Good Friday

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

For David speaketh concerning him, ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.’

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”

Acts 2:22-30 (King James Version)

Considering the Rapture and Millennium Through Catholic Eyes

I am always on the look out for materials that express how the early church (the first 3 centuries particularly) viewed certain doctrines that are the topic of debate in the modern church.  I found an article on the doctrines of the Rapture and the Millennium recently that I enjoyed.

Now this article is from a Catholic website.  I am not Catholic nor do I necessarily agree with all Catholic doctrines. I found the site when I performed a Google search to learn more about St. Augustine’s view of the Millennium The reason this site caught my attention is I think it is profitable at times to view some of our teachings (e.g. the Millennium and the Rapture) through non-Protestant Evangelical eyes.

I know that the attitude of many of my Protestant brethren toward Catholicism is a negative one and there may be a tendency to dismiss this article out-of-hand but, let’s face it, some of the greatest men of the faith have been Catholic. I have already mentioned St. Augustine. Surely you recognize the names of Thomas Aquinas, St. Athanasius, Brother Lawrence, Eusebius the Catholic historian, Jerome, and Justin Martyr, to name a few. So we can not reject wholesale any and all doctrines of the Catholic simply because they are held by Catholics. Catholics agree with Protestants on the nature of sin, original sin, salvation through Christ alone, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the sacrificial death of Christ, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, Heaven, and Hell among others. They are not wrong about everything any more than Baptists are wrong about everything—though both are wrong about some things, in my humble opinion.

I respect the Catholic church’s view on various topics because of the age of the Catholic church and studying the teachings of ancient Catholics like Augustine can teach us the views of some of the earliest saints.  Of course I admit that just because a doctrine is old does not make it right, for gnosticism is old but is most assuredly false and unscriptural.  However I do look with suspicion upon movements and doctrines that are very recent and I believe this is prudent. Enjoy.

Are You Emerging, Emergent or Neither?

In the comments for my recent post “Who Influences You?”, Steve and I had a brief exchange about the meaning of the “emerging” or “emergent” church.  At the time I used the terms synonomously however I have come to learn differently. Furthermore I have found that I myself may be emerging…a little anyway. I am still very, very evangelical in every other area.

I discovered this through a wonderful study done by C. Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen.  He wrote a very helpful five part series entitled “Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?”  In it he defines terms (as best as can be done considering the topic at hand–read it and you will see what I mean), busts up stereotypes and helps folks better understand our emergent brothers in Christ.   He explains that a person may be emerging/emergent ecclesiologically, sociologically, theologically, epistemologically, or politically.  You may be emerging in only one area or two.  You may be emergent in four or all of the areas.

I have never received a straight answer on what being emergent means and that is simply because there is not an easy straightforward answer.  It is a movement or a philosophy or a way of viewing the Christian life.  Calvinism is the same way. You may believe in some tenants of Calvinist doctrine but not others.  I have jokingly said I am a “2.5 Point Calvinist.”  There are some who are all the way Calvinist like there are some (like Doug Pagitt) who are all the way emergent and that determines their worldview and the way they view God, the scriptures, evangelism, sin, faith and a host of other issues.

If you are confused about the emergent church or if you want to better understand “the conversation”, then you should really take time to read Patton’s series. The version I have linked to above has all of the parts on one page so you can read right through the whole thing.  You will find that there are some things about emergents that you were right about and probably some things about them you were wrong about. Either way the article will help you better evaluate this movement.

Beauty In the Status Quo

Let us not grow weary of living everyday lives.

The book of Acts is replete with what seem like daily miraculous occurrences. But that great book of scripture spans a period of about three decades. Also it took place during a time of upheaval and change as the apostles of Jesus were turning the whole world upside down. The Holy Spirit was being given with signs and wonders at various times and places. The gospel of the New Covenant was being shot into the arm of humanity and civilization. The earth shattering force that would shape future history was being established (”once more I will shake the Heavens and the Earth”). God’s promise of bringing His “other sheep” into true Israel was being fulfilled (John 10:26). Some who had been Jew in name only were being cut out and true Jews (according to the Spirit and circumcision of the heart) were being grafted in (Romans 11:24).

