Eternal Perspectives

In the middle of last month, Andrew at Weapons of Warfare asked in a comment what the difference was between the “perseverance” of the saints and the “preservation” of the saints. (This is something I mention in my Disclosure in the sidebar of this blog.) Since I just found the comment this evening, I thought I’d answer it here rather than there.

To me, the primary difference is this: the security of my salvation depends not on my faithfulness but on the faithfulness of Christ. It is based in part on Christ’s words in Jn 6.37-40 and 10.27-29 where He states that He will not lose any of us, and on His prayer in Jn 17.24 wherein He asks the Father that we be with Him in glory.

This is not just semantics but (I think) an important theological point. It means that my salvation from beginning to end is not my doing, that it is all the work of God, and that it is all of grace.

This is not to suggest that those maintaining perseverance believe in a works-based security, for they do not; it does mean, however, that I can know with as much certainty as possible that I am assured of my salvation. I do not have to continually worry about my last performance and whether or not I am sufficiently persevering. My focus is free to be on Christ without fear because He has promised to keep me if I have truly believed.

Random thoughts after watching the hour-long Dateline story on Benny Hinn:

• Of course, my first thought was to thank God I’m not like Benny Hinn: I live in a modest dwelling, fly coach, shop at Sam’s for clothes, and don’t require bodyguards. Uh, oh. Suddenly I’m in the role of a Pharisee. But Benny’s no penitent publican, either. He’s not excused, but I need to be careful myself. (Where’s that parable post?)
  
• This is nothing new: Hank Hanegraaff exposed Hinn, Copeland, and the whole lot of word of faith false prophets years ago. And others have followed the money in the past. Still, it’s good that this is staying on the front burner.
  
• It was good to see NBC talk to Christians (Anthony, Horton) that didn’t look or act like buffoons. Both came across as serious Christ-followers who were at least as concerned about Hinn as those investigating him.
• His exploitation of the young boy was particularly heinous. We need to pray for the boy in hopes that he won’t become bitter and cynical. Time to get fitted for the millstone, Benny.
  
• Sadly, the most dangerous thing about Hinn was not included in the story: the lack of a gospel message. Hinn does not preach the Christian gospel because he apparently does not believe the Christian gospel. He’s all about so-called, money-generating miracles. If all you ever listened to was Hinn’s message, you’d be poor and still on the road to hell.
  

A parable for those who feel they are more righteous than others:

The ruler of a small village once took a long journey with his faithful warriors, leaving his wife and large family in the care of his subjects. When he returned, he found that the people of his kingdom had killed every member of his family, including his beloved children.

Being a just ruler, the king decided to talk to each subject individually before passing judgment, thus assuring that no one had been wrongly accused. But the king learned that every person in the village had participated in the slaughter. Some who had participated in the deaths of two or three family members were quickly executed. A few of the subjects had actively joined in for the killing of all his family members, and their deaths were immediate.

As the interrogations began to wind down, a man appeared before the king and pleaded for mercy. “I am not as evil as the others,” the man protested, “for I am guilty of killing just one of your daughters, and I made sure that the death was swift and painless.”

The king at once ordered his warriors to seize the man and take him away. As the man was led off to be executed, the king declared, “You fool! Is the death of but one child any less heinous than the death of all? You diminish the value of the one by making her death less of a crime than the deaths of the many.”

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force” (Mt 11.12, NASB).

‘The full value of this life can only be got by fighting; the violent take it by storm. And if we have accepted everything we have missed something — war. This life of ours is a very enjoyable fight, but a very miserable truce.’ Gilbert K. Chesterton

———————————————————–

“Matt 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.

“THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN NEEDS FORCEFUL PEOPLE

“The word forceful means: Powerful, Dynamic, and Effective. God requires us as Christians, to have this type of attitude today. In essence Jesus is saying that since John the Baptist, the Kingdom of heaven has been forcefully pressing forward towards its goal, and in order to maintain this momentum, it needs powerful, dynamic and effective Christians!

“The proposal here is that before John the Baptist, the Kingdom of Heaven could only be seen in the light of prophecy, but now it is PREACHED and DEMONSTRATED, by people who are pressing into it, with a zeal and eagerness resembling VIOLENCE or DESPERATION, to get rid of SIN and all satanic powers that are trying to destroy God’s people. But we need to stand true against anything that opposes the Kingdom of Heaven and its coming!

“The devil will try and subdue usÂ… he does not want us to succeed. Our opponent will try everything in his power to stop us moving forward, but Jesus wants those who are possessed of enthusiasm and the passion for God, to fight the enemy on all fronts, reminding ourselves that…The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 2 Cor 10:4

“How do we achieveÂ… this FORCEFULNESS? Tomorrow we will look at implementing the first of four principles, which I believe will help us.” (emphases his)

John comes to the right conclusion but, it seems, takes a curious way to get there. The emphasis of the passage is on the kingdom, not violence; in fact, even “forceful” may be misleading.

