Posts Tagged ‘Theology’

16 Jul

Conversations on Covenantalism: What is it?

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, Doctrine, Religion. Tagged: , , .

This is the second post in a little series I hope to be doing on the topic of Covenant Theology. If you have not read the first post which compares Covenant theology and dispensationalism then click here to read it.  Today we ask, what is Covenantalism/Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology focuses on one overall major covenant known as the Covenant of Redemption. This is an eternal covenant between the members of the Godhead… The Father chose a people to be His own; the Son paid the penalty for their sin; and the Holy Spirit applied the work of the Son to His Chosen People.

This Covenant of Redemption or Grace is being worked out on earth through history in subordinate covenants beginning with the Covenant of Works and culminating in the New Covenant which completes God’s work of grace to man on earth.

As God works out His Covenant of grace the following are included:

  1. The Covenant of Works                         
  2. The Adamic Covenant
  3. The Noahic Covenant
  4. The Arbahamic Covenant
  5. The Mosaic Covenant
  6. The Davidic Covenant
  7. The New Covenant

Unlike dispensationalism, Covenant Theology does not see each covenant as separate and distinct. What I am trying to say is that in Covenant Theology’s division of God’s action in history, he does not work through one covenant, end it, and then move to another covenant (or division). Rather each covenant builds on top of the previous covenant and includes some aspects of the previous ones.  All these covenants eventually culminate in the New Covenant. If you will, ‘Covenant Theology’ is much like the development of the character batman… since the beginning of the Batman in 1939 till today; some things have changed in the character of Batman. At the same time much has stayed the same and just progressed to become what we appreciate as the defender of justice in Gotham. You would notice though that he is the same hero- a detective who knows how to fight. He has always had a Batmobile, it is just more developed now; etc. In the same way what one needs to grasp of about ‘Covenantalism’ is that each Covenant builds on the previous one, and now culminates in the New Covenant.

So with all this talk about a Covenant, what is it? The usual idea of a covenant is that it is a mutual agreement between parties or persons, whereby each agrees to render some benefit to the other. Think of a marriage Covanent and all the formality around it. While a Biblical covenant has some of these characteristics this definition lacks depth in describing in detail a Biblical Covenant. For example when speaking about a covenant between God and man we have to acknowledge that such a covenant is not one between equal parties. Rather God as the greater is the author and initiator of the covenant, while man as the sinner is the responder and benefactor of God’s grace in granting a covenant.

One theologian, Palmer Robertson defines a Biblical Covenant as ‘a soverignly administered bond-in-blood which relates God and man in a life and death relationship’. The word ‘bond’ speaks of the commitment of people one to another as God and man relate and commit themselves to one another in covenant. The phrase ‘bond-in-blood’ speaks to the ultimacy and seriousness of the Covenant between the two parties. The phrase ‘sovereignly administered’ speaks of a covenant as being superintended by God and not by man, since the covenant is initiated by God. The terms are set by God, and man is not a negotiator in the arrangement but the recipient of God’s goodness and grace.

Next week we will quickly survey the Covenants briefly. We will also show why the differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are so important. This will hopefully give you a better appreciation of why issues like ‘The Lord’s Day’, ‘End Times’, ‘children’, Israel as a nation’, and ‘cultural engagement’ have become areas of contention since the advent of Dispensationalism in the 1830’s.

14 Dec

The Most Misunderstood Christian Doctrine: The Trinity

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, Doctrine, Religion. Tagged: , , , .

The Trinity is perhaps the most misunderstood doctrine in the Christian faith, possibly because it is such a uniquely Christian teaching. Therefore many cults and false religions enjoy using the trinity to attack a weak point in most Christian’s understanding. So we ask; is the idea of a trinity a contradiction while at the same time holding that there is one God? Did Jesus pray to Himself in the garden of Gethsemane, or even stranger, did Jesus descend on Himself in the form of a dove (Luke 3:22)?

