The word “pastor” occurs once in most translations of the New Testament. In Ephesians 4, the context is about Christ supplying the needs of the church until it had become a unified, mature unit. In verse 11, Paul delineates a few gifts that Jesus had given the church. There is a specific wording that occurs that bears mentioning. Literally, the wording is as follows:

“And Himself Gave Some Now (or truly) Apostles some as Prophets some as Evangelists some as Pastors and Teachers.” For each delineation of gift, there is a preceding “tous de (some as)” that is missing from the last and “kai (and)” is present, linking the last two as opposed to separating. This particular part of Greek language is known as a “hendiadys” and means, simply, “two for one.” (A similar example would be when Jesus says “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” He is not saying that He is the Way, and additionally, He is the Truth and He is also the Life. All three nouns become modifiers for each other and thus Jesus is the “True and Living Way,” the “Way to Living Truth” and the “True Way to Live,” etc.) So, with this understanding, “Pastors and Teachers” becomes “Pastoring Teachers” as well as “Teaching Pastors.” Something else that is noticed from reading the passage in the original language is the word that is rendered “pastors,” poimenas. This word, in every other case in the New Testament is translated as “shepherds.” This is also shown by the other cases of the word “pastor” in the bible, all of which occur in Jeremiah. So, correctly understood, He gave some as Apostles, some as Prophets, some as Evangelists, and some as Shepherding Teachers (or Teaching Shepherds), which falls in line with what we know to be appropriate language to describe elders or overseers.

Given all these examples we have of elders/overseers/shepherds, why do we see so many that claim to be shepherds, but refuse to act in accordance with what Christ and the Holy Spirit directed? How can people claim legitimacy for a position that has no New Testament examples and no qualifications? There is no excuse for exalting a man or woman to the religious equivalent of CEO, when clearly the kingdom of heaven is not run on a business model. There should be no following of charismatic personalities and man-made "vision statements", only shepherds who keep the sheep fed on the Word and Christ. As Christ's sheep, it's also our responsibility to guard our minds so we are not led astray by those who either through intention or ignorance are not practicing the will of God. Jesus said that His flock would know His voice and follow no other; so the question is- do we?

The Right to Choose

2008-11-16T20:59:00.000-08:00

The phrase "the right to choose" now has attached to it a certain stigma that perhaps is undeserved. I will not be addressing reproductive rights in this post. I will be addressing the idea of "free will" and how it relates to the concept of predestination.

The right and ability to "choose" what actions we perform was given to us by our Creator. In Genesis we read that God gave Adam (and later Eve) a specific direction and with it, the right to choose whether to follow the direction or not. Yes, had He wanted, He could have made all humans simple automatons, or like the animals, simple slaves to instincts. He did not, however, do that. He made us different; He made us like Him.

Just like the first didactic command, every one of God's commands are for our benefit, and have built-in consequences for ignoring the commands. Also, part and parcel with the freedom of choice, we are held responsible to God for what we do with that freedom. (Example 1; Example 2; Example 3) This is only fair. God laid out in black-and-white what He expected of people that love Him and people will choose whether or not that sounds like something they want. Either choice has ramifications. Those that love God and show loyalty to Him are promised rest when this world is over. Those that do not love God do not have to spend eternity with Him. They have the choice to spend eternity without Him.
Our legal system works essentially the same way. We are given laws by which to abide and we have the choice to either obey them or not. These two choices have ramifications, of course, but the choice is still ours.

Here is where it gets interesting. It is impossible to discuss ideas about free will and not bring up John Calvin and Calvinism. The five tenets of Calvinism are:
• Total Depravity (man in the flesh cannot but sin)
• Unconditional Election (since man cannot do any good, it is God that chooses who will be saved and who will not - the saved having no say in the matter)
• Limited Atonement (since God chose who will be saved and who won't - Jesus' sacrifice only covers the few chosen)
• Irresistible Grace (exactly as it sounds; once the "elect" hears the gospel - resistance is futile)
• Preservation of the Saints (also known as "once saved always saved")
Where do all these ideas come from? I would say that they are all really faces of one idea: total depravity.
Paul says that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Later, in chapter 7, Paul says that his flesh keeps him from doing good. Calvin took these (and other) verses to mean that a sinner could not do any good thing, up to and including responding to the gospel call.

