CHRISTIAN

My Photo
Name:
Location: Para, Brazil

Saturday, October 31, 2020

Salvation

 

1 Timothy 2:4 — Salvation through Knowledge

There are many strange ideas in the religious world regarding salvation. Some contend that all people will be saved (Universalism). That notion is contradicted by dozens of passages (see Matthew 7:13,14). 

Others, like the Calvinists, argue that before the world was created God chose some, the elect, to be saved, and others He predetermined to be lost. That notion is plainly refuted by 1 Timothy 2:4. God “would have all men to be saved.” Note also verse 6 which affirms that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all (which conflicts with the Calvinistic theory of limited atonement, i.e., that Christ died only for the elect). Underline this phrase and note: contradicts Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. See also verse 6.

Additionally, there are yet others (an even larger number probably) who subscribe to the notion that God will save all sincere people, whether they ever know and obey the truth or not. Such a concept is not in harmony with the divine teaching here set forth.

G.B. Winer, in his Grammar of New Testament Greek, has an interesting discussion of this passage. He notes that Paul first states the “general ultimate end,” that God desires salvation for all men. Then, the apostle gives the “means toward attaining the former,” which is — coming to a knowledge of the truth (p. 692).

This is in perfect harmony with John 8:32 — you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. One does not obtain redemption through a knowledge of error, but by means of knowing the truth. 

How does this relate, for example, to the idea (advocated by some) that one may go through the process of being immersed, and yet never even understand the truth regarding the purpose of the ordinance, and God will honor the “obedience” anyhow? Does that notion really harmonize with the principle of this passage? Underscore the phrase “knowledge of the truth,” and marginally note: Knowledge of truth essential to valid obedience.

Friday, October 30, 2020

Law of Science

 

1 Chronicles 15:2 – The Law of Silence

First Chronicles 15 contains an interesting comment on an incident that occurred during the administration of David. It has to do with the induction of the sacred Ark of the Covenant into the city of Jerusalem, thus centralizing Israel’s religion in the king’s new capital.

The record has its background in 2 Samuel 6. David was transporting the ark from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem (vv. 1-5). The means of conveyance was on a cart, which, of course, was in violation of divine authority. 

The law had authorized the transportation of the Ark only on the shoulders of the priests, by means of rods which passed through rings on the side of the chest (Exodus 25:12-14). Uzzah, who apparently was driving the oxen, touched the Ark to steady it when the beasts stumbled. Immediately he was struck dead by the Lord, a divine decision which did not please David (2 Samuel 6:6-8).

The king must have felt some guilt since he had been the one who had initiated this new mode of transportation. Later, however, David acknowledged that he had not sought the Lord according to the divine ordinance (1 Chronicles 15:13). Now here is a very important point that relates to a method of Bible interpretation.

According to the law of Moses, “Jehovah set aside the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 10:8). Only Levites were authorized to carry the Ark. It is true that there is no passage that specifically forbade the other tribes to transport the sacred chest. The question is, therefore, can one conclude that the silence of Deuteronomy 10:8 was prohibitive?

Many today strongly contend that silence is not prohibitive. Compare, however, Deuteronomy 10:8 with 1 Chronicles 15:2. David said: "None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites, for them has Jehovah chosen to carry the ark. . . " In the light of David’s statement, the silence of Deuteronomy 10:8 was clearly prohibitive.

Thus, underline the phrase, “None ought to carry. . . ,” and in your margin observe: Compare with Deuteronomy 10:8; the silence of the law is prohibitive. Again, see David’s comment about this disobedience in 15:13, “. . . we sought him not according to the ordinance.” David learned the truth about the law of silence. Many in our age need to acknowledge the same.

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Seeing God

 

Seeing God “Face to Face”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Kyle Butt/Dan Barker debate, Dan Barker alleged that He “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence” (2009). 

One of the supposed contradictions that Barker mentioned was that God claims invisibility, yet has been seen. (His assertion is found 10 minutes and 55 seconds into his first speech.) Since biblical passages such as Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen, while other scriptures indicate that man has seen God and spoken to him “face to face” (Exodus 33:11; Genesis 32:30), allegedly “the God of the Bible does not exist.”

Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Barker, like so many Bible critics, has dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in different senses. 

Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in various ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being. In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses.

 Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.

Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? 

No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. 

In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7).

 Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).

But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.”

 First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). 

Are we to believe (as Barker and other critics assert) that the author of Exodus was so misguided that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Certainly not! What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10) or “spoke to Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11)? 

The answer is found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). 

God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). 

Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Exodus 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly, directly, etc.

The Bible does not reveal “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as Barker has alleged. His assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. 

In truth, Barker’s comments merely reveal that he is a dishonest interpreter of Scripture. If Barker can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then Barker can understand that God could speak “face to face” with Moses without literally revealing to him His full, glorious “face.”

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Schippers, R. (1971), “Telos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan




Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Sundays

 

“Sundays Excepted”?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Did the Founders of American civilization believe in the God of the Bible? More specifically, did the vast majority of them embrace the Christian worldview? 

Even though they advocated freedom of worship, and opposed any persecution instigated against those who sought to practice divergent religious views, did they, themselves, approach life from the perspective of the Christian religion? A mountain of evidence exists to prove that they did. Consider just one.

Though the Founders intentionally omitted an extensive treatment of religion in the federal Constitution, since they intended for the federal government to stay out of the religious arena and leave such matters to the States and local communities, they nevertheless implied their religious orientation in that seminal document. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution reads:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law (Constitution of the United..., emp. added).

“Sundays excepted”? Indeed, to this day, the U.S. government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” 

If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any particular religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving that America was Christian in its orientation, that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview, and that they were determined to give political recognition to and accommodation of that fact by making allowance for the Christian day of worship. Their decision reflects a respect for Bible teaching on the matter (Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).

This respect for the Christian worship of God on Sunday has been perpetuated throughout American history. The vanishing “Blue Laws” verify this fact. For example, in the 1846 South Carolina court case City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, the court declared:

The Lord’s day, the day of the Resurrection, is to us, who are called Christians, the day of rest after finishing a new creation. It is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the grave! It was the birth day of the believer in Christ, to whom and through whom it opened up the way which, by repentance and faith, leads unto everlasting life and eternal happiness! On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord—its decent observance, in a Christian community, is that which ought to be expected (2 Strob. L. 508 [S. C. 1846], emp. added).

Many other examples exist (cf. Miller, 2006; Miller, 2008). America was founded on Christian principles. The future of the Republic is endangered in direct proportion as those principles are abandoned. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).

REFERENCES

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1846), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1846).

Constitution of the United States, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/ constitution.html.

Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, June 2006 - 26[6]41-47, http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.; Dave Miller (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).





Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Learning Trust NOT Worry

 

Learning to Trust God

In his classic novel, Robinson Crusoe (1719), author Daniel Defoe has his leading character, Crusoe, cast upon a deserted island off the coast of South America following a violent shipwreck.

For more than 28 years he languished under conditions that most would consider unbearable. On a certain occasion, however, the isolated Englishman reflected upon his circumstances — perhaps more deeply than he ever had. Defoe has Crusoe say:

“I sat down to my meal with thankfulness, and admired the hand of God’s providence which had thus spread my table in the wilderness. I learned to look more on the bright side of my condition, and less on the dark side, and to consider what I had rather than what I wanted. And this at times gave me such secret comforts that I cannot express them. All our discontents about what we want appeared to me to spring from the want of thankfulness for what we have!”

It would scarcely be possible to overstate the concern that Jehovah has for his people. Job once rhetorically asked: “Does he not see my ways, and number all my steps?” (Job 31:4).

Or as David expressed it, “You number my wanderings. Put my tears into your bottle; are they not in your book?” (Psalm 56:8).

Another of the Lord’s prophets declared:

“For the eyes of Jehovah run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him” (2 Chronicles 16:9).

This does not mean, of course, that the child of God will never suffer deprivation, or pain, or even death.

It does signify, however, that the Creator is working in our lives, and no matter what comes our way — even when such appears to be tragic — he still is with us and he helps us work towards an ultimate destiny of glory.

The dull skeptic can never fathom such a wonderful concept; the one who walks by faith happily embraces it.