But there between the lines, in the in-between times were the faithful, the unheard-of, the unsung eking out a daily existence. They washed their linens. They made bread and cleaned the kitchen afterward. They fought off colds, worked with too little sleep some days, and started home improvement projects. Some days they were irritable and some days they thought everything was funny. They attended church weekly and sang songs together and heard teaching.

There were days when no miracle happened. Some weeks they simply did what they did everyday. There were weeks when the only spectacular thing that happened was someone got married or someone passed away.

In the in-between time, the only miracles they knew were that they had plenty to eat everyday or that they had brothers in Christ they could call on. Sometimes the only miracle these folks knew was that in that kitchen or in that church they could bow their heads, call on God, and be heard. Perhaps once in a while they noticed the miracle of the created order. The miracle of miracles, which is invisible, was the only one they could experience daily. This is the miracle that God became man, born under the law, that he might redeem man from the law of sin and death freeing them by the law of the Spirit of life. No flashes, no gasps, no shocking surprises–simply men and women being added to the Church daily and they, having been given access to the true Holy of Holies (Hebrews 10:19-22), were able to approach their Father any time, any place, even during the in-between time.

In the midst of the status quo, between the great trumpet blasts, the faithful were steady tunes playing on. And when the next miracle blast had passed they played on still. If they had lived only for the great whirlwinds, the bone-rattling earthquakes, the scorching fires of that first century they would have missed the still small voice that speaks continually to the ones who have ears to hear.

Strive not for what is past for it can not be reached;
Look not always to the horizon, the future can not be seen;
Reflect on what is gone, hope for what is ahead, but look for Him daily
In the times in between

Josh H.

Who Influences You?

Most Christians who seek to study the Bible and understand proper Christian living tend to have one or a few teachers that they gravitate toward in helping them along the way. I do not mean just their local pastor or Sunday School teacher. I mean that many Christians have a well-known Bible teacher they read or learn from via electronic media and that Bible teacher has great influence on the theology of that believer. And the believer will usually take on some degree of that Bible teacher’s position on nearly every issue.

I can name some now that people tend to gravitate toward. There is John Piper, John MacArthur, J.I. Packer, David Jeremiah, Alistair Begg, and Ravi Zacharias, to name a few. There are also teachers of the past that folks latch on to such as C.S. Lewis and St. Augustine but I am focusing on contemporary teachers here.

Until recently I would have said that C.S. Lewis is the only person I would name as a teacher that I consistently return to (other than my church pastor) in order to answer my difficult questions and the one from whom I continuously seek out understanding of God. Outside of this I pretty much considered myself a free-thinker. But that is not really true.

Over the last year and a half I have noticed that I have come to greatly respect the insight of another contemporary teacher. I am talking about R.C. Sproul.

R.C. Sproul is a Reformed, Five-Point Calvinist, cessationist, Augustinian Amillennialist Bible expositor whose teachings appear in print and audio media. Now if you compare the Sproul-in-a-nutshell list I have just given with my past writings then you will conclude that I do not agree with every jot and tittle of Sproul’s theology and you would be right. However I have come to greatly appreciate his understanding of theology and philosophy and history and the way in which he uses all three to come to a clearer understanding of the context, meaning, and message of the Holy Scripture.

I realized only recently how much I have come to respect Sproul’s interpretations and views when I was wrestling with a particular issue. I do not want to say what the issue was but it is something I have mulled over and over and over. I still have not come to a conclusion but I nevertheless turned to Sproul’s website to seek out his opinion for consideration. That is when I realized how much I respect his viewpoint.

So now I want to hear what contemporary teachers have influenced you in this way. If there are none then tell me someone from the past that you respect and typically refer to when considering the more difficult points of theology. Or if you think Sproul is a total bozo and that I should lean more towards the teaching of ___________, then let me know!

And do not pretend you are not reading. I have seen my stats and I know you are out there so give me some feedback.

Josh H.

Jon Foreman and Kierkegaard

Cast of Characters

Søren Kierkegaard: a 19th century Danish philosopher from Copenhagen who decried the state-run church of Denmark.