Rather than offer up my own limited understanding of this verse, I’ll do what I have taken to doing lately: I’ll let Brad Young argue for me! If you have not read his books Jesus the Jewish Theologian and Paul the Jewish Theologian, I strongly encourage you to do so. Young will challenge your Western way of thinking and enable you to hear the words of Jesus and Paul more clearly.

Young begins with an explanation and rationale:

Without a sound approach to the translation of the Gospels, we lose something of great value from the words of Jesus because they are robbed of the rich imagery of the original language . . .

This saying of Jesus has been improperly translated, wrongly understood, and often removed from its original context concerning John the Baptist. Most of the time the verse has been given one of two interpretations. First, it was thought to describe how the kingdom was being attacked by men of violence. Second, and perhaps even more unfortunately, some scholars have suggested that Jesus advocated violence as a part of his kingdom message . . .

The question of the Hebrew original of this saying of Jesus becomes of inestimable value when the Old Testament background is seen in Micah 2.13, “The breaker who opens the breach rises up before them . . .”

The Greek verb which is translated “suffers violence” in the KJV is biazo . . . the New International Version rendered this Greek verb as “forcefully advancing.” This translation of biazo is more appropriate than the passive idea from “suffers violence” because the active meaning correctly conveys both the force associated with the verb and also mentions the progressive movement of the divine reign . . .

The idea conveyed by the Greek verb biazo certainly includes the action of “breaking forth.” Moreover, the Hebrew background of this saying of Jesus actually denotes an action of breaking out with strong force. The best rendering of the term in this context is “breaks forth.” The action originates from within and moves outward.

. . . since biastai ["forceful men" in the NIV] comes from the same verb biazo and is closely related to Micah 2.13, it should be rendered as “the breakers,” that is, the ones making the break wider as they break out from within the wall.

“He who opens the breach” is one word in Hebrew, “the breaker,” haportez Both of them are connected to Jesus’ saying, “The kingdom of heaven breaks forth . . . ” The first part of the verse from Micah 2.13, “He who opens the breach (the breaker, haportez) will go up before them,” is related to the words of Jesus, “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven breaks forth . . .” The one who causes the kingdom to break forth is John the Baptist . . .

The mental image created by the verse in Micah 2.13 portrays a sheepfold full of sheep . . . After the sheep have been confined all night in the limited space of the makeshift sheepfold, the animals are anxious to break out. In the morning the shepherd will knock down a section from the piled-up stones. He will break open the barricade wall which penned up the sheep all night in a protective enclosure. Anxious to be released from the holding pen, the sheep will rush out as quickly as possible, knocking down more stones from the makeshift fence in order to break outside . . .

In the same way that the sheep are anxious for release after a night of confinement within the sheepfold, the people will respond to the divine initiative, “they will break through (partzu), and pass the gate, going out by it. Their king (malkam) will pass on before them, the LORD at their head” (Mic 2.13) . . .

The breaker makes a breach and the ones inside the sheepfold break forth from within. The idea of persecution, namely, that the sheep inside the fold are under attack after the breach has been made, is not possible.

Young now offers his own interpretation of Mt 11.12 and elaborates on its meaning:

“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven breaks forth and those breaking forth are pursuing [seeking] it” . . .

When Jesus referred to John as the breaker, he was comparing him to Elijah who was to come. As a result of John’s work as the breaker, the kingdom of heaven was now breaking forth within Jesus’ own ministry of healing . . .

From the time of John, the preparation was being made. Now the kingdom of heaven breaks forth, and all are breaking out with it. The rule of God challenges each new generation with the dynamic message of Jesus . . .

The divine reign is realized when God’s people receive his power to accomplish his purpose. This power is not reserved for the end times; rather, the kingdom breaks forth in the present as men and women experience God’s redemptive power in their lives. They share what God has done for them as they help others. Jesus came to bring salvation and healing to hurting people in a world wracked by urgent human need.

Amen and amen.

Almost two weeks ago, I posted “Where’d That Come From?” in which I wondered about the immune system in Adam and how – and when – it came to be. Looking at the perfect creation in which Adam and Eve lived, I didn’t see any need for an immune system.

I meant to follow up on the post but forgot. Fortunately, Martin LaBar at Sun and Shield did not forget: he posted a response to my question. I owe him thanks for several things: first, he corrected me (I called it our “autoimmune system;” he pointed out that it was actually our “immune system”); then, a couple of days ago, he posted “The Fall and the immune system,” which contains a lot of information and has triggered some thoughts; finally, he indirectly reminded me that I needed to follow up my original post.