So what exactly is the doctrine of the trinity? The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

It is easy to go wrong in grasping this if we do not distinguish between the terms ‘being’ (essence) and ‘person’ (individual). Most people think that the trinity means that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. These ideas are obviously illogical and if they do make a metaphysical puzzle, it is a rather bad one. Realize though, that it is a normal thing for us to regularly make distinctions between ‘being’ and ‘person’. We noticed in life that answers to what something is, and who someone is. A computer has a ‘being’ – the being of a computer, so does a CD, desk, rock, etc. However, we also recognize that there are personal attributes also. When we think about another person, we recognize both ‘what’ and ‘who’.

According to the Holy Scriptures, there are three classes of personal beings, namely; God, man anfd angels. James White in a similar article points out that personality is the ability to have emotion, will and to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak, cats are unable to think about themselves over against other and so work for the betterment of ‘cat kind’. With this in mind, grasp the doctrine that the trinity is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One what, three who’s.

This doctrine does not teach that the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Spirit etc. This is a common misunderstanding. The three Biblical doctrines that grow into the tree that is the Trinity, may be put as

1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.

2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.

3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity—that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

7 Jun

A Response to Rising Islam- Pt 2 (Better Titled: What’s Wrong with the Church Today)

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, Devotional, Doctrine. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , .

What is the problem with the church of this generation? I posed this question in my post responding to the rise of Islam. If you read that post, you will notice that Islam does not so much concern me. However, it did raise for me, the question, of the Church? Why are we not having as much of an impact as previous generations? Where are the dvtnSpurgeons, Whitefields, Luthers, Calvins, men like the apostles? Now granted, we are plagued by much heresy today, the emergent church is striking away at an entire generation, those who are a generation above are still bewildered by and getting up from the failure of the seeker-sensitive movement. Arminianism is rife, liberalism is still going. But this is no excuse, when God used men in the past, there were also many heresies and evils about.

For argument sake, let us consider, a doctrinally pure and sound church. Accurate to the letter. Why do they not experience such impact? Why do the preachers, who have all their theology worked out and their Greek Grammar down, not rock the country? Friends, I write this to myself as well. The problem is not theological (while if we let that slide, it will be a problem too, some kind of ‘holiness’ without the ground of good theology would be just as useless), the issue is holiness.

I heard a sermon recently, and these words struck me, it went something like this, “The power of the preaching of a man, will be directly proportional to the holiness of that man.” Think of it friends, Paul wrote to Timothy and said two things he should watch, “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” (1 Timothy 4:16). To your teaching (KJV

has it ‘doctrine’) and to yourself. Is it any wonder that the qualifications for pastors in both passages where the qualifications are listed, starts with holiness and its practical manifestation? Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 both start off with the qualification ‘above reproach’ or ‘blameless’, not doctrine or theology. Wiersbe explains, “This word literally means “nothing to take hold upon”; that is, there must be nothing in his life that Satan or the unsaved can take hold of to criticize or attack the church. No man living is sinless, but we must strive to be blameless, or “above reproach”[i]”

In both of those passages Paul goes on in the same verse quoted to talk about the external manifestation of holiness. How a man runs his life, and rules his family, and controls himself. I could go on writing for hours, but I feel this is already getting to long. How long do we pray for? Or do we feel it is pointless and we can do without God’s power? How long do we read the Holy Scriptures for? Or are we wise enough and equipped in and of ourselves to deal with all life should throw our way? Do we cut off our hand, and pluck out our eye when they cause us to sin? Or do we whimper in the closet and scratch a bit at our hand, keep our eye lid closed for awhile? If we truly hated sin, we would destroy that means whereby we sin, we would go without, and in want, but by no means make provision for the flesh. How often do our thoughts wonder onto senseless and futile things? As if there were no treasures above, no glories to think in Christ, but ah, we cannot think of these things since we have not been in the Word to find the jewels.

