And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.
The question then becomes, is Luke saying that after Jesus is blessed by Simeon and Anna that they went to Nazareth and that was it? Is he saying that there was no fleeing to Egypt, no wisemen, no confrontation with Herod?
There needs to be some considerations before we begin this discussion.
1. If my memory serves me correctly, a typical scroll of this time period was about 40 feet long. The characters were fairly large, so that 40 feet isn't quite as large as it would seem to us. We are used to Word Documents that are endless, but all writers of the time period knew that there was a time when their space ran out. So Luke and Matthew had only a limited amount of space to write about Jesus' entire life. That is why there is a 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, etc. They could not fit on one scroll. The Psalms were not kept together on one scroll, but a collection of them, others in similar fashion.
2. A comparison of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke show the following: (click the picture for a readable size).
It is interesting that Luke and Matthew do not mirror one another's telling of the story of Jesus' birth, though their gospels mirror one another a lot. The gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often called the "Synoptic Gospels" because of the stories that are contained within each one of them.
It is hard then to make the case for either one of them being a rogue gospel, since there are so many similarities between them. Matthew and Luke were written, as each of the gospels were, to be "stand alone" gospels. They needed no other gospel to communicate the message of Jesus to people.
HOWEVER, it seems likely that Luke knew of Matthew's gospel, and the perspective that is told of Jesus' birth in it. The birth narrative is very important, but it is Jesus' adult ministry that really teaches and shows and clarifies who He is, why He came, and what that means and calls mankind to do.
3. So, the assumption can be made, and it is an assumption, that at least Luke perhaps knew of the narrative in Matthew, and that is why on the birth narrative he told the other perspective of what happens (from Mary's perspective). Matthew's birth narrative is almost entirely Joseph, Mary is a supporting character. The opposite is true in Luke, even the genealogy in Luke 3 is Mary's (as Luke notes that Joseph was only "thought" to be Jesus' father, then the next male back that Jesus was descended from was Heli (Mary's father), so he is listed next - compare the genealogy in Matthew 1 and you will see that Joseph's father is listed there, and it is not Heli. Matthew is examining Joseph's line as an affirmation of Joseph's role in Jesus' life, but not claiming true fatherhood in a DNA sense).
So, then...
The question becomes, what does Luke mean when he gives verse 39. At first glance it seems to indicate that when Jesus was 8 days old and had fulfilled the law of the Lord at the temple, everyone went home and hung out until Jesus was 12.
I don't think that this is a contradiction, I simply think that Luke doesn't deal with the other things because he has limited space, and Matthew has dealt with it already. In Eusebius' History of the Church (dated about 312 AD) it is mentioned that when John wrote his gospel, he did so wanting to tell the story of things that were not mentioned in the other gospels that he had read, and had access to. John ends his gospel by saying "and Jesus did many more things as well, I suppose that if they were all written down that the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
And so we have to recognize, in our world that demands to have the loose ends tied together, that we do not know for sure the order that things happened even with all of the Scripture written about Jesus' birth and early life being correct and systematic (connecting and complimentary).
- Jesus could have been circumcised, headed back to Galilee with them, and for unforeseen circumstances that we aren't told about, they moved back to Bethlehem so that the wisemen would find them so close to Jerusalem, and prophecy could be fulfilled, and then the flight to Egypt would occur.
- As Luke refers to the "Law of the Lord" in verse 39 he could be referring to the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by the flight to Egypt and return along with the circumcision at the temple, though he does not mention them.
- a lot of other possibilities are there as well. But I hope that this helps you as you look at these Scriptures to take a bigger approach then simply thinking, "well I guess that doesn't fit, one of these is wrong." While the Bible is accurate historically, its goal is not simply connecting details for us, it is the story and message of Christ, that was given in a time when 600 page histories were not written by just anyone. Can you imagine trying to be people of faith if the life of Christ was given in a 12 volume encyclopedia set? We'll know all the details one day, but for now "only as in a mirror dimly" (I Cor 13:12).
Sunday we looked at two topics not completely removed from one another, both in essence are the same thing, with the same goals in the end. I would love any comments or additions to this in the comments section below, if anyone wants to add anything. Let's unload what we looked at.
First, the two positions:
Atheism - fairly straight-up, men like Dawkins, whose book is pictured, who would claim that there is no God, god, or gods, or any beings supernatural. Any need for intelligent design in creation could have been performed by alien beings long ago, or ooze on the back of crystals (see Xpelled with Ben Stein). Therefore morality is a human invention, which is necessary, but ultimately there is no sort of judgment or anything else where people are held accountable for what they have done (obviously).
Agnosticism - this can mean different things to different people who call themselves this, but in the end it goes something like this: there may be a god(s), probably not the Biblical God, but perhaps a greater design or being somewhere. However, he hasn't revealed himself to us, so we shouldn't worry too much about him. Morality, judgment, heaven, and hell, probably don't exist, but if they do, I'm sure everyone as good as me or better will get in to heaven. All faiths then are mostly human by invention, but none can be put above another. I need not concern myself with my soul, in a real sense, because who can know what to do for sure.
Now let's get a little broader perspective:
Agnosticism finds its roots in EnlightenmentDeism. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and some other early intellectual American colonists were part of this belief system, and it is about 3 inches different than agnosticism. The Classic Deist would say that YHWH (Yahweh) created the world and set it spinning and that was it. It is impossible to know Him, and He doesn't want to really know you. Jesus was a great man, he wasn't God, he wasn't a Savior.
Jefferson formed his own Bible by going through and cutting out all the things that he didn't agree with (not kidding). Mostly all the things that dealt with prophecy, Jesus' divinity, miracles and other supernatural thinking, God's communication with mankind, and anything that just didn't seem to work. You can imagine how small the Bible was that he was left with!