Does this idea hold water? We have seen that if God gives direction, then it falls to reason that the direction would have to be given and that there was a choice to follow that direction. We have also seen that there is a judgment that is based upon how we have acted while on earth. If these are true, then what do we make of Calvin's ideas about total depravity? Surely, the ideas are incongruous. They cannot both be correct.
Let us examine the evidence:
• Could God hold Adam and Eve accountable for sin if they had no choice?
• Could God hold the whole world accountable for sin if they had no choice?
• Could God hold the nations accountable for sin is they had no choice?
The simple answer is "not and still be fair."
So, God holds people accountable for their actions because they have a choice. What then is Paul discussing in Romans?

If we read all of chapter 7 of Romans, Paul speaks of a mind that wills to do right by God's laws and a body that fails to do so. Does this mean that no person ever kept any of God's laws? Surely not. Paul is aware that the Old Law did not leave room for the kind of grace that the New Law provided - nor is the example of Christ an element in the Old Law. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 are a set and are not complete without the others.

So, if people have true free will, and are held responsible for their actions (and are thus not totally depraved), then what does Paul's idea of predestination represent? Like many words with religious overtones, the simple meaning is lost in a fog of speculation and mysticism. Predestination is a simple idea if removed from a setting of deciding who is saved and who is lost. If my family and I take a road trip, we must decide where we are going to end up before we leave the driveway. We have predestined to arrive at a certain location. Whether we actually arrive at the predetermined location depends on several factors, but does not change that we were predestined to get there.
God predestined us to get to "holy and blameless in love," but few of us get there (and none of us get there without God), but that doesn't change that we're predestined to get there.

So, to "win" according to Paul, we must realize that He knew us before we were born, He has a plan for us to follow, He called us to follow it, He will justify us when we do, and His glory will be shown in us when we are in His will ... and all this begins through using our will to follow Him. We are free to choose to trust Him.

Ravenous Wolves

2008-11-10T22:27:00.000-08:00

I am limited in my knowledge. I cannot predict the weather (nor can the T.V. weatherman in my experience). I cannot predict the outcomes of a horse race (as helpful of a skill as that might be). I cannot see into the unknown. I am not a prophet.

Not being a prophet, I cannot read the hearts of men. Jesus could, but I believe that to have been part-and-parcel with having the Holy Spirit remain upon Him. Therefore, if a man claims to be a prophet from God - if he claims to have received a special message from God, I cannot tell him that he has not, because I do not know.

Does this then mean that I should listen to any man that claims to have a special revelation from God? Certainly not! God, in the midst of promising that Moses would be supplanted by another prophet like him, explained that there was a fail-safe test that would allow someone to gauge whether the presumed prophet was from Him. It seems simple enough. If what the prophet says will come true does come true, then he is from God - and if not, tell him to "kick rocks."

So, we can glean two things from this passage in Deuteronomy. The first is the obvious - that we can, and must, test anyone that claims to speak for God (that is, the one true God, see here). The second is more subtle. There is an understanding that the prophet would make certain verifiable assertions that were not knowable by ordinary means - and in this case specifically, assertions about future events.

All of the prophecy that is recorded in the bible had a specific, intentional purpose. All of it had to do with God and His desire for a relationship with His creation. Most of the Old Testament prophets were commissioned as "covenant enforcers" to Israel that would demonstrate how they were in violation of the covenant and that prescribed punishments were on the way. Mixed in were individual prophets that were sent to nations other than Israel, but even those nations were connected to Israel (through the exile or restoration).
A good number of the prophecies made to Israel were concerning an event that would forever provide a way for God to have a fellowship with His creation; the coming of Jesus and the establishment of His church. This event was the apogee, the culmination of the whole of the Old Testament - and Israel's existence as a nation.
So we see that every prophecy was a message that had a carefully articulated place in God's plan to have a nation "not of this world" through His Son.

Prophecy was serious business to God. False prophets were not to be tolerated. Why? Because when God speaks, He demands that the we hear and act appropriately. With such serious consequences, there must be a way to discern what is actually from God - and what is not.

Prophecy in the New Testament was no less serious and no less verifiable. I challenge the reader to find any examples of prophecy in the New Testament that were too vague and muddled to verify. There are none. Nor are there any that were not concerning the coming of Christ or the foundation of His church. Because that was the point.