The words also struck me, that you cannot be a clown, and a prophet. Now Spurgeon was a man who had quiet a sense of humour, he was even criticized for making too many jokes, but this is not what I mean. Al Matrin points, that it is the man who always wants to make people laugh, always wants to be a joker, how can someone then take you seriously, when you want to tell them of the fires of hell, and the depravity of their nature, and the glories of the only true God, and the pre-eminence of Christ?

lbrtyI am not here hoping to solve the problem, but merely make it known, if you wish to have an impact for the world around you, then you best not worship the same idols it does. Money, riches, wealth, reputation, class, stuff, security, safety etc. Oh that we would have a tenacious fight for holiness, then we will see the world take notice, then we would ‘…save ourselves and others’

[i]Wiersbe, Warren W.: The Bible Exposition Commentary. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1989, S. 1 Ti 3:1

12 May

Matthew 24:1-3 – Olivet Discourse continued… (Part 1)

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, Doctrine, Religion. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , .

Mathew 24’s first two verses begin by describing a comment Jesus made about the incredible stones with which theLooking at the Temple from the Mount of Olives temple was made, this comment then triggered the rest of the discourse. The disciples probably thought that Christ would be impressed, as they were, by the beautiful stones, but instead He goes on to predict that this temple they admired so much was to be destroyed- Christ invites them to consider ‘all these things’  and then went on to predict the total destruction of the entire temple. The point of the discourse is to explain how these believers should continue to live godly lives amidst the troubles to come.

My intention is not to focus on the first two verses, except for my above comments. The verse which interests me and has much significance with regard to eschatology is verse 3, “As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. ‘Tell us,’ they said, ’’when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age’.(NASB)”

Both Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus was seated on the mountain; Mark says that they were opposite the temple. Most likely the view helped remind the Disciples of Christ’s words (there is a break between verse 1-2 and verse 3).  Now what I believe occurs in this text, is that the disciples ask Jesus two questions. The time when all this would happen, and what the sign of your coming and of the consummation of the age would be. It appears the disciples thought these two events to be closely connected.

Just to comment on the word ‘coming’ in ‘sign of your coming’. The word παρουσια (coming), is found four times in Matthew (v27, 37 and 39) and nowhere else in the Gospels. The term has the idea of ‘being present, presence’[i] and thus ‘coming’. The Technical Use of the Terms in Hellenic Greek was for the visit of a ruler[ii], and it becomes the usual word in the epistles for the ‘coming’ of Jesus at the end of the age. Important to note, the other Gospels have the question about ‘when these things will be’ but only Matthew refers to Jesus’ coming.

Interestingly the phrase, consummation of the age is found five times in Matthew (13:39, 16:27, 24:31, 25:31) with age being the correct translation as opposed to world.

Its the end of the world!!!I don’t think we should be to suspicious regarding the connection of the two questions in the mind of the disciples, as Leo Morris points out, “ …. It was an age when all sorts of speculations about the Last Things were in vogue…[iii]” Something like the destruction of the temple would surely bring up issues of Last Things.

We know that Christ’s prediction in 24:1-2 was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. However, there are some interesting contrasts in the chapter which also suggest two questions. For example:

Firstly in verses 3-34 Jesus talks about various sign, and even tells the disciples to pay close attention to the so that they would know how to respond to them (v6, 14, 15-18, 23, 29, 32). Furthermore v34 says that these events will occur within ‘this generation’[iv]. In distinction to this Jesus specifically says that no one knows when this will occur (V36, 42, 44). Logically two events must be spoken of if one response is to flee the city (v16) and the other response is to continue to serve faithfully (v46). In addition it would be odd to say that a number of signs suggest the nearness of the events, and that they should cause some kind of action (v14, 16, 33), and at the same time say that the ‘day and hour’ no one knows, not even the Son of God, or the angels. Is the point of this so that the disciples can know the week or month, but not the specific day or week? I would say that this is an unnatural reading of Just smooth over the differencesthe text, a way of reading which, as one author puts it, ‘smooths over huge differences between the relative ease with which the occurrences if the two events can be predicted’.

I would love to spend more time here, but this is enough for now. Many questions are still unanswered, but this is at least the beginning of my dealing with verse 3.

[i] Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament

[ii] The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

[iii] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew. PNTC. Pg 596.

