Missionary Experience

“Race and nationality likewise offer no immunity from sin; the most cultured of nations are just as capable of genocide as the most barbaric. The gas chambers of the “civilized” are merely sophisticated forms of the machetes wielded by the “uncivilized.”

Neither is there such a thing as a “noble savage” or “happy heathen.” In the words of one former missionary, “I went to the mission field to keep a bad God from sending good men to hell. When I arrived, I discovered that they were monsters of iniquity.” The question is not whether men have had the opportunity to “accept Jesus.” The question is whether they have had an oppportunity to mistreat the missionary and reject his message – for apart from the special working of the Holy Spirit, that is what they will surely do. Sin is universal in the human race.” – Charles Leiter, Justification and Regeneration

John Alexander, a former president of Inter-Varsity, said in a message at Urbana ’67: “At the beginning of my missionary career I said that if predestination were true, I could not be a missionary. Now after 20 years of struggling with the hardness of the human heart, I say I could never be a missionary unless I believed in the doctrine of predestination.”

“And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” – John 10:16

In a Kingdom…

I saw this image today and it made me think of the great contrast there is between a democracy and a kingdom. I grew up in the United Kingdom, where all my lifetime, Queen Elizabeth II has been reigning. Her rule is in stark contrast with that of former eras where the will of the Sovereign is law. In our day, the Queen has very little political power. The real power is wielded by her Government, with the Prime Minister and his party setting the political agenda.

I grew up in a Kingdom, but its present day operation is nothing like the kingdoms of old, and certainly nothing like the rule of the Kingdom of God. In the United Kingdom, the Queen reigns but does not rule. She sits on the throne and wears the crown of royalty, but she does not establish new laws in the land. In God’s kingdom, the King both rules and reigns!

In a democracy we have debates and political candidates running for the office of the Presidency. In contrast, in a Kingdom, the King is neither voted in or out of office. If He leaves His palace and tours His realm it is not to gain the popular vote, but to see the condition of His subjects. He is King because he is the son of a father who was also King. He does not abide by laws. He makes the laws by the words of His mouth.

“From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”” – Matthew 4:17

Notice that Jesus’ first words to the general public were not “Vote for me” but “Repent for God’s kingly rule is at hand!” These are the words of a King, striding through the realm of His rule.

Living in a kingdom is not necessarily good news. It could be terribly bad news. It all depends on the type of king that is in charge. If he is a despot the only way to avoid his rule is to leave the realm of his rule or to await his death, and to hope that his son is a better King than he is. To seek democracy in a kingdom (seeking to put another on the throne) is a treasonous act and once discovered means certain death.

“And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.” – Matthew 4:23

When the Bible talks about “the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom of God” it refers to the fact that in this kingdom a good King is reigning. The yoke He places on the shoulders of His subjects is light and easy and not a heavy burden. Yet it is a yoke nontheless, for to fail to work for the King’s purposes is rebellion.

People of the world, hear the good news. “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” (Isaiah 9:6,7)

When it says “the zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this” it means that God is deeply earnest and will make sure this King ascends the tone and nothing will stand in His way. If God is that commited to seeing it happen, you and I had better believe that it will happen.

Of course, this promise was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and in His glorious ascension. Jesus now sits on the throne of this Universe and will one day come back to earth in power and glory. The book of Revelation describes His arrival in these terms:

“Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:11-16)

Doesn’t sound like anyone I would wish to mess with!

The reference to Him having many diadems is the image of Him being the true King of all nations on earth. As He Himself said, “All authority is given to Me in heaven and on earth.” (Matt 28:18)

Every earthly ruler, from the Roman Ceasars who often persecuted the Church, to the Communist despots of Russia and China, to the Kings and Queens and Prime Ministers and Presidents of history – all who have enjoyed rulership on earth will one day acknowledge that their crown was owned by King Jesus. Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is the true Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Queen of England wears a borrowed crown. The true King of England is the Lord Jesus Christ and one day soon, He will return to earth and both she and all other rulers on earth will give an account of their rule to Him. He is the King of Kings, the Lord of lords.

Until then, without His visible rule, democracy is by far the best political environment. As Winston Churchill remarked, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Yet, better to have only a few years of a bad ruler so we can vote him out, than to be under the tyranny of an evil King for an entire generation.

In the kingdom of God, Jesus the King has won the hearts of His people. He is our beloved King. His yoke is easy, His burden is light.

“For the word of the king is supreme, and who may say to him, “What are you doing?”” – Ecclesiastes 8:4

What a great King He is!