Given these criteria for one that validly speaks for God, what shall we say about those that claim that prophecy takes place today, in the church? Even if we understand that prophecy had a specific purpose and is now obsolete and even if we understand that there has been a lapse in new prophetic messages for 1900 years* and even if we can dismiss most-to-all modern "prophets" as charlatans, if we need to decide if a modern churchgoer is a prophet, we can compile a checklist.

• First, we should investigate if any of the prophet's claims can be solidly verified to ascertain whether or not we should even give them the time of day.
• Second, if the "prophet" has made any previous claims - it would be necessary to investigate whether or not these claims did, indeed, come true.
• Third, we should ask what new information God wishes to impart to His church that is not contained in scripture. If the new information is different than what is contained in scripture, Paul said that the speaker is "accursed." If the information is the same as what is contained in scripture - then it is not prophecy.

The bible provides some pretty tough criteria for what can actually pass for prophecy - and with good reason. Perhaps this is why most of what passes for "prophecy" in modern Christian circles is about as specific as a fortune cookie and not nearly as reliable.
I thank God that He took our human limitations into consideration and built into His word protections from the "ravenous wolves" that are those that speak presumptuously in the name of God.

* I do not include Nostradamus

Type/Antitype #1 - Flood Waters

2008-10-19T14:40:00.000-07:00

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him."

-1 Peter 3:18-22 (NKJV)

So what is an antitype? And why is that important to this passage? The word "antitype", from the Greek antitupos, means:

1) a thing formed after some pattern

2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart
2a) something in the Messianic times which answers to the type (definition taken from net.bible.org)

So antitype literally means the thing that is not the type (or prefigured pattern) but is the reality the type previously pointed to. Peter says that the deluge was a type for baptism. Noah and his family were saved from a world of godless murderers (Genesis 6:13) through the water (because of their obedience to God's command), and we are saved from our sinful selves through baptism (or more literally, immersion).

Some will say that baptism is merely some outward show for everyone else. I would contend that nowhere is baptism recorded as a way of proclaiming your faith- people did that by actually proclaiming their faith and also turning from sin. Compare the two accounts of Paul's conversion (Account #1 and Account #2).

It is, however, recorded as an actual death of your old self and a resurrection to a new life- apart from sin. If we cannot bring ourselves to partake of Christ's death, how can we expect to join in His life?

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin."

- Romans 6:3-6

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

-Colossians 2:11-12

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

-Acts 2:37-38

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

-Galatians 3:27

How important is this step to one that comes to a faith in Christ? In Paul's case that we read about, Ananias asks "why are you waiting? (or 'why tarriest thou?' in the AV)" Paul had only just been able to see and had not eaten or drunk anything in three days. Ananias seemed to feel it was imperative. Paul responded in kind and did not eat until after he had been baptized. When did Paul believe? Did that belief save him? If you are unsure, read the accounts again.

Acts is full of examples that speak to the imperative nature of baptism.

The Ethiopian eunuch. It is of interest that Phillip "preached Jesus" and the eunuch requested baptism in roadside water (in a place that is specified as desert by Luke). Luke obviously considered teaching about baptism part of "preaching Jesus." If belief is the sole basis of salvation, could baptism not have waited for cleaner water? If faith is all one needs to have sins removed, would the Holy Spirit have not snatched Phillip up as soon as the eunuch confessed faith?

The Philippian jailer. Note that baptism did not wait until morning when the earthquake happened at midnight, then preaching and then the jailer washed their wounds. I have no idea what time the baptisms happened but it was well past midnight. Pretty strange time to be baptized if it is just an outward sign of a pre-existing salvation.

What does Jesus say about baptism? Surprisingly little (comparatively). However, what He does say leaves little doubt as to the stakes involved. Example #1. Example #2.

Back to our original text. Does the water save us? Not any more than the water saved Noah. God saved Noah through water. God saves us through baptism. This is not magic. It is the first step in a journey of following Christ that will end in a reward for those who remain faithful.

Inaugural entry from the other half

2008-10-12T14:58:00.000-07:00

I've been requested to make my first venture into this blog on a subject in which I noticed a marked difference between the "Charismatic Christian" culture I used to be a part of, and the Christians with which I worship now. The topic: heaven. The difference: we sing about it ALL the time.