[iv] I am open to the possibility that this is not to be taken as referring to the generation of Jesus’ audience, but my beginning point will be to assume as much, till a study of this text is made later in this series.

7 May

The Olivet Discourse – Matthew 24

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, Doctrine. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , .

It has been on my mind for awhile to deal with the whole issue of eschatology, and to be honest, as I approached the issue, I began to realize how little I understand. The more I read various views (which initially seemed rather convincing) the more I began to realize that none really answers all the questions satisfyingly. So although I have gained a greater appreciation of the various view’s attempts to harmonize the Scriptures and their theology, I believe Can't get across so easyI have been plunged into an ocean to vast to traverse. So without going into the idea that Eschatology’s seemingly illusive nature might have something to teach us (perhaps God did not intent the issue to be clear), allow me to begin my public processing of the issue.

I intent to, over the next bit of time, go over these issues, starting as far away and moving inwards with relevant source material, today starting a commentary of Matthew 24, which I believe to be the furtherest yet still specific point from which to broach the subject at hand. I must say, some of my thoughts have been provoked by a good friend’s honest and earnest approach to this subject.

So without further chit-chat: My introduction to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24)

This is one of the last major teachings Christ gives His disciples, and deals mostly with judgment and the behavior expected of a Christian during this time of judgment. The problem in this text (which we will face) is that some of what Jesus says refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and some of what He says refers to His coming at the end of the age (or so I will argue). As one commentator points out, the first coming of the Messiah to suffer was hard to conceive, thus we should not doubt that since He came literally to suffer, He will also literally come in person as well, to reign.

Jerusalem A.D 70We may also say that there is a unity between the two judgements in mind (of Jerusalem and at the end of the age) in a theological sense, and thus some of what Jesus says may apply to both. The first of these judgements, which involves the destruction of Jerusalem, is a result of the rejection of His earthly ministry by the Jewish people. The second judgement is about what will follow the preaching of the gospel to the world. However I am cautious to approach these chapters with the assumption that everything in it applies to only one of these judgements (scholars seem to vary vastly on which part applies to which).

The mixing of prophecies leading up to the events of A.D. 70 and those which apply to the end of the age make this a difficult passage to interpret. Matthew also shares much in this passage with Mark and Luke, yet also has large variations.

Some commentators (and dear friends I have) understand the entire discourse to refer to a single event. They would End of the agesay that Jesus is excepting His return within a few years, and that the judgment of Jerusalem is but a part of the judgment on the whole world. However, the language used appears against this: As opposed to teaching that He would be coming soon in glory, Christ appears to be discouraging this idea (v6, 8, 14 and 23-28). Furthermore we should not forget the fact that He said He did not know the date of His return (v36). If He did not know it, how could he affirm so confidently that it would happen within a few years?

10 Dec

A Friendly Discussion on Preterism (Part 2.1)

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, Devotional. Tagged: , , , .

The Time Texts: The Crux of Preterism

R.C. Sproul says that “the central thesis . . . of all preterists is that the New Testament’s time frame references with respect to the parousia point to a fulfillment within the lifetime of at least some of Jesus’ disciples.[i]” The majority of preterist books I have come across devote much of their argument to these “time texts”, and the interpretation of them makes it necessary for what was prophesied in the N.T. eschatological texts to have a first century fulfillment. If we can show that these texts are better understood within the futurist understanding, preterism as a system will have lost much of its support. To begin the challenge I will address the two prominent “time frame” references, and why preterists fail to properly interpret these texts. The first I will discuss in this paper, and the next in the following article.