Every child of God should set aside periods of reflection wherein he meditates upon the operations of divine providence in his life. What an amazing comfort it is.

Providence

Providence is a mysterious process; one that clearly is affirmed in scripture (cf. Genesis 45:5,7-8; 50:20; Ruth 2:3; Esther 4:14).

And yet, the steps of providence are not definitively traceable in the particular events of one’s life. In the final analysis, one can only say, “perhaps” this is the operation of God (Philemon 15), though he may devoutly believe it, and thank the Lord for it — even if it has to be through tears.

God’s Providence: An Antidote for Worry

Jesus himself affirmed God’s providential operation in the lives of his people. Reflect upon one of his admonitions in the Sermon on the Mount.

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?”(Matthew 6:25, ESV).

The word “anxious” is a term that, in its present grammatical form, suggests the idea of “don’t keep on worrying.” It acknowledges that some “anxiety” is natural to the human mind, and at times, depending upon its object, may even be justified (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:28).

But the admonition cautions that one must not let his heart become enslaved by such. Rather, greater levels of faith in God will allow the devout soul to be bathed in a sweet confidence that wonderfully assists even in the most rigorous days of human existence.

Life is much more than mere externals, e.g., food and clothing. The Creator has provided us with wondrous bodies and incorruptible souls. Does it not stand to reason that his operations in our lives have a greater goal than the physical aspects? It is an argument from the lesser to the greater. Therefore, trust him! (Job 13:15).

The Lord proceeded to introduce several supporting arguments, designed to assist the turbulent mind (read the entire segment, Matthew 6:26-33). Let us briefly note the points made by the Savior in the context just cited.

Worry is illogical.

If Jehovah feeds the birds and clothes the lilies of the field, surely he has concern for those made in his very image (Genesis 1:26-27). In another place Christ emphasized this very point. Jesus taught that Jehovah’s interest in even the smallest of his creatures is genuine proof of his concern for those who serve him.

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father: but the very hairs of your head are numbered. Fear not, therefore, you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:29-31).

Worry is impractical.

Worry is useless for it cannot add to one’s life — either in the quality of that life, or in actual longevity.

The truth is, medically speaking, anxiety can precipitate numerous illnesses that shorten one’s physical life. Dr. S. I. McMillen, in his book, None of These Diseases (Fleming H. Revell, 1963, Chapter 10) has a most informative discussion of such matters.

Worry is distrustful.

Fretfulness is basically pagan in sentiment. As Christ noted, “for after all these things the Gentiles seek.”

“Gentiles” here fundamentally stands for the philosophy of heathenism, i.e., those who have no covenant relationship with the Lord. Materialism is the main thrust of the pagan’s life. Unfortunately, far too many, who profess a relationship with Christ, live like the heathen on a practical level.

Worry is distracting.

Anxiety over material things is a reversal of life’s priorities. God intends more for those made in his image than a mere physical existence.

Our earthly sphere is important, but only as an end to a greater goal — the kingdom of heaven. Those who do not recognize this are robbing themselves of life’s greatest treasure. Thus, we are to “seek first” God’s kingdom, and then be confident that he will supply our needs to implement the greater purpose in life.

Worry is futile.

One must recognize that all problems do not have to be dealt with instantly, or at the same time. Handle life’s difficulties one day at a time.

The mistakes of yesterday are gone; correct them. The problems of tomorrow have not yet arrived; wait for them. Meet the challenges of today. Face the ones that will come tomorrow (and they will come) on tomorrow! Jesus did not promise that there would be no difficulties tomorrow; only this, you don’t have to deal with them until then. Each day has its individual challenge.

Conclusion

These principles are not a magic formula that makes pain and heartaches vanish. If, though, these concepts are absorbed into the “pores” of one’s soul, they can elicit a quality of character that makes human existence much more delightful as we play out earth’s temporary drama.

Crusoe knew it; do we?

[Note: The core of this article was written thirty-two years ago. I extracted it from the “moth-balls” of my files, and gave it a “fresh coat of paint.” I can say this confidently; the principles enunciated therein have grown increasingly precious over the past three decades.