I happened to note one day that we sing about our future home constantly, and how helpful it has been to be reminded on a regular basis that "this world is not my home." I can only recall a few songs on the subject from my past, and they were (as far as I remember) sung infrequently and always with great emotion attached to the occasion of the singing. Not that I think there is anything wrong with having great emotion about finally being united with the Lord for all eternity, but great emotion does not a faithful Christian make. Just look at all the kids who "get saved" or "re-dedicated" at camps or retreats, then return to their old ways within days or months of coming home. Feeling happy once in awhile about the prospect of heaven will not carry you through this broken world in the same way that a concerted, diligent fixing of your mind toward an ultimate, unseen goal will. Hence my noticing the helpfulness of singing about our destination in refocusing my eyes off of the trials of life and onto God's grace and mercy.

I find it interesting that most, if not all, of these churches had a pre-millennialist bent (for a history of pre-millennialism see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism; and for a neat chart of the differing takes on millennialism see: http://www.dashhouse.com/sermons/1999/Classes/990131.htm), and therefore had an overemphasis on building earthly kingdoms. By this, I mean an overwhelming concern about having Christians in power and what happens when they're not, and trying to read signs into every movement of various governments.

Now, some might say that keeping heaven in mind constantly may cause Christians to forget their duties in this life, and to forsake any responsibility for bettering the world around them. I would disagree, and say that it gives a balanced perspective to those wanting to follow Christ. We obey Christ to show we love Him, and He tells us to love each other. Galatians 6:10 says to do good to all as we have opportunity, especially toward those who are fellow believers. So if we see an opportunity to affect those around us for good, on whatever level, we are commanded to do it. Our opportunites to show the love of God and preach the gospel come about through our actions. Faith is dead without works. Any person who claims to be Christian and thinks they can sit around ignoring the world while they wait for heaven, at the very least does not know scripture, is sorely deceived; and if they are shown differently and do not change, they are not a true believer.

So we can see that we have a responsibility to do good (indeed, have no other way of proving ourselves faithful and growing in maturity except through our repentant and gracious lives), and the way we keep from "growing weary in doing good" and standing firm even under persecution is to keep our eyes "fixed on Jesus." Encouraging each other through song, especially songs about heaven, aids in keeping our eyes fixed.

Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18

"Entertainment"

2008-10-04T16:01:00.000-07:00

Jen and I had a conversation about the relative prudence of banning certain genres of music in a Christian home. Her experience was that her mother (and this is not limited to her ... this is common among evangelicals) did not allow her to listen to "secular" music - the alternative being "Christian" music. We are not, here, talking about Handel's Messiah, we are talking about 80's "contemporary Christian" music. For those unfamiliar with the genre, imagine any number of generic Bryan Adams-esque ballads frequently heard on any easy-listening-soft-rock station, but change all the instances of "baby" to "Lord" or "Jesus." Today's contemporary Christian music is only marginally better. Instead of Bryan Adams, it all sounds like Incubus.

My experience was a bit different. Mom listened to Foreigner, Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Not exactly what one would call faith-building. Sure, she skipped a few songs, and she remained blissfully unaware (outwardly at least) of the blatant double entendré, but it never crossed her mind to give up on rock 'n' roll en masse.

The outcome of the two methods both met with limited success. Jennifer and myself both failed to keep in line with what we knew God wanted of us. We both rebelled and listened to music that our parents would not abide (she chose hip-hop - I found heavy metal).

There was, however, one major difference between her experience and mine. The music that was approved by Jennifer's mother was approved as a genre, not in individual cases. Not surprising when the genre has a specific goal of praising God. The problem is thus: What happens when the artist has an un-biblical view of God? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? Salvation? Can one still approve all "Christian" music?

Here's another consideration: Does the motivation to sell records interfere with the expressed goal of praising God? Is there a line between "praise" and "entertainment?" Can one accomplish both equally?

In the end, I am not condemning contemporary christian music any more than I am giving The ' Stones a free pass. It just seems that the same criterion should apply to any music that a Christian listens to - and that should be content.

Next week, we'll be looking into whether rated "R" movies are a damnable offense.

Excuses

2008-10-04T08:50:00.000-07:00

“O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.”