Deism was actually the fruit of slavery in one sense, I know that seems ridiculous, but it really was. These rich white men who should have had to earn a living instead spent much of their youth and young adult lives on their own pursuits, making money off of slave labor. (If you look at a cross section of colonial deism, it was almost completely made up of wealthy and/or intellectual white people). They poured themselves into John Locke, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and others. All of the sudden they FELT more intelligent than anyone around them, and because they FELT that way, they now became the authority on ultimate truth in their own minds, because of their pride.
Sunday we read Romans 1 as we looked at these topics; read it and see what Paul says as he talked about people who "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" and "their thinking became futility." That no men get to atheism naturally, instead they shut God out of their minds and hearts. They exchange His authority, for their own authority.
Where do these belief systems come from?
There is one thing that makes it possible to move from a Deist to an atheist - Darwinist evolutionary theory in its classical sense. (To clarify, there are those who hold to certain elements of evolutionary theory, but still see a Creator in the midst of the process, that is not what I am talking about).
The reason a Deist couldn't be an atheist, even though he practically was by the way he lived, was that Creation had to have a Creator. Darwin was the first person to lay out a theory that everyone bought where there was no longer a Creator necessary. In that sense, a true atheist has only existed for that last 150 years or so. Before that point, even if someone was a practical atheist, (they didn't live like there was a god, or they didn't trouble themselves with the specifics) they had to acknowledge that someone or something created the cosmos. The need was not there anymore with Darwinian theory.
Okay, enough of the theories, what does this mean to me?
Most of the time, the agnostic/atheist person came to their belief system in one of these ways:
-They have no TRUE knowledge of Christianity (i.e. the Gospel). Everything they know about Christianity has to do with morality (hypocrisy in their mind), perceived ignorance (think how Christians are shown in media outlets), political stances (Evangelical Christianity as Highly Conservative, or Liberal Denominations as Socially Driven), and the list could go on and on. They have never heard the gospel in its true sense, but they have prepared arguments over a lot of things.
- They were burned by someone or something tied to the church. This can be legitimate or illegitimate, but it doesn't matter to them. They cast Jesus off completely, because of what Brother Bill did to them.
- They view Christianity as primitive and themselves as enlightened. This is especially seen in these forms: My parents and their beliefs are stupid, I am smart. My hometown is small and ignorant, My college/new life is part of the enlightened bigger picture. I was sheltered as a child, so I must have been fed propaganda, now I am being exposed to all sorts of truth, and so this must be more legitimate, or at least since there is so much truth, there can't just be one truth. NOTICE: in none of these scenarios has the gospel been dealt with, only their situations. BUT, this is the most common thing that I have dealt with in people of the Atheist/Agnostic framework.
- They are in love with themselves and their own thinking. They literally would rather stay in the sinking lifeboat cause they built it, and they have much confidence in themselves as the ultimate authority.
When I talk to someone who is an atheist or an agnostic, there are several things that I try to remember:
There is a time for intellectual debate, especially when someone wants to just view you as an ignorant putz who has never dealt with tough questions, or gotten outside their hometown. However, debate will only get you so far, and in the end will only hurt your cause with many atheist/agnosticfolks.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. When I talk to someone who is an atheist I take a little bit of time dealing with logic, science, historiography, or whatever, and try to keep prying them with conscience questions, and questions about their own position before God. If you haven't gotten a chance to listen to Judson's story yet, do it; it's in the previous blog. He was a deist, who came to faith listening to a dying man. The words that kept ringing in his head were "death, hell, death, hell."
I truly believe that God will use those words to haunt an atheist/agnostic if the gospel is presented to them in love and truth, in a way that they know it's God or nothing. At some point, somewhere, they are going to have to shut those words out of their mind as best they can, or deal with them before God. It's probably going to happen when they are alone, in thought, before God in the dark, not in an intellectual debate.
I try to present my beliefs as much as I can in asking questions (when it fits). The person who asks the questions controls the conversation. In my conversations with atheists/agnostics this fall, I have tried to simply deal with "what happens when you die?" type questions. Not because I am trying to scare them, but because they need to realize that their thinking is not a game, and this is serious.
I want them to unload their thinking and they themselves hear how it sounds out loud, (sometimes that makes a huge difference in them) and then answer the question that they will never have to stand before an ultimate authority and be judged based on His standards. I also want them to take full responsibility that it is their own thinking they are placing trust in. If it is someone I know, if I can do this the first time, the conversation is done, and I let it stew for a while before bringing it back up again. God deals with their heart, not me or you.
So I hope this has been helpful, I would love any thoughts you guys might have! God bless you all!
The first American missionaries were Adoniram and Ann (Nancy) Judson. They were missionaries to Burma, and went through unimaginable pain and loss for the sake of spreading the message of Jesus.
I was able to give their story last Sunday night, and below is the audio from that night. This is not a sermon, it is simply their story, and it is worth listening to. If you are interested at all in missions or just hearing stories of great believers, don't miss this. I encourage you to drop this on your IPOD or whatever, and listen to it when you have 45 minutes or so. Just click below, you are welcome to redistribute this as much as you like.
In Shakespeare's play Hamlet, there is a central scene where the famous "To Be or Not to Be" monologue takes place. Hamlet is wrestling with the full picture of life, death, and in that he is wrestling in the end with the futility of all efforts.
For some, the nature of what we have talked about for the last few weeks could make the same impression on them if taken wrongly. In the big picture, God is in control, and our lives and existence are anything but futile. If anything, the Sovereignty of God gives us confidence in the future and the goodness of what is in store for His people.
For the last few weeks we have been looking at the questions surrounding buzzwords like "predestination" "Calvinism" "Arminianism" and many others. If you missed it, you missed it. But I will try to add in the substance of some of what we looked at.
The Tulip outline is outlined in a previous entry more fully, so check that out if you don't know what I am talking about. We tried to look at several of the points from a Biblical point of view. In the midst of 3 of the points - irresistible grace, limited atonement, and unconditional election we sort of skated on top of the ocean of depth that could be developed in these arguments. Here are some of the highlights.