In his post, LaBar mentions a couple of things that I’ll comment on here. The first is the possibility that there was death prior to the Fall; the second is the gap theory which sees (usually) a vast span of time between Gen 1.1 and 1.2.

I, too, believe there was death before Adam’s Fall, but not the same way that LaBar proposes. He sees it as a necessary adjunct to life in a pre-Fall world. My hypothesis is different:

(more…)

It is a recurring nightmare:

Months or years from now, long after we have won the battle to keep Terri alive, her painful and agonizingly slow therapy reaches the point where she is finally able to think clearly and speak for herself. It is a great day: all who have prayed for her and followed her dramatic, near-tragic saga eagerly await her first words. And then they come:

“Why didn’t you let me die? Why have you made me endure this pain and suffering? I wanted to die! I still want to die!”

Then I wake up.

Until today, you would have searched this blog in vain to find any mention of Terri Schiavo and the nightmare that she and her parents are actually living. It’s not that I haven’t followed her real-life – and possibly real-death – story, it’s just that I didn’t have anything to add that hadn’t already been stated. Maybe that is still true: maybe others have expressed what I’m trying to convey here. But I haven’t seen it.

What follows is not an indictment or accusation of anyone who is fighting and praying for Terri. By comparison, I have done little for her. And, as far as I know, no one has lost perspective in the battle. What I am saying is meant only as a reminder, not as a rebuke; a caution, not a correction.

I hope Terri has the chance someday to speak for herself. The idea that her bottom-feeding husband has the right to murder her is comprehensible only in a godless society such as ours. What was the sin of Sodom? Oh, yes: “she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy” (Ezek 16.49). Our job is to care for those who are unable to care for themselves and to protect them from the predators of the world, not kill them off because they’re inconvenient, in the way, or “non-productive” members of society.

But then there’s my nightmare ending. If that were to happen, then Terri would suddenly go from being a cause in the eyes of Christians to being an enemy and someone to be resisted. From darling to damned in a matter of minutes.

I have no reason to expect anything like this to happen. Even her alleged comments to her husband don’t mean anything. Life looks very different when you’re clinging to it rather than experiencing it vicariously on television. In all likelihood, if Terri is allowed to live (what a strange predicament!), she will be thrilled and thankful.

But the Christian community must see past Terri and remain focused on the bigger issue, which is that life is valuable and not to be dismissed casually. Right now that principle has a face – a lovely, endearing face – but the principle has been around long before Terri and will be around after her, too. We are not fighting for a life but for life itself. Terri is important because she has life; life is not important simply because it happens to belong to her and is threatened at the present time. Terri’s life is no more – or no less – important than the lives of the thousands of children dying in the Sudan. Life is the issue.

All life is valuable and important. We must fight for Terri because her life is in immediate danger. We would do well to remember, however, that the issue is life in general, not “just” Terri’s in particular. We have to stay focused on life: Terri’s and everybody else’s life, too.

I had a couple of people express an interest in being interviewed by me: Stacy at MediaSoul and Rob at Mind and Soul. Here are your respective questions.

Stacy:

In 8,000,000 words or less, how would you describe your spiritual journey?

Rob:

1. Your website usually shows pictures of you frolicking on the beach in various states of undress. Does your mother know about this?
2. Similar to Stacy’s second question: why did you decide to become a psychiatrist?
3. The best thing about living in England is _____; the worst thing is _____. (For the sakes of us Yanks, please explain.)
4. Describe your spiritual journey and present relationship with God (e.g., are you and He on speaking terms?).
5. Other than family members, what individual has had the biggest spiritual influence on your life? How or why?

Remember to post your answers on your website and to interview others. Drop me a comment when you’ve posted.

Thanks and have fun!

David at Jollyblogger has a very good post about the difficulty of forgiveness entitled “Forgiving the Unrepentant.” He specifically treats the problem of what to do when those who offend us fail to repent or – and here’s the rub – fail to repent sufficiently or to our satisfaction.

His discussion (go there and read it for yourself) brought to mind the two types of forgiveness discussed in the New Testament. The first, which David covers in his post, is that to which Paul refers in his letters to the churches at Ephesus and Colossae:

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Eph 4:32).

bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you (Col 3:13)

.
How has Christ forgiven us, i.e., how has He forgiven Christians? At the very least, He has done so at the first hint of repentance; more, He has forgiven us even when we fail to ask or are unaware of having sinned against Him. His grace extends beyond our conscience and our consciousness.

In the same manner, Paul says, we are to forgive one another. We are not, as David points out, to require sufficient suffering on the part of the offender before we extend forgiveness to them. We are to forgive: we are to release the person and no longer hold the offense against them.

Jesus, however, talks about a different kind of forgiveness. Our Lord says,

Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him (Lk 17.3-4).

