Monthly Archives: September 2014

Prevenient Grace

Posted on by
Reply

As the name suggests, prevenient grace is grace that ‘comes before’ something. It is normally defined as a work that God does for everybody. He gives all people enough grace to respond to Jesus. That is, it is enough grace to make it possible for people to choose Christ. Those who cooperate with and assent to this grace are ‘elect.’ Those who refuse to cooperate with this grace are lost.

The strength of this view is that it recognizes that fallen man’s spiritual condition is severe enough that it requires God’s grace to save him. The weakness of the position may be seen in two ways. If this prevenient grace is merely external to man, then it fails in the same manner that the medicine and the life preserver analogies fail. What good is prevenient grace if offered outwardly to spiritually dead creatures?

On the other hand, if prevenient grace refers to something that God does within the heart of fallen man, then we must ask why it is not always effectual. Why is it that some fallen creatures choose to cooperate with prevenient grace and others choose not to? Doesn’t everyone get the same amount?

Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God?

If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?

Perhaps it wasn’t because you were more righteous. Perhaps it was because you are more intelligent. Why are you more intelligent? Because you study more (which really means you are more righteous)? Or are you more intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he withheld from others?

To be sure, most Christians who hold to the prevenient grace view would shrink from such answers. They see the implied arrogance in them. Rather they are more likely to say, “No, I chose Christ because I recognized my desperate need for him.”

That certainly sounds more humble. But I must press the question. Why did you recognize your desperate need for Christ while your neighbor didn’t? Was it because you were more righteous than your neighbor, or more intelligent?

The $64 question for advocates of prevenient grace is why some people cooperate with it and others’ don’t. How we answer that will reveal how gracious we believe our salvation really is.

The $64,000 question is, “Does the Bible teach such a doctrine of prevenient grace? If so, where?”

We conclude that our salvation is of the Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom he regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject him. God’s saving grace effects what he intends to effect by it.

………. p. 213 Let me close the book by mentioning that soon after I awoke to the truth of predestination I began to see the beauty of it and taste its sweetness. I have grown to love this doctrine. It is most comforting. It underlines the extent to which God has gone in our behalf. It is a theology that begins and ends with grace. It begins and ends with doxology. We praise a God who lifted us from spiritual deadness and makes us walk in high places. We find a God who may be against us. It makes our souls rejoice to know that all things are working together for our good. We delight in our Savior who truly saves us and preserves us and intercedes for us. We marvel at his craftmanship and in what he has wrought. We skip and kick our heels when we discover his promise to finish in us what he has started in us. We ponder mysteries and bow before them, but not without doxology for the riches of grace he has revealed:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! … For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:33, 36)

“God Himself supplies the necessary condition to come to Jesus, that’s why it is sola gratia, by grace alone, that we are saved.” – R. C. Sproul

Why the 66 Books?

Posted on by
Reply

There are 66 books in the Bible. Taken together, these are known as the canon1 of divine revelation. They were written over a period of around two thousand years by about forty different writers. However, just one author inspired them—God. But how can we be sure that these 66 books are the only inspired Scriptures, no more or less?

The Old Testament

The ancient Hebrews had a clearly defined body of Scriptures. The Word of God was recognized from the very beginning, and there was no doubt which books belonged. The Jews did not arrange their books in the same way as Christians do, however, and some books were combined. But the content was the same. No more or less.

Evidence within the Bible indicates that most of the books of the Old Testament were written at the time of the events they record, and they were accepted as God’s Word at the time the words were given. Historical records outside the Bible reinforce this conclusion.

Jesus verified that the Old Testament writings were always Scripture when He quoted from the Old Testament and claimed, “It is written” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10) and “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35, NIV). Paul had no doubt that the Jews were “entrusted with the very words [the oracles] of God” (Romans 3:2, NIV). Modern-day theologian Carl F. H. Henry wisely concluded, “The church inherited the Old Testament, and Jesus defended, encouraged and exemplified faithful submission to these writings as an inspired canon.”2

A famous Jewish council met at Jamnia around AD 100. Its purpose was not, as is often erroneously suggested, to decide which books would be included among the sacred writings for the Jews. The purpose was which books were already accepted.3 The council had access to the same Old Testament canon that we have today.