Jon Foreman: a 21st century musician who is the lead singer, guitarist, and principle songwriter of the band Switchfoot.

Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was an interesting man. He used everything from satire to pseudonyms to relate to the world his views on life, Christianity, God, people, and faith. He is most well-known for the assault he mounted against Christendom. Now it must be understood that Kierkegaard was no atheist. His beef was not with the theology of Christianity but with the Danish government’s control and regulation of the Danish State Church. He believed that such a state-church relationship ruined individuals and corrupted the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Even a cursory glance over the history of the church will reveal that any time the state controls religion there is corruption whereby political maneuvering replaces ministry and saints are made subject to governmental agendas.

On this week’s episode of the RELEVANT podcast (a weekly show produced and distributed by the editors of RELEVANT magazine) Dylan Peterson interviewed singer/songwriter Jon Foreman backstage before a show. Peterson is a fan of Søren Kierkegaard and was pleased to find that Foreman is as well. Peterson asked Foreman what draws him to Kierkegaard’s work?

In his answer Jon Foreman likens himself and his position to that of Kierkegaard. Foreman believes that the church in modern times “becomes a business” with its CD’s (which is interesting coming from a recording musician) and magazines (which is interesting since he was being interviewed by a Christian magazine editor) and “trinkets” such that the church today has become commercialized and institutionalized to such a degree that it is like the state-run church in Denmark in Kierkegaard’s day.

Now every organization, regardless of its nature, will at times be run like a business. A church administrator who is charge of using his parrish’s funds wisely must employ some economic and financial techniques and I say “what’s wrong with that!?” That is just good common God-given sense.

I believe Foreman is wrong when he makes such a link. Kierkegaard looked at the state-sponsored church and saw meaningless formality and a people void of a relationship with the Creator. Foreman criticized the church for using commercial means of evangelism and proclamation (CD’s, magazines, etc.). I believe that is the duty of Christians to take dominion in the name of Christ such that it is Christians who excel at music, literature, business, and every other endeavor because they are operating with excellence for Christ’s sake. Are we there yet? Oh no. But if we are not to use every means to propagate the gospel then what are we to do? I do not understand the link he is trying to make between the Denmark State Church and modern American Christianity.

Let’s have a show of hands. Who else is tired of “when in doubt, diss the church” Christians? It grates me almost as much as denomination dissing. Almost.

Believe me, I will be the first to admit that modern American Christendom has its problems. I believe too many Christians are irresponsible concerning their own faith (i.e. they do not seek to grow but expect a pastor to push them forward). However my first instinct when I hear church-dissing is “what have you done lately?” Really, when was the last time you heard Jesus or God mentioned in a Switchfoot song? Sure there are some veiled allusions to the Deity (such as the song “Stars”) but certainly no gospel.

I would say that if Jon Foreman thinks something stinks in Denmark (no pun intended) he should check the bottoms of his own shoes first. We all should. Stop complaining and start acting. Me? I know the issues the church has and I want to help eradicate those problems so that the Bride of Christ can look more like Christ’s bride. However 90% of my work to that end will be figuring out the best way to pry out this plank that has wedged itself firmly in my eye socket.

Josh H.

Quote from Chuck Colson’s Break Point Podcast

On the most recent episode of Break Point Charles Colson quotes theologian Carl Henry and then adds his own commentary on the involvement of Christian people in the political and social processes of this country:

“‘The Christian populous fails its contemporaries if it postpones all protest until a state becomes so corrupt that revolution seems the only course of action.’

We Christians simply can not afford to fail our contemporaries by withdrawing, especially now when so many have an agenda that devalues life and weakens families. The tension to retreat into religious isolation is not new. After Jesus’ ascension some in the ealry church were ready to withdraw from the affairs of men and simply wait for Jesus to return. Paul repeatedly and sternly had to remind them to get back to work, to do good to their fellow man, and to regularly meet together. They couldn’t check out early and neither can we.”