After declaring the birth pangs, the hard labor of tribulation, and the coming of the Son of Man, Jesus declares in Matthew 24:34, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” With regards to this text, I had a dear friend recently say, “I’m just saying what I read in the passage”. Listen to popular preterist proponent Gary Demar’s discussion on “this generation:”

The texts that govern the timing of the Olivet Discourse prophecy – Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34 – makemount-of-olives it clear that Jesus was speaking of the events leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 . . . If people fail to recognize the timing of these events set by Scripture and the historical context of Jesus’ words, they will always be led astray by those who keep insisting that it’s our generation that living in the end times.[ii]

Preterists regard their interpretation of “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse as the undefeatable Goliath of their system. However, is their interpretation the most persuasive given the usage and context of the term in Matthew’s Gospel? I don’t think so. Remember when we interpret a word/phrase, we need to go and see how the author uses that phrase elsewhere, to get a better understanding. The preterist is using the historical-grammatical hermeneutical principle of ‘Reading carefully and normally’ to come to their understanding, however they are ignoring two other principles which are: “Context determines meaning’ (in this case the book of Matthew) and ‘Word Study’.

The classic futurist interpretation is that this verse speaks of a future generation, or time. The classic preterist interpretation is that this verse speaks of a past generation, or time. I think that both of those views fail to take into account a number of vital interpretational factors.

How does Matthew use the phrase “this generation”? Is that a reference to a time frame, say 40-80 years? Surly this would be my conclusion if my only interpretational principle was to read ‘normally and carefully’(note that I don’t think preterists apply this same principle in a few verses time, since ‘suddenly the coming on the clouds’ is all cryptic and metaphorical to them, but I will deal with this issue in a later paper). I don’t think that this is a reference to time at all.

Rather than quantitative (time on earth), it is a qualitative use of the phrase (describing people with specific spiritual characteristics). The phrase ‘this generation’ is being used in a critical sense towards a group of people, namely, the Israelites who rejected the Messiah.

Wailing WallIf we understand this term as descriptive of those in ethnic Israel who reject Messiah (which has continued since the first century) not only are we within the bounds of the usage of “this generation” in Matthew, but this interpretation also fits best with both the immediate context and the whole of Scripture. (I am in the process of writing an article which addresses this Matthews use of this phrase and the Jewish understanding of ‘Corporate Solidarity’)

The expectation of salvation and restoration of ethnic Israel runs through Bible. It’s a common theme in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 36:22-38), right after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:6-8), and in Paul’s teachings. The Apostle writes, “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25). The theme of the restoration of Israel is important in the Olivet Discourse. Just before the Discourse in Matthew, Jesus announces to “this generation”: “For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (Matthew 23:39 emphasis added).

“This generation” will pass away, but this has not yet happened as there are still unbelieving Israelites. But a time will come when there will be no more unbelieving Israelites who reject Messiah. Those Israelites who remain will see their Messiah when they declare, by His sovereign grace, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” The Lord will “come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob” (Romans 11:26). But all the events Jesus outlined in the Olivet Discourse must be fulfilled before this occurs (cf. Zech 12).

This interpretation of “this generation” fits much better with Matthew’s usage, with the immediate context of the Olivet Discourse, and the whole counsel of God. So ironically, preterism’s chief text turns into solid support for both futurism and the coming restoration of ethnic Israel when Christ returns.

[i] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 25.

[ii] Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001) 114.

9 Dec

A Friendly Discussion on Preterism (Part 1)

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity. Tagged: , , , .

From the outset let me say that I have dear friends and brothers who are fellow Christians and labourers for Christ who hold to a preterist position. The point of my articles is to engage myself on these doctrines. However it is not to prove that my partial preterist friends are heretics, they are much loved brothers. Furthermore the aim of these articles will not be to cause division, an individual who divides over eschatology (which remains within orthodox Christianity) is a divisive man who should be avoided. I have and always will recommend people to partial preterist churches, even though I disagree with them on this issue.

This first article is just to give a brief breakdown of the terms used and the two camps.Following from this the doctrine will be engaged.

Normally when people talk about eschatology (doctrines of the end times) generally they are defined by their millennial position (premillennialism, amillennialism, or postmillennialism). However the question we will be discussing here is ‘Are you a preterist or a futurist?’ The argument is really about when the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse in the Gospels (Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21) and the book of Revelation are fulfilled.