Forgiveness here is conditional: it hinges on the repentance of the other person. Whereas Paul is talking about forgiving someone as an act of love, Jesus is talking about restoring a relationship with the brother who sins. Before the relationship can be restored, repentance is required.

(more…)

Over in the sidebar, under “Fun Inventories,” are some fun inventories. Not to be taken seriously, but fun in a narcissistic, time-killing sort of way.

Somehow, I’ve gotten myself into this game of “interview tag” that’s going around (actually, I volunteered for it). Tod Bolsinger of IT TAKES A CHURCH . . . has provided five questions, so now it’s my job to provide my answers.

1. What’s the best thing you learned in seminary?

There are a lot of things I could mention here, but I’ll limit myself to two “best” things. First, thanks to Dr. Bruce Demarest, I discovered that no system of theology – not even my own – could do justice to all of the material in the Bible. My carefully exegeted and well-reasoned papers came back covered with red ink, and the flaws and holes in my theology were exposed regularly. I came out of seminary with the same theology I had going in, but I held it less dogmatically and was more willing to allow others to have their own convictions. Godly Christian scholars look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Different presuppositions and hermeneutics yield different results. And that’s OK on the non-essentials of the faith.

Second, I somehow realized early on that the real education to be had in seminary was not in the material or the lectures: it was in studying the lives of my professors. I got to know them, picked their brains on matters that had nothing to do with the class, made friends with more than a few, and was privileged to see the hearts of some. I appreciate their knowledge but I really grew to admire their commitments to Christ. I saw glimpses of Jesus Christ in them. My favorite “subjects” were: Haddon Robinson, Vernon Grounds, James Beck, Bruce Demarest, Tim Weber, Bob Hubbard, and Donald Burdick.

2. Respond to this quote from Mark Twain: “I never let schooling get in the way of my education.”

Love it and lived it: I missed graduating with honors by .05 because I didn’t read the textbooks; I read original sources. I figured that, rather than reading a book about various theologies or psychologies, I would read the theologians and psychologists first-hand. I spent a lot of money (I’m sure The Tattered Cover in Denver laid people off after I moved) but I learned more than I would have if I had stuck to the core curriculum. Schooling did do this much for me: it taught me how to study the Scriptures and think theologically. And, as I said above, my real education came from studying my profs.

3. What does a “consultant” really do?

I listed consultant as my profession because Blogger didn’t give “counseling” as an option. There are times, though, when I do consult rather than counsel: when I counsel, I facilitate growth and try to help the client discover things for him/herself. When I consult, I give instructions and information to help resolve problems for people. I do a fair amount of consulting with parents of teenagers that I work with: the home environment often has to change if the teen is going to improve.

4. If you weren’t in Christian work what would you being doing?

I think anything any believer does is Christian work, whether it’s preaching on Sundays, teaching school on Mondays, handing out baskets at WalMart, or driving a beer truck. So, if I weren’t in Christian work, I wouldn’t be a Christian; if I weren’t a Christian, I’d either be doing time, drugs, or both.

5. Describe the church you’ve always wanted to belong to?

Actually, I’ve been to the church I’ve always wanted to belong to, and I think the one I’m at now is headed in that direction. The latter is Grace Bible Church in College Station, TX, pastored by Brian Fisher; the former is Blackhawk Evangelical Free Church in Madison, WI, pastored by Chris Dolson.

What makes Blackhawk so appealing to me is its balance: the people are grounded in sound doctrine, evangelistic, and seek to make a social difference in their community. The fellowship is genuine and the people seem to enjoy one another. (Plus, they have an annual dance that is just for fun!) The preaching is excellent, a blend of the cerebral and the visceral: Chris teaches doctrine and the Bible but combines it with an emotional hook that makes it memorable.

Here’s how you can play the interview game

1. Leave me a comment saying “interview me.” The first five respondents will be the participants.
2. I will respond by asking you five questions.
3. You will update your blog/site with the answers to the questions.
4. You will include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the same post.
5. When others comment asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions. (Write your own questions or borrow some.)

The excitement and clamor over what constitutes the “simple gospel” seems to have abated for now, but I want to offer this final tidbit as I drain the dregs from the cup.

As was hinted at previously by myself and others, it is important to define the term “simple gospel” as it will be used in the debate. Here’s why: Paul says to the Galatians,

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1.8-9).

Disagreeing over the gospel has serious implications and consequences. The word “accursed” in vv. 8-9 is anathema in Greek, itself a very strong term. The LXX used anathema to translate the Hebrew word herem, which means to banish and give over to God. What I understand Paul to be saying, therefore, is that someone who preaches a different gospel should be banned and given over to God for immediate judgment and punishment.

It is tempting to see this punishment as eternal, but it is not necessarily so:

(more…)