There may be times when revolution is the only alternative but that should be a last resort when tyranny has become so oppressive and overwhelming that the state becomes the ultimate enemy to life and liberty. There is another mode of socio-political change and it is this: the message that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that He was sent to save sinners and restore them to a right relationship with God and that is something man could have never accomplished on his own.

The gospel is the greatest and most eternal revolution that can happen to any people. It can destroy oppression and crush tyranny. It can make brothers out of enemies, servants out of despots, and saints out of sinners.

Josh H.

Dating Revelation with a Few Simple Words

I have made my postion on eschatology abundantly clear in the past (see my Olivet Discourse article and my 1 Thessalonians article). I have not however recounted what caused me to change my position in the first place. It comes down to a few words: “quickly”, “shortly”, “this generation” and the like.  No opponent of my position can hope to change my mind until they give me a clear answer as to how these simple words can somehow mean “the indeterminate future.”

Prior to 2004 or so I held the typical pre-tribulational pre-millennial view of the end times. That is what I had been taught and I never bothered to question it further.  Then I met my wife. She held to almost the same view except that she was post-tribulational. By that I mean that she believed in the Rapture and the Great Tribulation but she believed that the Rapture would take place after the Tribulation, that is Christians would have to live through the Great Tribulation.  She could not see the point in all of the warnings and encouragement given in scripture for those who were or would face persecution.  Thus she came to her post-trib conclusions.

At the time I felt pretty certain that my position was the right one because after all how could so many Bible teachers be wrong?  Then I read a little book called “End Times Fiction.”

This work by Gary DeMar attacked the pre-tribulational view as it is laid out in the fictional Left Behind series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (hence DeMar’s title).  My brother-in-law had unsuccessfully tried to speak to me before about the preterist view of eschatology.  DeMar’s book answered my objections.  By the time I finished I was converted. I rejected the doctrine of the Rapture and the Great Tribulation and I took on a position that put the fulfillment of most New Testament prophecy in the first century with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.  I still believe Christ will return to judge the living and the dead (as even the earliest creeds profess) but I do not believe Matthew 24 (and similar Gospel passages) or Revelation are about that.

Naturally it would be easy to prove or disprove my view completely if it could be proven that the Book of Revelation was written after 70AD.  Fair enough.  A lot of historical and hermaneutical acrobatics have been offered to me as proof that Revelation was written around 95AD during the reign of Domitian, emperor of the Roman Empire. The truth is that the scripture itself does not indicate the date of Revelation. It is referred to by Iraneus but the grammar he used in his writing makes it unclear if he means to say the vision of Revelation was seen during the reign of Domitian or the apostle John himself. 

But is there not a way to simply obtain this information from the scripture itself?  Would that not be easier? Yes and yes.  There are a few words mentioned in the scripture which I had overlooked time and again. Until I began to change my belief about the end times I had somehow missed these important words.  These words are “shortly”, “quickly”, “soon” and “this generation.”

Matthew 24:34–At the beginning of the 24th chapter of Matthew’s gospel Jesus has told the disciples that the temple will be destroyed.  They naturally wanted to know when such an incredible thing would take place (One thing you must remember: the temple and Jerusalem were almost synonymous with Heaven on earth for these people,the Holy of Holies being the dwelling place of God) and so he spends a few pages telling them what to watch for in graphic language.  And to sum up the discussion he gives a fairly precise time frame: “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” 

One can easily determine the approximate length of time of a generation and come to some conclusion as to when to expect those events to take place. Jesus said those words around 30AD.  It has been pretty universally decided that the length in time of a generation is around 40 years.  I probably do not have to do the math for you.

Revelation 1:1, 3–John’s introduction to his letter to the seven churches in Asia states that Christ is going to show him things “that must shortly take place” and that “the time [of these events]is near,” near to the time of the writing.

Revelation 22:12, 20–In the final chapter of the book Jesus himself states the timetable when he utters “I am coming soon!”  not once, but twice in the same chapter. 

Whether a person favors an early dating of Revelation or a later (95AD) dating, we can not ignore these words.  Jesus and John both make it clear that the events described will take place very soon from the time the book was written.  Nothing during 95AD or after captures the cataclysmic nature of the events of Revelation nor does anything prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Only the Roman seige of Jerusalem which, in effect, was a judgment on the ones who rejected Messiah can fit the bill.