Limited Atonement
With limited atonement, it seemed that we all affirmed that in the end, no matter what our stance on the current situation, Christ will have only paid for those who believe in the sense that they are the only ones to "cash in" on the atoning work that has been done. Limited atonement from a Classical Calvinist perspective makes logical sense (however it is unclear whether Calvin himself even held to this doctrine). So Calvin's students came to this conclusion from a logical and not necessarily a Scriptural standpoint.
Scripture states several times that Christ died for all men (though it is not necessarily true to apply that "all" to every human being, often in context when the Bible says "all" it is speaking of a certain group. For example, if I was to say at the beginning of class on Sunday "all are here, let's start." That doesn't mean that everyone on earth is there, simply the expected group). Still, the argument gets very problematic when sinners not atoned for have a case before God that Christ's blood was not available for them. Also, what does our evangelism become when we start having to say "Christ died for you!...I hope, at least"
We need to recognize though, that without a doubt, Christ knew the sins and the sinners he was dying for by name. Would God needlessly burden His Son with the sins of those who would not accept Him? The question is worth posing. At the same time though, it is hard to imagine the greatest sacrifice in eternal history just not quite being sufficient for some, that somehow there is not enough atonement left for everyone.
Unconditional Election
What cannot be argued is that there is no election, or predestining. Numerous times (Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John's gospel in numerous places, others as well) God's electing purpose is clear. The breakdown is what election fully entails.
Classic Calvinist - God has chosen who will come to Him, and who will not. When He created them, some were objects of grace, and others were objects of wrath (Romans 9). He has a right to do so, and His will is perfect. He not only foreknew who would be saved, but he draws them, woos them, bestows faith and repentance upon them, and completes the work of salvation completely on His own, for His glory, and this has been His intent for His elect since the beginning.
Sovereignty in Foreknowledge Argument (SFA) (I made this term up) - Many, especially in Baptist circles would argue that election is strictly a foreknowledge, and not a "choosing" in the strictest sense. This becomes problematic when it is noted that God created a being with knowledge of whether they would reject or accept Him, because to some that would seem that in essence He is choosing by simply creating with foreknowledge. The SFA though would say that God is loving because in that creation He maintains a person's free will, even though He knows their destiny.
There are so many further discussions in this, but I will stop at this point.
Irresistible Grace
The Classic Calvinist would say that God must make grace irresistible, because man is so depraved He would never accept it, no matter what. God must take His heart all the way to salvation. This would definitely hold weight in one sense, because we know how wicked the human heart is. There is no doubt for all of us, that salvation is not completely an act of man just deciding that a relationship with God sounds good.
Others would find it problematic though, to say that, while God draws, calls, and moves in people's hearts that He is the one who would bestow salvation on them apart from any will of their own. In Matthew, as Jesus weeps over the people of Jerusalem, saying he longed to gather them to Himself, but they were not willing, he seems to indicate that there is a part that human will plays in the process.
At the same time we see language like "Their eyes were opened" in Luke 24 speaking of the men on the road to Emmaus (though it could be argued that this is speaking solely of their physical ability to recognize Jesus, not what is taking place in their hearts. I would not fully agree with that though). In Acts 16, it is unmistakeable that in Lydia's heart the Scripture says that "The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things being said." Even there though, the text says that her heart was opened so that she could respond. There is a good deal of room for arguing on this one.
All of us would without a doubt say that God plays the biggest role in our salvation. He draws, calls, that He has to teach us faith and repentance in the least. Some would say that faith and repentance are also gifts that He must bestow, because we can't come to them on our own. I think that argument makes sense as well, but each scenario shows that they are not something our minds naturally come to.
To be fair to the Classic Calvinist as well, as we mentioned in class, irresistible grace is something that is not God dragging someone kicking and screaming into heaven. Instead it is the natural reaction of a human being under the saving power of God. Who of us could or would resist God when He begins to reveal Himself to us. Even Paul on the Damascus road didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming through the Mediterranean world after meeting Jesus, He was not only saved, but changed. Did he truly have any power to resist, or is the better question 'would anyone resist after being met by God in such a way?'
Other things of Note:
Hypercalvinism - this is a buzz word thrown around by many, and it could mean any number of things. It doesn't refer to people who hold to the Tulip doctrine, though many use it that way. Hypercalvinism is simply "disfunctional, unBiblical" ideas on election, etc. Some examples:
- The person who says evangelism is unnecessary because God is electing, and we don't need to be involved in it. That is in direct conflict with Scripture (Romans 10, Acts 1, many others). This person would be a Hypercalvinist, because His wrong views on election have made him passive, lazy, and unconcerned about what Scripture clearly calls people to.
- The person who views God's sovereignty having taken man's complete free will away. God has ordained how much toothpaste will be on my brush this morning for example. Most Calvinists would see there being unbreakable boundaries in God's sovereignty, but that God has not robotized people in such a way that every action is his working not ours. That's not to say that there aren't many little things that God has ordained. If His plan for me does not include me dying today, then I am not free to choke on my toothpaste.
Open Theism - Jared brought this doctrine up, and I think it is very helpful also to look at. In one sense, we could call this Hyper-Arminianism. That God doesn't have a sovereign plan, He just rethinks things based on the decisions we make. This is problematic for a number of reasons, that I don't think I need to go into. We would all be certain that what is written in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation are not "What could be if everything goes as planned" but instead "what will be."
Final Word
These are all issues that if we are not careful we try to "out-think God" on. We will be left with uncertainty in some way shape or form, and have to trust God. There is no doubt that He plays the largest role in the universe, and in our hearts as well.
Any arguments you are going to form on these issues must come from Scripture primarily, and logic second. Statements like "God's not like that" or "God wouldn't do that" don't mean anything if they aren't backed up by Scripture. Job's friends had ideas about the nature of God as well, and God was left saying "where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?" He would ask the same of us when we get too arrogant about our knowledge of Him.