Friday Round Up

(1) If you think John 3:16 describes God’s love for the world, you are absolutely right. But if you think the verse intends to communicate how much God loves the world, “For God so loved the world,” the intended meaning of John 3:16 in the original Greek really focuses on HOW God loves the world rather than how much.

God has a love for the world; consequently, He has a vast, multi-ethnic plan of redemption. All those who believe in Christ, no matter what their ethnicity, will be saved.

“God’s love for the world is seen in this way: in the giving of His One and Only Son – for this purpose – that all those who believe in Him will not in any way perish but instead have eternal life for certain.”

(2) Keller and the Exclusivity of Christ: I agree with Tim Challies when he writes, “I believe the guys at Cripplegate are right to respectfully question Tim Keller on his recent interview with Martin Bashir. “My goal is twofold: (1) I want to respectfully—and hopefully, humbly—voice some serious concerns with how Keller handled this question; and (2) I want to demonstrate the unhelpfulness of how some of his defenders are responding.””

(3) “I pray that, through the intercession of Mary Immaculate whom he so greatly venerated, the Lord may welcome this faithful pastor of the Gospel and the Church into His Kingdom of eternal joy and peace”, the Pope concludes. (Vatican Information Service, 5 September 2011)

Turretinfan: “Notice that here the Pope is explicitly requesting Marian intercession for a dead Cardinal (Cardinal Deskur). This falls into the category of prayers “through” Mary (as opposed to prayers simply to Mary) and of prayers “for” the dead.

I know that some of Rome’s advocates are fond of saying that one is “just asking Mary to pray” in one’s prayers to Mary. Actually, though, the goal here is for the prayed-for person to be accepted on the basis of Mary, that is to say, on the basis of her person and merits. While this is not completely explicit, notice that she’s described as “immaculate.” This is the wrong way to pray.

Our prayers are to be God through the intercession of Jesus Christ, our one mediator. Only Christ’s merits form a sufficient basis for the intercession we need. Christ is not simply the best mediator, he is the only mediator.

It is also foolish to pray for the dead. They have already either entered into Heaven or Hell. There is no third place from which they need to be freed in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The pope’s teaching here is consistent with his own church’s dogmas, but not with the Scriptures.

It seems doubly foolish for the pope to pray for the dead in this way. Does he not supposedly possess the ability to release souls from Purgatory by means of indulgence? Why not simply declare the Cardinal free himself rather than hoping that Mary will intercede for him? This aspect of the pope’s messages seems out of line with the traditional view of Purgatory – or at least rather odd, considering that the pope evidently feels kindly toward the deceased Cardinal.

To put it in another way, isn’t this rather like telling a naked and hungry man, “be warmed and fed,” but not actually giving him food and clothing? Perhaps there is more to the story, but it certainly seems inconsistent for the pope not to exercise his own papal prerogatives, if he really wants the Cardinal to get out of Purgatory…”

(4) Once again, Ligonier has some SUPER deals today in this week’s $5 Friday sale. Especially recommended is Dr. Sproul’s book “The Truth of the Cross.” It’s a great one to give as a gift or to save and give away around Easter. The online sale starts at 8 a.m. EST and goes on for 24 hours or until items are sold out.

Check out the $5 sale items here.

(5) Wish List: Regular readers of this blog will no doubt confirm that I have talked very little about King’s Church in Phoenix, where I serve as pastor. Its currently a very small start up/pioneer Church where we are looking to the Lord to expand as we reach out around us with the gospel of God’s grace.

A couple of folk suggested I write out a wish list of items we are needing/praying for. I responded that on a blog, people do not wish to be told about needs. By its very nature, the blog is a ministry that is always to be given free of charge.

They said, “That’s very true, but there are some people who have been very blessed by your blog and would wish to know about current needs to see if they can help in any way. You might be pleasantly surprised.”

Perhaps they have a point. I am not going to make a habit of mentioning this, but for those interested, here’s a short list of ministry items we are hoping to acquire:

Full Sound System (speakers, microphones, mic stands, cables, etc.)
Church Chairs
Pulpit
Video Camera upgrade for making youtube videos
Outreach Tracts

Because the folks here have their own ideas and preferences as to what exactly to purchase, please contact us first before buying anything. However, IF you are interested in helping in any way, please know that even small financial gifts towards some of these expensive purchases would be of enormous help.