The term preterism is from the Latin (praeter) which means “past.” Preterists suggest that the above mention eschatological texts are really prophesying the events of the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. Preterismpreterism-70ad says that, these prophecies were fulfilled in the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. At this point let me say that there is a difference between partial and full preterism. Full (or hyper) preterists believe that all of the prophecies regarding the second coming of Christ, most significantly the “resurrection” of believers, were fulfilled in the first century. Partial preterists hold that the majority of what is declared in the book of Revelation (and the Olivet Discourse) was fulfilled in the first century, yet there remains a future judgment, a resurrection of the dead, and a bodily return of Christ. Preterists theologians which I will be engaging are only from the partial preterist camp. Generally, both partial preterists and futurists see full preterism as outside the realm of “the faith” in accordance with Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15.

Futurism (which I hold to) posits that the main eschatological texts of the New Testament prophesy about the events surrounding the return of Christ which will complete history. Many eschatological positions are within futurism, their common link is that the Olivet Discourse and book of Revelation will principally be fulfilled in the future.

To put it in a nut-shell: Preterism is the system of interpretation that understands the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation to primarily prophesy the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which is in the past.  Futurism is the system of interpretation that understands the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation to primarily prophesy the events surrounding and including the second coming of Christ, which is still in the future.

2 Dec

When mere wonder (how we feel about God) becomes idolatry.

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, post-modernism, Religion. Tagged: , , , , , .


It has come to my attention lately that this whole issue of theology and doctrine being bad is again an issue, Post-moderns who seem to only read a bit of early Christian writing and have not followed the historical debate in the 19th century regarding the idea of doctrine, have made the same mistakes as passed liberals and critiqued theology instead of bad theology.

Ironically, whenever some wishes to critique theology (or ideology) they knowingly, or unknowingly, slip in their own theology (or ideology). Theology my friends in inescapable, the only question is, do you have good theology or bad theology.

chastepI read one ‘emergent’ writer lately who says, “However, our form of following Jesus (even within Christianity) differs largely.” His entire article went on to try and dichotomize theology (propositional truth about God) from God Himself, appealing to the supposed good of deconstructionism as well as the fact that there is such a plurality of beliefs within Christianity, thus implying that we can be sure of nothing .

Consider the following story:

“That guy sure is taking long to come back to us, I wonder what he is going to say?”… “I’m not sure Yougerosh Christoneth, but all I know is he could be dead, and we are stuck here, we can’t know for sure if he is coming back, and if he even has anything worthwhile to say when he does” grumbled Emerilech Deconstrucarach, “Come let us make our own idea of G-D, after all its about the wonder right, it’s about the experience” Emerilech continued.

So Relatinobeth then told all the people to take off their gold rings (and assorted other jewelry) and to join him in forging ahead, in trying what is new, its adventure, its extreme, watch and learn.

Relationobeth formed it into a huge ‘Golden Calf’ and said, “here, this is your god which brought you out of Egypt”

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, “Go down at once, for your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves.

“They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!’ ”

aThe Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, they are 1ban obstinate people.[i]

Forgive my attempt at bringing an ancient story into modern times. But the questions it raises are important. Why couldn’t the Israelites decide how they would worship God? What made their way wrong? After all it isn’t about creeds but deeds right (translated: It isn’t about faith but works right)? They were just caught in the blissful rapture of what they thought god was to them, they didn’t care about the theology of it all! Who cares what the second commandment says, there are plenty nations around us who do it this way, why can’t we!

‘Concepts create idols; only wonder comprehends anything.’ – St. Gregory of Nyssa. Really? Well Gregory is old and it does say saint before his name.

An Idol is “an object (not necessarily three dimensional) which has been formed to resemble a person, god, animal, etc.—‘likeness, image’[1]” When one abandons doctrine and Theology as it is given in the Holy Scriptures and attempts to worship just a thing that’s out there, and its so wondrous, one forms a idol, a picture inbelief ones mind of what God is, or righty it should be written of what g-d is (since in this persons mind he has not been revealed).