If anyone would like to hear a GREAT lecture on this from two different Southern Baptist Seminary presidents - one what I would call an SFA (see above) - Paige Patterson, and the other a 5 point Calvinist (Al Mohler). Both are men that I highly respect. Click the link below for a copy of it, it is worth listening to:
The Sovereignty of God, and Man's Free Will are the subject of the next few weeks of Sunday School. I hope you guys can make it in, this will be good stuff to bring in something to jot some stuff down on. We began already, with a sort of introduction, so I will go ahead and mention a few things.
The first is that this study will no doubt present a few different ideas, and their teaching in Scripture, but may or may not leave many people with different viewpoints. Welcome to the debate.
The Question is this: Is salvation an act completely of God, partially of God and partially of man, or completely of man?
We tried to outline two of the most popular viewpoints - Arminianism, and traditional Calvinism (or Reformed Theology, Doctrines of Grace, etc).
The Arminian view would go like this:
- Salvation is an act of man, where he is free in his will, because God is just and gives people freedom, and a person is free to respond or reject the gospel. That is why the Scriptures say that we "persuade men" to repentance and belief in Christ. - It is unjust that God would predestine some to damnation and others to heaven. - God can only hold men accountable for their rejection of Him if they are free to do so. - Missions then is the work of man, aided by God, but without the work of men it fails. - Man has the right to choose, fully and freely. - Scriptural evidence - The Garden of Eden, God's wrath against those who make wrong decisions in Scripture, The doctrines in Scripture regarding God "desiring that all men might come to repentance." Joshua telling the people of Israel - "Choose you this day whom you will serve." The Great Commission as a commission given to man to accomplish God's work.
The Calvinist view is a little more involved, and traditionally goes like this:
This is usually given in the acrostic TULIP.
T - Total Depravity - People are lost in their sins, they are totally depraved. They are SO lost that repentance and faith are impossible for them, and apart from God drawing them and bestowing faith upon them, they cannot be saved. "There is none who seek God, no not one" as it is given in Isaiah.
U - Unconditional Election - God has predestined some to repentance and saving faith and others to damnation apart from Him. God's sovereign election is man's only hope, and so in his mercy He has brought a group from mankind to be saved. This electing is unconditional, it is not based on anything but His divine purpose. Romans 9, Ephesians 1, other places that specifically use the terms elect(ion), predestined.
L - Limited Atonement - Christ died only for the elect. That Christ's saving grace was so specific and personal, that the atonement (the payment for our sins) was done only for those who were predestined to come to faith. There was no need for a Sovereign God to place the sins of those who would reject the gospel (whom He had not predestined) on His Son. Scriptural Evidence - not really much, this is mostly a logical conclusion that may or may not have been held by Calvin, but was held by His followers.
I - Irresistible Grace - God's wooing and drawing of the persons that He has predestined is irresistible. This doesn't mean that people are dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, it simply means that God's work in a person's heart will undoubtedly bring them to a genuine faith. Man could not and would not resist Him. Scriptural Evidence - Jesus talking about "calling", and that those whom the Father has given Him will hear his voice and follow Him. Others as well, that don't come to mind right now.
P - Perseverance of the Saints - This is undoubtedly the easiest for many from varied viewpoints on predestination to accept. Salvation is once and for all. The true believer WILL persevere in the faith, because He who began a good work in you WILL be faithful to complete it. You cannot lose your salvation, but the fruit of your life is the mark of salvation. All who are genuine believers will persevere in the faith until the end (this does not mean sinlessness, or some sort of legalism, it simply means Christians while dealing with their flesh will grow in their relationship with Christ as a mark of the work that has been done in their heart). Scriptural Evidence - John 10, 1 John (all of it), James, Romans 6, etc.
We spent one week talking about this, and I ended up speaking on it. This is the transcript from the sermon I gave this Sunday, and I hope it is helpful to you. If you would rather listen to it, you can find it on the Chrysalis page from www.firstbaptistwelcome.org. For an even more in depth look at this question you can see the transcript from a sermon by John Piper, called "When is Saving Faith Impossible?
Over the last few weeks it seems like I have had so many different conversations with people about this subject, and there have been several that have really had questions on whether or not we can take assurance that “eternal security” is really true. What I mean by eternal security, is whether or not someone who comes to genuine faith in Jesus Christ and is saved can then lose their salvation.
That is an honest question from honest people, and I wanted to take this Sunday morning to teach on this subject that is important for us to understand. We will be in the book of Hebrews today, looking at the passage that is most often used as evidence that it is possible to fall away from the faith.
But before we do that, I want to begin with a story.I’ve told this story before in another sermon a few months back, but the reason that this is important is that regardless of what we say about the Scriptures this morning, the real hindrance is going to be in some of your minds regarding people you know. What I mean by that is that typically a discussion on what the Bible says about eternal security with someone who doesn’t believe in it ends like this – “well, you don’t understand, there’s this guy that I know…” Because that is how we think sometimes, very practically."There is someone I know that used to do great things for God, or really seemed to love God, or whatever, and now he doesn’t want anything to do with God."
Well, I can sympathize with you in some ways, and I don’t want anybody you know to be a stumbling block to you, so I am going to tell you the story of someone who beats them all. And the reason for that is that we don’t base our beliefs about God and about salvation based on our personal experience and lives, we base it on the word of God alone. So what the Bible says when it comes to salvation is more important by far than our life experiences. The teaching we are going to look at today is serious, and it isn’t going to be a “don’t worry, we’re all okay” look at the word of God. Instead, it is going to be a sober reminder that with salvation there is fruit in our life, without it there are thorns and bristles.
In the early part of the 20th century, the 1930s and 1940s there were two men who were part of the beginning of a huge revival, especially among teenagers, from an organization called Youth for Christ. The man that was seen as the leader and the main guy, was this man Charles Templeton. He could preach the lights out. He gave gospel presentations that were clear and accurate.He called sinful people to repentance. In the crusades that he was involved in, overall, thousands of people came to faith in Christ. Many were beginning to see him as the next great revival preacher.There had been Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and now Charles Templeton.