(6) India Outreach:

You may remember we provided 10,000 copies of the Gospel tract I wrote “The Thief on the Cross” in the Malayalam language which were handed out to people in the state of Kerala at Easter time. The response and feedback to this very clear gospel presentation has been so encouraging that we made a tentative inquiry to find out how much it would cost for 100,000 tracts to be printed.

Whereas the cost for 10,000 tracts was approximately $400 USA Dollars, the cost for 100,000 tracts will be $2,600.00. This is the full cost, which includes paper, printing, shipping and distribution handling costs. As you can see, there is a substantial savings (per tract) when there is a larger quantity being printed.

Perhaps this Gospel outreach is something you or your church might like to get behind and support. If so, just write to me and I will give you further details.

Goal: $2,600.00

Amount received (as of 9/9/11): $330.00

(7) “There is probably only one thing that all scientists agree on—that the name of the game in all operational science and technology is verification. The Boeing Company has built a number of its new 787’s, the “Dreamliner.” All of these planes are involved in a two-year testing program. No paying passenger will ever fly on a 787 until that testing program is completed. The FDA will not allow drugs on the market until they have undergone extensive tests. Automobile companies have recalled thousands of cars because of problems that were not suspected in the original design. We demand this type of testing and proving of products to insure our physical safety.

It is nothing short of amazing that we do not demand this type of verification for our spiritual safety. God seems to be more concerned about our spiritual safety than we are. God verifies! The miracles performed by Jesus and his resurrections of people from the dead were witnessed by thousands of people. In fact, God does extreme verification! He reveals the one area that human will never be able to know: the future. There are hundreds of prophesies in the Bible that have come true—with great specificity and detail. God, Himself, states that this is how we can know that He is the One and True God (Deuteronomy 18: 21-22). God has done everything possible to verify Himself, His Word, and His work.

In stark contrast to God’s verification of Himself and His Word, the concept of evolution has not ever been verified and cannot be verified. No one has witnessed the evolution of life from non-life. Nor have they witnessed the evolution of multi-cell life from single-cell life, or the evolution of fishes from invertebrates, or the evolution of amphibians from fishes, or the evolution of reptiles from amphibians, or the evolution of mammals from reptiles, or the evolution of primates from mammals, or the evolution of humans from primates. Nor has anyone witnessed even one of the millions of steps necessary between these major categories.

A case in point…” more here:

All always means “all”, right?

Question: I understand the following to be a brief summary of Jesus’ words regarding God’s Sovereign purpose in election from John 6:35-45: Unless it is granted, no one will come to Christ. All to whom it is granted will come to Christ, and all of these will be raised up to eternal life on the last day. So, this being the case, can you please explain to me the meaning of John 12:32, where Jesus said: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”?

Answer: What I will say here may surprise you, but the word “all” has a number of different meanings in the Bible. We tend to assume that when Jesus speaks of drawing “all men” that He is referring to every last person on the planet. Well, that may or may not be true, but it is in the CONTEXT where we find the phrase that tells us if this assumption is correct or misplaced.

Even today we use the words “all” or “every” in many different ways. When a school teacher asks the people in his classroom, “Are we all here?” or “is everyone listening?” we understand he is not talking about every one of the 6.5 billion plus folk on the planet, but all the students who have signed up for the class. Context determines the proper interpretation or meaning of words. When the word “all” is used, it is used within a context.

In this illustration, the “all” had a context of the school classroom, which did not include “all” the hockey players in Iceland, “all” the dentists in Denmark, or “all” the carpet layers in Atlanta, Georgia. To rip the word “all” out of its setting and say that the teacher was refering to all people everywhere, would be to totally misunderstand and misinterpret how the word was being used. Again, it is context that determines correct interpretation.

I believe you are correct in your understanding of what John 6:35-45 teaches. So how do we understand the nature of the drawing in John 12:32? Who is being drawn?

We find answers to these questions by refusing to be lazy, doing some serious study, and by consciously allowing our traditions to be exposed to the light of Scripture.

So if understanding the context plays such a major role in getting the correct interpretation, exactly what was the context in John 12? Well it is a very different setting than the one we find in John 6. In John 12, Greeks were coming to Jesus and believing in Him.

John 12:20-22 – Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus.

Dr. James White, in his book the Potter’s Freedom (p. 163), describes the background as follows: “John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus’ public ministry. After this particular incident, the Lord will go into a period of private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the cross. The final words of Jesus’ public teachings are prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows. Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when Jesus is informed of this that He says, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” This then is the context which leads us to Jesus’ words in verse 32:

John 12:27-33 “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour ‘? But for this purpose I came to this hour. “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

I believe that in its context the “all men” refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person on earth. Through His work on the cross, Jesus will draw all kinds of men, all kinds of people to Himself, including those from outside of the covenant community of Israel. We must bear in mind that this would have been an extremely radical thought to the Jews who were hearing Him say these words.