When you say to your loved one, “I love you but I don’t know why” you are not being complimentary, this is not a good thing to say. You say I love you since you have won my love, because of who you are…. (followed by a list of propositional truth about the person”

Maybe the apostle John highlighted this aspect the best, “We love, because He first loved us. (1 John 4:19). What do you mean God loved us? Well the doctrine of election tells us what John means, the doctrine of reprobation, atonement, the incarnation, the hypo-static union, all of soteriology and hamartiology and and and…. It all expounds to us the Love of God, and thus once I grasp these things my love grows more full, my wonder more rich as God allows me to see glimpses of His glory in a language I understand.

Friends remember:    “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

[1]Louw, Johannes P. ; Nida, Eugene Albert: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains. electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York : United Bible societies, 1996, c1989, S. 1:64

a Acts 1:7

b John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim 3:16

[2] New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Dt 29:29

1 Lit go down

a Ex 32:4, 11; Deut 9:12

b Gen 6:11f

a Ex 20:3, 4, 23

b Ex 22:20; 34:15; Deut 32:17

1 Or These are your gods

c 1 Kin 12:28

a Num 14:11–20

1 Or a stiff-necked

b Ex 33:3, 5; 34:9; Is 48:4; Acts 7:51

[i] New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ex 32:7-9

11 Nov

Zeitgeist, Davinci, Judas Scrolls and the Hostile Mind!

Posted by tyrellh in Apologetics, Christianity. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , .

Yesterday I was reflecting on the series of attacks against Christianity that have occurred lately, not from the ex5inside as with the ‘emergent heresy’ (you can define that however you want to… or can you?), but from the secular world. Things like the ‘Divinci Code’, ‘Epistle of Judas’ and the new ‘Zeitgeist’ dvd which is doing the rounds. I have had to face the reality of these things since my concern is not only to be aware of them for the protection of God’s flock, but also so that I myself am confident that I have a well though through defended/defendable belief, I noticed the terrible academic work done on these three things. Dan Brown is no historian, this he admits, people who are getting excited about the epistle of Judas are suddenly forgetting all methods of testing ancient documents and those who promulgate the ‘Zeitgeist’ film appear to have never read any of the ancient mythologies for themselves.

I wondered to myself, do these people realize that what they are doing is essentially lying? Or is it by accident? Perhaps the ‘Discovery channel’ is not aware of how ancient documents are tested, perhaps Dan Brown really has no idea of how the Cannon was formed and what happened at the Council of Nicaea, perhaps the Zeitgeist guys never read the sources of ancient mythology, maybe they just read extracts of articles made up by people with a hatred for Christianity. This may be the case, however, it may not be the case, maybe all or some of these people are purposefully trying to attack and destroy Christianity using lies and false or half-baked information.

Romans 1v18 speaks about how people ‘suppress the truth in unrighteousness’. Paul goes on in verse 21 and 22 to explains “For even though they knew God, they did not 1honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (NASB).”As I went about to study these three things which the world so quickly grasps, as if they themselves are revealed by God, I saw how mind blowingly inaccurate, unacademic and unfounded they all are. This article is not to explain how I came tofantasy-tower that conclusion on all three, scholars far smarter than I have already done this and it is beyond the scope of this blog. However, the question I ask is what motivated people to do this? My answer is the same as Paul’s, they want to suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. How I pray and so should all Christians, that these people are just mistaken and it is not an active desire to mis-lead that motivates them.

Christians must heed this warning and not make the same mistake, we are to be vigilant, prudent, and thoughtful, we should never attempt to discredit others based on false or half information, we must not be swung with every fad or new heresy that comes along like the people of the world are. This is one of the effects the doctrine of election has, it causes churches to have rigorous thought, and careful thinking (not the point of the doctrine, but a great effect).

I wrote this thought and present it, because I think Christians need to know what they are up against… People who will believe anything, so long as they don’t have to admit that there is a Lord, the man Jesus Christ, whom they should worship and obey.

1 Lit glorify

23 Jul

What is it to Know God (The Trend of this Knowledge)

Posted by tyrellh in Christianity, Religion. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

What do I mean when I say, “The knowledge of God?”, what I mean is not only that we grasp the fact that there is some God, but also understand what relevance it has to us, and what brings Him glory, really what I am saying is, what is relevant to mankind with regards to knowing God. WHATS THE POINT?.