But one day Templeton saw a picture of a woman in a magazine who had just lost her baby boy, and she was distraught.
He decided then and there that there could not be a God, because a loving God would not do something like that to a person.
He left his position as an evangelist; he walked away from Youth for Christ. He totally left the faith even, and became an atheist.He even wrote a book later in life called A Farewell to God. He became a sportscaster, went through several marriages, received some recognition in various jobs because of his rhetorical skills. And he lived the next 50 odd years of his life, having totally walked away from God. Youth For Christ, which he walked away from was left under the care of another man who wasn’t as skilled as Charles was, and people said it would never work because of the man’s hopeless Southern accent, and his lack of flair.
That man’s name was Billy Graham, and don’t worry about him, he did okay. Not because he was as good of a speaker, or as talented, but because his faith was genuine, and because his faith was genuine he was a man of integrity and humility, and a man who leaned on Christ.And God blessed his ministry more after Charles was gone, than he had even when the great orator was there.
We are not saved by works, we are saved by faith and the grace of Jesus Christ bestowed upon us when we come to him in repentance and are born again.Charles Templeton had a longer list of works and accomplishments for the kingdom than you or I may ever achieve.Many around him would have said that his faith and love for Christ seemed very genuine. But God is the author of the heart, and time proved that Charles may have been emotionally involved, passionate, caring, knowledgeable about the things of God – but none of those things were saving faith.
And so today we look at a greater authority than any man’s life, the word of God.I hope you take notes today, this is important.If you don’t have a way to do that, underline or write in the margins of your Bible.This is one of the most common questions among people, and we need solid Biblical answers, not our own beliefs.
The Scripture this morning is Hebrews 6:4-8, I invite you to turn with me there this morning.
There is something that we need to establish this morning before we even delve into this topic.
1. If the Bible is the Word of God, all of it is true, which means it affirms the same teaching.
2. If Hebrews teaches the opposite of what Jesus taught, or that John writes, or even what the book of Hebrews says in other places or whatever, than either one of them is a liar, or all of them are liars, or we don’t have a correct understanding of what they are saying. So if we know something clearly from several places in Scripture, including elsewhere in the book of Hebrews, than we need to examine this passage in that light.
The book of Hebrews is a very serious book, and it gives warnings against having a misunderstanding of faith.God would rather have you uncomfortable with the truth than happy and content and believing a lie.
So let’s look at this passage:
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance,
How can it be impossible for someone to come to repentance?Let’s look at this:
This passage is talking about someone who has experienced the following: Enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift (Holy Spirit), made partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come. This is not a person who has come to faith in Jesus Christ, it is someone who has been around it, possibly for a long time. Enlightened by the teaching of the gospel. Tasted of the heavenly gift and been made a partaker of the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean being given the Holy Spirit in salvation, the author is talking about sensing the nudging of the Holy Spirit, and being surrounded by the work of the Holy Spirit.Maybe even surrounded by religious things in which the spirit is at work.
Imagine the people of Paul’s day who were witnessing miracles and works of the Spirit, they were partaking of the work of the Spirit, but they did not have the Holy Spirit. Someone who is religious and lives a good life, and is moral, and involved in church and ministry, may be around the work of the Holy Spirit, Templeton sure was, and he had tasted of what the Holy Spirit could do. They have tasted the word of God and the gospel, they have heard the truth of Scripture and the teaching on eternity and the coming judgment. The text is saying that once that person has walked away, or fallen away from the faith, it is impossible to bring them back to repentance.
Now it is important to note that the Greek that is being used here is in hyperbole, it could also be translated “it is extremely difficult.”That it cannot be done by human means. Jesus says the same thing when the rich man walks away from him and he remarks about how hard it is for the rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. But Jesus ends his statement by saying “what is impossible with man is possible with God.”
There is hope and incredible seriousness here about the state of someone’s heart towards the gospel.
And so the writer of Hebrews gives a warning that it is very, very, very difficult to bring this person to repentance, that it is just about impossible. Why is it impossible?Well for two reasons:
Number 1 – you can’t recreate what never happened the first time.
Number 2 – What is there left for drawing this person to salvation?
They have tasted the work of the Holy Spirit, his nudging towards repentance, the truth of the gospel, the truth of eternity and judgment and they have walked away. What else is there to show them or teach them? It is never the case that someone who comes to God in genuine repentance is turned away; never.Hebrews 12:16-17 sheds light on this when it talks about Esau – “he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.”
Our hearts get hardened, the person that the writer is talking about is someone whose heart is hardened by his rejection of the truth, and a repentant heart is something that he is quickly losing.
Understand that it never leaves anyone unscarred to have so many chances at true salvation and to walk away. It will be a much greater work that God must do in that person’s heart, than even in the heart of someone who has never heard the gospel. That’s what the writer means when he says that they “again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.”
The text is not saying there is not enough grace for them, after what they have done, so Christ would have to die again to pay for them, which he won’t do. That is how this verse gets understood by so many, and I can see why it may be easy to take it that way, but you cannot believe any of the teaching on salvation and God’s grace, and Christ’s work on the cross in the Scriptures and believe that. This text is talking about someone who has seen for themselves the truth of the gospel, and the work of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrifice made for sins by Christ, and decides that it is really not for them.
To show that kind of rejection towards Christ, is as grievous of an act as if we were to decide to crucify him all over again. God sent his Son into the world to die a horrible death and be raised again so that you might have life and be saved from your sin, and live eternally.To reach an understanding of the truth of that, and then decide that you would rather just live your own life without Christ is as wretched as if you found Christ and nailed him to the cross all over again.
When someone who has been enlightened, and tasted the work of the Holy Spirit, and the truth of the gospel, and the power of God and the message of eternity decides that it just isn’t good enough for them and they would rather have the world in essence they are saying “I agree with the people who crucified Christ – let’s get rid of Him.”