 Let these words speak. Let them express what they were meant to express in these passages.  Questions, comments, and challenges are welcome.

Josh H.

Sovereignty in the Life of Baby Moses

Exodus chapter 2 tells of the birth of Moses. Pharoah of Egypt had begun to see how the desendents of Jacob grew numerous and mighty. This was a new Pharoah who had not known Joseph and had no respect for his people. Out of political fear Pharoah began to oppress the Israelites and forced them to build with brick and mortar subduing them under tyranny to keep them from rising up or growing too powerful. However the Hebrews continued to grow and thrive.

The next step was a bloody one whereby Pharoah commanded that all male children born to Hebrew mothers were to be killed upon their birth by their Egyptian midwives. The midwives feared God and did not do so and lied to Pharoah about it. So the children of Israel multipled all the more.

Then a man of the tribe of Levi married a Levite woman and she bore him a son. But because she feared the Egyptians she placed him in a basket covered with pitch and placed the basket among the reeds of the Nile River. It so happened that the daughter of Pharoah came with her maidservants to bathe in the river where she spotted the basket with the child in it. She took pity on him and decided to resuce him. But she could not nurse him.

So she sent her maidservant to bring her one of the Hebrew women for she perceived that the babe was one of the Hebrews’ children. The maidservant brought a lady, but not just any lady. Unbeknowst to herself, as far as we know, the maidservant brought the child’s own mother. Pharoah’s daughter gave the child to his  mother so that she might nurse him until such time that he could come and live in Pharoah’s house.

How stunned the mother must have been! When she was summoned she may have even thought that her scheme had been found out. It would seem that God, in His purpose and foreknowledge, arranged for that child to be with his mother again during those early years. How much that must have blessed the mother. Or maybe Pharoah’s daughter somehow knew that this particular Levite woman was the mother and this was an act of mercy on her part. Either way the sovereignty of God in rescuing, protecting, and providing for Moses is clear.

And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose…What then shall we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8: 28, 31)

Josh H.

Stone of Remembrance

Setting up stones of remembrance is an idea that comes from the book of Joshua (chapter 4) when Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan river. I have learned about stones or monuments of remembrance from my pastor Herb Dean and recently I heard R.C. Sproul speak on the topic as well.

When the Israelites were preparing to cross the Jordan over into Canaan (ie. the promised land), they were ordered by God to carry the Ark of the Convenant across. The problem was the Jordan had overflowed its banks and it was going to be dangerous for them to cross. Miraculously God stopped the flow of the Jordan the moment that the feet of the men carrying the Ark touched the water. Therefore the entire Jewish company crossed the Jordan on dry land. Afterward, God commanded that a man representing each tribe should take a stone from the bed of the Jordan and when they reached their lodging place they would build a memorial with those stones. And they were told that when their children ask what the memorial means the response will be “The waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark…when it passed over Jordan.”

This same type of memorial can and should be erected in a spiritual sense in the lives of new convenant believers. One such stone of remembrance that may be erected in one’s memory is the day you were saved. I can remember the day (or evening rather) that I was born again. It was when I attended a worship service at the Middle Georgia College BSU when I was taking classes there. In one fell swoop during a time of worship, prayer, and introspection, the Holy Spirit revealed that “walking of the aisle” I undertook in 9th grade was a farce and that I had done it because my peers in youth group did it (more particularly a girl I liked did it–lame). Since that time I had zero, ZERO, evidences in my life that I was a Christian.

However after that evening at BSU, I knew I was different. I didn’t suddenly become perfect or turn into the second coming of St. Augustine or anything. But I knew I was different and that something had happened to me. That is a moment in time when I can look back and say “God truly spoke to me. Regardless the whirlwind my life may be in the present, or how silent He seems to be now, God spoke to me in my hour of greatest need, namely when I realized I was a doomed sinner.”

I hope that 2009 will bring more opportunities for you to erect memorials of what the Lord is doing so that at some future time you will find comfort in the memory or be able to instruct others out of your experiences with God.

Josh H.