Monthly Archives: September 2011

Friday Round Up

Posted on by
Reply

(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?

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.