The writer closes these verses with an illustration involving two sections of ground. If this were a passage of Scripture talking about someone losing their salvation, it would go like this: "There was one section of ground, it had lots of fruit and vegetation, but then it got overgrown by thorns and bristles and wasn’t any good anymore." That is not what it says, there are two sections of ground, both have drunk the rain, both are going to yield a crop.
Jesus says this truth numerous times in the Scripture – you will know them by their fruit.That either the fruit of the Spirit grows in them, and their faith grows, or the thorns of this world and of sin choke everything else out.
Some of you have known folks that for a while it looked like there was some good fruit on the way, and it looked rich and wonderful, but in the end it wasn’t fruit, but their life instead yielded thorns.
Now, while we have time, let’s look at the teaching of Scripture that we need to supplement this passage:
First – 1 John 2:19 – John is writing to believers who no doubt are asking this same question.There are folks who were once with us, some of them really great folks, but they have totally walked away from God, what does that mean?
John writes – “They went out from us, but they were never really of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us, but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”
What happens in our lives is a testament to what happened in our hearts, and if we ever came to faith at all. Now I want to establish a couple of truths – we are not sovereign over any one else’s soul, God is.We don’t have final authority over whether anyone is saved or not, God does. We will all struggle, and go through seasons that are hard.
John has written already to these believers that they will sin, and when they do that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.They can take hope in that. But as John writes to believers, he speaks with clarity in his whole letter that when we know Christ, our lives will be different. Be afraid when you look just like, act just like, talk just like, walk just like the world.That is not the mark of a believer. When you desire and long for the things of this world, and not the things of Christ, be afraid, that is not the mark of a believer. When you love yourself, and you want yourself to be the ultimate authority, be afraid, that is not the mark of a believer.
It is the instinct of a believer to run to Christ not away from Him when trouble comes.It is the instinct of a believer to desire after the things of God, not just seek to serve Himself. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer for him to be convicted in his sin, and in his feelings of unworthiness to be reminded of the cross of Christ and the payment made for Him, and to come to God in repentance again and again.
John is not talking about people cleaning up their act, he is talking about the effects of whether or not salvation ever occurred in the first place.Their going out from us, shows that in the beginning, they were never of us.
Jesus, in John 10:26-30 says this “you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my Hand.My Father who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.I and the Father are one.”
Listen to the promises of that passage that Jesus gives: First – You don’t believe because you are not My sheep.My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow Me. There are no shoulds, coulds, or maybes in this passage. The Pharisees don’t really know Jesus, they have been around him, they have seen the great things He has done. They have never bowed their knees to Him and accepted the truth of who He is.
Jesus makes several remarks about the people who know Him though – They believe, they hear His voice, that He knows them, and that they follow Him. Following Him is not what makes them a believer, it is the result of what happens when they are a believer. Jesus doesn’t say they will follow me if they find the right church, or they will follow me if all of their life circumstances turn out just right, or they will follow me because I will always make it easy for them. He says they are my sheep, that is why they follow Me.
Second – I give them eternal life, they will never perish, no one will snatch them out of my Hand.My Father is greater than all, no one is able to snatch them from His hand.How can you be sure?Because I and the Father are One. My grandfather always liked to say – “How can you have temporary eternal life?” To think that God would give eternal life and then take it away is not valid and it’s not Scriptural:
Jesus says I give them eternal life, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. No one, not even themselves.
God’s grace is enough and it is something that we have received if we have believed in Him and come in repentance accepting Him, and it is not of works so that no man can boast, none of us have earned it.
If we cannot gain salvation, by our own merit, how can we lose salvation by our own merit?
Christ’s promise is true, they are mine and they are yours if we have believed in Him. And so today the question that you need to examine with much seriousness is the state of our hearts and those we know and love.
Jesus gives a parable of two men who built a house: one man built a house that was very nice, and gave the appearance of a great house, but it had been built upon the sand.The winds and rain came and beat against that house and it fell with a great crash.But another man built his house upon the rock, and when the winds and the rain came and beat against that house, and the house stood firm, because it was built upon the rock.
If the house has collapsed, it is because it was never built on the rock of Jesus Christ to begin with. So the question you must ask yourself is “is your soul built upon the Rock of Christ or something else?” Salvation is found through believing in Jesus Christ and the work that He has done, His death and resurrection, that it was for you and for your sins that he bled and died, and bowing the knee of your heart before Him and accepting the free gift he offers of eternal life and a changed soul, and that He has taken the judgment you deserve.
When we have believed in that and accepted that, our souls are held forever in His hands, and no one can take them, not even you, from Him. And as we look at today, the warning for us is that the longer you run from a real relationship with Christ, the further you get from repentance.You don’t need rituals, or works, you need to bow your knees and your life before Him. For believers take comfort in the promises of God.For anyone who would come to Christ this morning, this is your time.
This is a follow up post, after talking about these things in Sunday School. Here are things that we are all recognizing even this early:
1. We are going to walk out of some weeks of this class thinking different things than one another, and not necessarily in agreement with one another, and that's to be expected.
2. In most things there are positives and negatives, and different perspectives.
Following SS on Sep 27, this is what we came up with concerning specifically talking about the means that Derek uses to address big issues, the churches stance on these issues, and the message that was intended by him in the first place.
Positives:
- At least it gets folks talking about these issues. Perhaps a dialogue that would not have taken place in the same form without this song.
- To some, he seemed to be encouraging love without hatred filled condemnation.
- To some, he seemed to be offering something for people in alternate lifestyles other than their perception of how evangelicals feel about them.
- He tries to emphasize the issue of missions and social justice needed by the church in and to the world.
- He spoke out against legalism.
- He reminds believers that all sin is equal in God's sight, and that all are stained with it.
- He reminds believers that there are no sins that are past God's grace, or that are condemning in the eyes of God once and for all, as if there are those who have committed sins that are past forgiveness.
Negatives
- To some, it seemed that an imitation of Christ was Derek's prerogative in the way the message was conveyed (profanity, etc.).
- To some, Derek seemed arrogant and/or self righteous with the way that his song came across.