But lets look at this issue from another angle by asking the question, “Is it true that everyone on earth is drawn to the cross?” Is that what the Bible really teaches about the cross?

Continue reading

And that’s ALL I have to say about that

Some years back I wrote something about the word “all” in an article entitled “All always means all, right?” Now I find that Dr. Phil Johnson has written something with just about the same exact title. He calls his article, “”All” Always Means ALL. Right?” I am not sure who came up with the title first (though I think it was me), and to be honest, it does not really matter. I like his article, even though he may never be made aware of mine.

I think its worthwhile to quote his words here, and God willing, tomorrow I will post mine. I love “all” he has to say. 🙂

Phil wrote:

Usually when someone wants to argue that the word all is inflexibly comprehensive, it’s an Arminian who wants to put a universalist spin on biblical statements such as “one has died for all, therefore all have died” (2 Corinthians 5:14) or “[Christ] gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6).

The last conversation I had on that subject, however, was an e-mail dialogue with a radically pacifist anabaptist, who insisted that Jesus’ command in Matthew 5:34 (“Do not swear at all”) rules out all oaths of all kinds, including legal oaths, swearings-in, marriage vows, and formal covenants.

His argument was simple: “All” means all, full stop.

What follows is taken verbatim from the e-mail dialogue that ensued. (I’ve put my interlocutor’s words in bold, to make it easier to follow the dialogue):

Me: The word “all” is not necessarily (or even usually) meant to be taken in an absolute sense. We understand this perfectly well in everyday speech:

•”He travels overseas all the time.”

•”I have tried all kinds of shoes, but I like these the best.”

•”Solving that puzzle was no trouble at all.”

In each case, “all” plainly expresses something less than a sweeping, comprehensive, all-inclusive, woodenly literal “all.”

Him: Phil, you know I can’t let this one slide by, well-intentioned though it was. It is of course possible that the first man is always overseas, and the second has tried all kinds of shoes, and that the third instantly saw the entire solution to the puzzle (as God always would). Barring these, however, all three would be lying.

Me: Don’t be ridiculous. In normal discourse, no one would imagine that the speaker means all in the exhaustive sense in any of those examples. If you tried to press that sort of woodenly literal meaning into the words of people you dialogue with, you would never be able to communicate sensibly. We all frequently employ the word all in all kinds of contexts where the meaning is clearly not meant to be exhaustive. See? I just did it twice.

Him: Like it or not, using the word figuratively like that is a form of lying, and we know that our God and His Prophets are/were not liars.

Me: Now you’re being worse than ridiculous. None of those would be a lie. People use expressions like that all the time, and they are not lies. See? I just did it again.

And consider this: Jesus said, “The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me” (John 12:8). If you insist on the absolute sense of “always,” Jesus got it exactly backward! Because He is the one who is always with us in the absolute sense (Hebrews 13:5); the poor are “with us always” only in a non-absolute sense. He has existed from before the foundation of the world, and He will exist for all eternity, and he is omnipresent at (exhaustively) all times. By comparison, “the poor” aren’t even a blip on the screen. They are here today, gone tomorrow. So if you insist parsing Jesus’ statement with absolute meanings, you must conclude that He got it wrong—or else (by the standard you are insisting on) He lied.

Him: The statement “Do not swear at all” doesn’t need a whole lot of parsing. Either all kinds of oaths are sinful, as I believe, or Jesus and James lied (or at least exaggerated), which I am disinclined to assume.

Me: You need to do some more careful thinking about what constitutes a “lie,” and what words mean in their normal usage.

Him: It sounds to me like you are claiming “all” never means all at all.

Me: On the contrary, the word all always means “all.” What I am actually claiming is that the word has all kinds of possible meanings. Look up “all” in an unabridged dictionary if you want to see the semantic range of the word.

Him: How then do we know that all (without exception) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

Me: Simple. The context makes that clear. Similarly, we know that the word in Matthew 5:34 is not an absolute “all” because of the contextual reasons I have already cited. Namely, we have biblical examples that prove this is not an exhaustive prohibition. Jesus Himself testified under oath. Paul included an oath in 2 Corinthians 1:23 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In the context of Matthew 5, What Jesus forbade was the casual use of flippant oaths in everyday speech.