If we have to speak properly we cannot say God is known where there is no religion or holiness. I am not talking about how people who are lost and under God’s curse understand God as a Redeemer in Christ or anything like that, I simply mean, a knowledge of God that humans would have had if Adam did not sin and fall. Of course now, no man in the current ruin and lost state of this human race can see God as their Father, or author of Salvation, until Christ makes peace for them. Still it is one thing to understand God as our Maker, Who supports us by His power and rules us by His providence, leads us with His goodness and gives us all kinds of blessings; and its another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ. A knowledge of God as Creator and then as Redeemer.

Although we cant think of God without giving Him some worship, no one will worship Him and only Him alone, unless they see Him as the fountian of all goodness, as the spring of all joy, hope and meaning. What I mean is, we must be persuaded, not only that He once made the world, and sustains it by His power, governs it by His wisdom, preserves it in His goodness, rules the human race with justice and judgment, bears with them in mercy, shields them by His protection; but also that not a particle of light, or wisdom, or justice, or power, or genuine truth can be found anywhere that does not flow from Him. By the way must learn to expect all things from Him, and thankfully praise Him for whatever we receive. It is this understanding of God’s perfections that teach us holiness, out of which genuine religion comes.

*By holiness I mean a union (a marriage, a mixing) of the fear and love of God, which is inspired by a knowledge of what He does and Who He is.*

You see, because until people feel that they owe everything to God,  that they are cherished by His parent-like care, and that He is the author of all their blessings, so that they should look nowhere else but to Him,  man will never submit to Him in voluntary obedience; even more so, unless they place their entire happiness in Him, they will never give their whole life to serve Him in truth and sincerity (Where do you place your happiness? What things do you do to make you happy? Eating, movies, porn, relationships, sports? Do you get happiness apart from God in these things, since they are not all bad in and of themselves? Or do you realize that He is the one that gives everything good, and your happiness even in these things is due to Him?)

People who argue about what the essence of God are rambling with silly speculations- it is much more important for us to know what kind of being God is, and what things relate to us in His nature. I mean whats the point of knowing a ‘God’ who doesn’t care about anything but His own ease, and has nothing to do with us? The effect, read carefully, the result of the knowledge of God should be first to teach us reverence and fear; and secondly to cause us to ask for everything good from Him, and when we have received it, to praise Him for it.

How can the idea of God even come into your mind without causing you to think, “Hmmmm? I am His workmanship (He made me), I am bound by every law of nature to submit to His authority” (Ah! the folly of making a God to suit yourself, ‘to me God is…?’). I mean how can you think of God without knowing that you owe Him your life (you did not choose to exist), that whatever you do should have something relating to Him. If you can think of God without that, then sadly your life is corrupted, you are not in obedience to Him, because His will should be the rule of our lives. On the other hand you understanding of Him is not clear if you don’t see Him as the fountain of all goodness.

I think we would have confidence in God and a desire to hold onto Him, if the sinfulness of our mind did not lead us away from this kind of proper thinking.

First of all, the Christian (and holy) mind does not try and make up a God, but looks alone to the one true God, the Christian mind also doesn’t make up characteristics of God, but is happy to accept God in the character that He reveals Himself in.

The person who understand God like this, sees how He governs all things, confides in God as His protector and guardian, and throws himself on God’s faithfulness- understanding that He is good and merciful, he rests on God with sure confidence, and does not doubt that in calamity, a divine remedy will be provided for every time of need- understanding Him as Father and Lord, he considers himself bound to respect His authority in all things

Listen to the words of Calvin, “Such is pure and genuine religion, namely, confidence in God coupled with serious fear- fear, which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate  worship as is prescribed by the law. …. only a few truly reverence Him. On all hands there is an abundance of ostentatious ceremonies, but sincerity of heart is rare.”

Dedicated to Book 1 of Calvin’s Institutes

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,089 other followers