- To some it was unclear whether Derek's message was "stop mistreating homosexual people" or "stop believing that homosexuality is wrong."
- To at least me, it still seems that Derek is implying that any discussion on this issue is detracting away from the mission of the church, and so we should not worry about it if we care about the thousands who are dying because we are discussing this.
- To some, it seemed that this was not the way to start dialogue among believers. Derek could have taken different steps.
We all agreed that:
- We are called to all people, the gospel is for all people, and that God is available to all people.
- The clear teaching of Scripture is that homosexual acts are against the will of God and are sin (Romans 1, etc).
- We need a mixer like Derek had in the video to make those cool sounds on our own at home.
I would invite you guys to read this lady's story, I think it is a beautiful picture of grace, and she has an amazing testimony. We will be discussing these issues more and more in the coming months, especially many of the questions that swirl around the issue of homosexuality/same sex attraction.
Some college students in our Sunday School class recently asked a question about the rights and wrongs of using profanity in Christian music and the boundaries for Christian artists, as well as the issues revolving around same sex attraction and the church. I don't think I am necessarily an authority on music, but I think the Bible is the same for all Christians. That being said, I have wanted for a couple of weeks to respond to Derek Webb's new single, and so here goes:
For anyone who knows me, you probably know that while I haven't always been a blind follower of Derek Webb, he has always been at the top of my favorite artists. I have met him numerous times, from the days with Caedmon's Call to when he began his solo career and was literally playing to 20-30 people who didn't know much about him.
So, whatever you read here, the argument back can't be that I am not familiar with Derek, how he writes, what he really means, etc. I have been listening to him for 10 years, and I can still play some of the songs he wrote 8-9 years ago and never released, but because I was a dork and in the Caedmon's Call fan club "The Guild" I got the special unreleased music.
The title of the new single that he has released is called "What Matters More." Here is a link to the new video:
Now what I write is not meant to be an attack back at Derek, or more name calling and verbal shoving. Whether or not his fans would like to admit it, we have come a long way from the early singles of Derek Webb on evangelism and the church (see his first album "She Must and Shall Go Free") to his current music writing and style. Each album of his has gotten progressively more political, and more and more the mercy that he calls for is lost in the heavier and heavier attacks and jabs he has at believers.
So, not to get too far off this subject, I want to write why I feel that this single is not just edgy or controversial, but that it is just straight up wrong. This is where I finally have heard a song of his and said "I can in no way support that."
The argument of Derek's song in summary is this - "Stop judging other forms of sexuality, instead focus on the people who are dying every day who need to hear the gospel and be helped in their daily lives." The real message of the song that I take away is this: "People are dying without the gospel because you are worrying about what the Bible says about sexuality."
So, that being said - these are my problems with the song and the stance taken by Derek Webb:
1. The argument that because the conservative churches in America are holding to the doctrine that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, they are failing the needs of the world at large and don't care, is petty and unfounded. His argument is a ridiculous notion, and Derek has no grounds for this. Ironically though, this is the major call of the modern emergent church. If you read Rob Bell long enough you will gain this kind of sense that because we are focusing on some things, we are not doing other things. The hindrance to us caring for and reaching the nations is conservative teaching and Biblical morality (not the idea that moral behavior saves us, but the idea that moral behavior is what God commands us, and those commands deserve our obedience). That is unfounded, unbiblical, and not historical in terms of Christian history.
I don't appreciate the arrogance that Derek and those who would throw up their hands and cheer at this video portray. What makes Derek think that he and his followers care more about the world at large than theologically conservative believers? The largest mission agency in the world is the International Mission Board, a fruit of the SBC, a very conservative denomination. I could name off countless missionaries who gave their lives in dark places who believed the things that Derek condemns in this video, simply because Scripture teaches them.
Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing from people who want to criticize because it makes them feel superior or not part of the guilty party. That is called self righteousness. For as much as Derek has spent his musical career teaching against it, this video in my opinion is a thesis for it (it just doesn't look the way that the modern Christian thinks it is portrayed). Making the claim that Biblical teaching is distracting from our ability to reach people is a lie, and an arrogant one at that.
2. There is no substantive argument over translation, or what certain things mean in the Bible when discussing homosexual acts as a whole. You cannot make that argument looking at Biblical language. Let's just leave the book of Leviticus out of the discussion since there are laws there that are obviously not pertaining to believers in Christ. The Greek in Romans 1 leaves no mysteries unless you are desperately clawing at trying to prove a presupposed thesis. That teaching occurs in several of Paul's letters and is backed up by Old Testament Scripture as well. I am not focusing on any kind of statement about blind condemnation for everyone who has dealt with homosexuality, I am simply saying that the argument cannot be made that the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is wrong. So, Derek's mentioning of arguing over translation is reaching at best.
3. On dealing with the profanity that Derek uses, I know that this isn't a major major major thing. But it is worth mentioning. I get questions about whether or not the Bible teaches that profanity is wrong. In my own life, I have had periods numerous times where my belief became that profanity wasn't as big of a deal, and began to throw words around that I shouldn't. God brought me out of that years ago.
But here is why I think it's worth mentioning. Ephesians 5:4 says "let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving." Paul had just previously in that chapter called the Ephesians to be imitators of Christ. With those things being said, I cannot in any way justify profanity. It never makes my case stronger, especially when trying to deal with spiritual subjects. I know that Derek's thought is probably something like "well, if you got as upset over my words as you did over people dying, something is wrong with you." There is some truth to that, but it is hard for me to feel that his speech is laced with the desires of Christ both in the teaching he espouses and in the words he uses to try to add emphasis.
*Now - so you don't think I am crazy, let me talk about the inevitable things that you are thinking:
- Don't we need to reach out more effectively? Yes. Christ went to the darkest places, and he didn't hang out with folks just to show them some love and hope they would figure out the gospel on their own. We will never help people by trying to keep the message of Scripture from them, but instead sharing it. People need the truth more than they need you to love them. I am not being harsh, I am being honest. They need our love, they really need the truth of God in Christ.