This is not complex hermeneutics. I’m guessing you make sense of the various ways people use words like all and always all the time in everyday speech. All you need to do is apply the same standards of common sense and context when you read Scripture, and it will all make better sense.

How Can Christ’s Work Atone for More than One Person?

After all, if Jesus was a single person, and only died and rose again once, shouldn’t his saving work only be vicariously transferable to one other single person, if justice is to be maintained?

No, says Herman Bavinck:

“When the Socinians say that . . . Christ could make satisfaction only for one person and not for many, inasmuch as he only bore the punishment of sin once, this reasoning is based on the same quantitative calculation as the ‘acceptation’ of Duns Scotus and the ‘superabundance’ of Aquinas.

For though the sin that entered the world through Adam manifests itself in an incalculable series of sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, and though the wrath of God is felt individually by every guilty member of the human race, it is and remains the one indivisible law that has been violated, the one indivisible wrath of God that has been ignited against the sin of the whole human race, the one indivisible righteousness of God that has been offended by sin, the one unchangeable eternal God who has been affronted by sin.

The punishment of Christ, therefore, is also one: one that balances in intensity and quality the sin and guilt of the whole human race. . . . That punishment, after all, was laid on him who was not an individual on a level with other individuals but the second Adam head of the human race, both Son of Man and Son of God.” – Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:402

HT: Dane Ortlund

Regarding Leadership, Sin, Repentance and Restoration

Dr. R. C. Sproul, Jr was asked this question:

“If a man in leadership falls into sin, admits it, repents and turns from it, should he ever lead again in the same role?”

He answered it on his blog as follows:

All men, save Jesus, are sinners. All men, save Jesus, are called to repent and turn from their sins. And only men are called to lead in the church. As such, if we are going to have leaders, that is, elders, and deacons in the church, we had better leave room for repentant elders and deacons. The only thing worse and the only other thing possible is unrepentant elders and deacons.

That said, I suspect the question, while vague, is aiming at something a bit more particular. What do we do with a pastor who has committed adultery? What do we do with a deacon who has embezzled the church’s funds? If they repent, it would seem we are called to forgive. And doesn’t forgiveness mean we act as though it never happened?

Yes, of course we are to forgive the repentant. That doesn’t mean, however, that we are to act as though it never happened. When we forgive we do not forget as if we had amnesia, or as if there is nothing to be concerned about. Instead we forget in the sense that we no longer hold the sin against the sinner. We do not hold a grudge against them. We love the repentant. We embrace the repentant, and we seek to help not just the repentant, but those whom they have wronged. We do not require the embezzler to wear a scarlet E for the rest of his life. But we do not either leave him alone to count the offering. We would be poor stewards of his soul and the kingdom’s funds were we to leave him to his temptation.

Consider how God’s law deals with adultery and divorce. Were I unfaithful to my wife, and were I to repent for such a sin, she would have an obligation to forgive me. She would not, however, have an obligation to stay married to me. Adultery is biblical grounds for a divorce precisely because it is such a betrayal of a trust that future trust is hard to come by. The victim is to forgive. The adulterer is forgiven, But the divorce can still happen, and is still laid at the feet of the adulterer. He is the one who broke the covenant. The victim is free to acknowledge that reality by seeking the legal divorce.

One could argue, and indeed some have, that a pastor who is guilty of infidelity is to be forgiven, but as with marriage itself, has so betrayed the trust inherent in his office that it would preclude his future service as a minister of the gospel. Others, perhaps pointing to Peter’s betrayal of Jesus, and Jesus’ admonition after his repentance that he strengthen the brethren, that a pastor in such a circumstance is oddly even more empowered to serve as a minister of the gospel, having experienced its power so immediately. The danger is, in both positions, papering over our emotional response with pious words. That is, too often the pastor is put out not because it is the right thing, but because of anger, because we haven’t honestly forgiven. Even more common we are fearful of how the church would fare without our pastor, and so keep him on, even cover up for him, and excuse our fear by baptizing it in “forgiveness” and “grace.” Because we are all sinners our temptation is always to do what we want to do. Because we profess Christ, we then cover our desires with rationalizations.

God is good. God can and does not only forgive us, but can and does cleanse us from all unrighteousness (I John 1:9). That said, a man who has proven his willingness to betray his family is more likely than one who has remained faithful to walk into adultery again. A man who has betrayed his office sexually, is likewise more likely to do so again. My counsel would be to remove the man from office. But it is just that, counsel. I cannot claim that the Bible commands it, nor that it forbids leaving such a man in office should he repent.