- Aren't we supposed to not judge one another? Yes. But when you look at the Greek of that word, in Matthew 7 "judge not, lest ye be judged" and following, it takes two English words to really wrap our brain around what it is talking about. Judge and condemn. We are called not to condemn people, to leave them alone to wrath, to make ourselves feel better by putting them down, to compare ourselves to them and think more of ourselves and less of them, to take joy in their fallenness. Anyone who has seen Christian web sites such as "god hates fags" dot com has seen that there are "Christians" who condemn with nothing but pure hatred. It has nothing to do with faith, love, or hope. We are not called to do that or any of the things mentioned, but we are called to love people.
That being said, our parents loved us when they pointed out our mistakes in an attempt to help us and to save us from certain things. We learn nothing from Scripture when we turn a blind eye to the world and not try to teach them what God says, not as our opinion chiefly, but simply that we believe it because God says it.
*I have lived with and embraced one person in particular who was struggling with homosexuality who we prayed with and came to us. Numerous others as well I have had friendships with, and had these discussions. I am not an experienced person in counseling or reaching out specifically to those who experience same sex attraction, but I have loved and cared for and walked with several people I care about through this very tough issue. I wanted to say that to make sure that my arguments weren't taken from a cold perspective, or someone who had never walked through these things with anybody.
*For additional reading, if anyone is interested, Randy Newman's book "Questioning Evangelism" offers great insights on dealing with many of these issues in love and truth. He dedicates an entire chapter just to this issue, and what the Bible says and what our response is. Also, for anyone that is in the college class at FBC Welcome, there is a testimony that will be in written form for you to download in the coming days on www.firstbaptistwelcome.org/college.htm from a woman who walked in this lifestyle and had much to say of it.
My wife and I were in a meeting last night where a woman opened the meeting in prayer after reading from the 23rd Psalm. She had an Amplified Bible translation so the reading went something like this:
The Lord is my shepherd, [to feed, guide, and shield me] I shall not lack.
It was then that she prayed a prayer thanking God that he wanted his children to prosper and that was His great hope for all of us.
It really struck me as to how much misunderstanding there is over what Scripture means.
The emphasis of the 23rd Psalm is that SINCE the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. Why? Because everything I could ever want has been fulfilled completely in who God is and salvation. This promise is not temporal, it is not physical. I am not in lack of want because God is here to provide everything for me. No doubt God does provide for each of us. But I am not in want because the Lord is my shepherd, he is my portion forever. There is nothing that need be added to the gospel to make it more appealing, God is the shepherd, I have no more need to want anything besides Him.
The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller - 4.5 out of 5 stars
My brother bought me this book for Christmas, and I finished it today. I actually was able to go through the entire book today, while taking notes, so you can know that it isn't a huge book. It is small and roughly 13o pages.
The story itself centers around the Prodigal Son (it is completely about the Prodigal Son). He overwhelmingly focuses on the elder son in the story.
Let's start with what I really liked about the book. Tim is very well read, and intelligent. He's a great pastor from everything I can gather at Redeemer Pres. in NYC. He brings out some great stuff in the story and is also able to add an incredible amount from stories and examples in real life.
One of his most striking points is when he discusses how the "Prodigal Son" is the only passage of the three in Luke 15 that doesn't involve someone physically being gone and retrieved, and he makes the claim that perhaps it should have been the older brother to do the retrieving. Keller argues that in a way, Jesus is how the older brother should have been - he left his glory, emptied himself and came to earth to die for the sake of all of us who were guilty while he was innocent. Now this illustration obviously is not what the Scripture says, and depending on how deep you want to go with that it could have its problems, but it still made me look at the story in a new way and with new insight. After all, God implied to Cain that he was his brother's keeper, and no doubt the elder son in Luke 15 was his brother's keeper as well.
Some of my favorite quotes in Keller's book are as follows:
-There are some traditional looking elder brothers that, as a release valve, maintain a secret life of younger brother behavior. -Elder brothers obey God to get things. They don't obey God to get God himself - in order to resemble Him, love Him, know Him, and delight him. -One of the ironies of the parable is now revealed. The younger son's flight from the father was crashingly obvious...though the older son stayed at home, he was actually more distant and more alienated...because he was blind to his true condition. -This quote by John Newton in one of his hymns was one of my favorites as well: Our pleasure and our duty, though opposite before, since we have seen his beauty, are joined to part no more.
The only negative aspect, I think, of Keller's book comes in small sections, and I think after reading the book can only be gleaned from misinterpretation. It is really hard to discuss self righteousness and distinguish between that and piety or seeking to imitate Jesus as Scripture commands. It's hard at certain times for Keller to seem like he isn't making the argument that both doing good and bad things are just as pointless. Quotes that would be dangerous by themselves are:
- (When speaking about the elder son) "it's not his wrongdoing but his righteousness that is keeping him from sharing in the feast with his Father." - well, not exactly how I would put it, and that would be dangerous if not seen in the light of what Keller really means about the elder son's righteous acts being meant to earn his Father's riches and position.
- "So religious and moral people can be avoiding Jesus as Savior and Lord as much as the younger brothers who say they don't believe in God and define right and wrong for themselves." Well, possibly, but that is also going to need a lot of explanation to what you mean by that as well.
Other than that, Keller makes a couple of claims about the points of Jesus' parable on the Lost Things that I don't find as outright wrong, but I just personally disagree with. I don't think that Jesus "is pleading not so much with immoral outsiders as with moral insiders" in these parables. I think this story has depth to offer everyone. I'm not sure that Jesus' intent was primarily directed at the Pharisees on this story as Keller suggests, though he has every right to make that assumption.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. I think you will too. This is a great book for anyone interested in the story of the Prodigal Son.
Luke 2:39 says the following:
It is interesting that Luke and Matthew do not mirror one another's telling of the story of Jesus' birth, though their gospels mirror one another a lot. The gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often called the "Synoptic Gospels" because of the stories that are contained within each one of them.