The New Testament

Evidence within the Bible supports the conclusion that most of the New Testament was written by AD 70, while the writings of John came a little later.4 Most of the books name the author, and all the books give other helpful clues, which the book of Acts helps us to date more accurately.

Several statements in the Bible indicate that the New Testament would be written by apostles or approved by them. Peter called Paul’s writings “scripture” (2 Peter 3:16), and Paul said he and other apostles spoke “the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Before the close of the first century, Clement of Rome either quoted from or referred to more than half the New Testament books and called them “scripture.” By AD 180, Irenaeus of Lyons quoted over 1,000 passages from all but a handful of the New Testament books, calling them “holy Scriptures” given by the Holy Spirit. At the same time, Tertullian from North Africa referred to the “New Testament” and expounded on most of it. Origen from Alexandria in AD 240 referred to our 27 books as Scripture, and Athanasius used the same list in AD 367.5 They used no other books in the same way.

It is certain that by the early second century, the four Gospels (and never any others) and the thirteen letters of Paul were accepted by the churches across the Roman Empire without question.

Up to the year AD 180, all our New Testament books (with the single exception of 2 Peter) are found in either direct quotations or allusions in the writings of the leaders of the churches. By this year, a few churches hesitated over James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation; but all the rest were universally accepted. The church leaders never used noncanonical books with the same authority as the New Testament books.

The Muratorian Canon, originally compiled around AD 150, is our earliest documented evidence of a body of books that was identified as the New Testament canon of Scripture. It contains all but four of our New Testament books, though the only surviving copy from the eighth century is in poor condition and is missing parts. No council was ever called to debate the contents of the canon—it was almost universally recognized for what it was, the Word of God.

Why did it take so long for the list of the New Testament canon to show up?

The apostles did not leave us with a neat list of authoritative books.

No scroll could contain all the books, and the process of making books (called codices) did not become popular in the Roman Empire until the fourth century.6

The churches were widely scattered across the Roman Empire and beyond, from Britain to North Africa and east into Persia. Early Christians were still facing persecution and could not easily meet together.

Even though no one church or leader had authority to dictate to the others, it is amazing that close to AD 150 the Muratorian Canon could list all but four of our New Testament books.

Many deceivers wrote false gospels and letters, pretending that they were written by the apostles. But the early church leaders dismissed them as counterfeit and unreliable.7 The false gospels and letters betrayed themselves by their late date of composition—well beyond the time of the apostles—and by their teaching, which clearly conflicted with the canonical books and the accepted doctrines of the churches.

Conclusion
History reinforces our confidence that God gave us His entire Word and preserved it for us, as He said He would. We have precisely the books that God planned from eternity—66 books in all.

Footnotes
1. This comes from the Greek word ????? (kanon) which means “reed.” It came to mean “ruler” or “measuring stick” and later had the idea of a “recognized authority.” In the fourth century the church began to use it to mean “the accepted list of books of inspired Scripture.”
2. Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, Vol. 4 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), p. 407.
3. This is now widely accepted. See for example R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (London: SPCK, 1985), p.276. Also A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. 1 (Copenhagen, 1948), p. 31. Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 110. John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (London: Tyndale Press, 1972), pp.138–139.
4. This is the general evangelical position, but John A. T. Robinson, who was not an evangelical, in his detailed scholarly book, placed the entire New Testament before AD 70. Redating the New Testament (London: S.C.M. Press, 1976).
5. Athanasius was also the first to use the word canon for the body of New Testament books.
6. Our earliest nearly complete single-volume New Testament in Greek—Codex Sinaiticus from the mid-fourth century—measures 16 by 14 inches and contains 694 pages.
7. These are called pseudepigrapha (from Greek words meaning “false writings”).

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/why-66/

Five Quick Points on the Apocrypha

Posted on by
Reply

What About the Apocrypha?

The 11 to 16 books of the Apocrypha were written in the 400 years between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. While the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches treat some of these books as Scripture, Protestant Christians never have. Why is this?

1. The Jews never considered them as part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They believed that there was, throughout that period, no voice of the prophets in Israel. They looked forward to a day when “a faithful prophet” would appear (1 Maccabees 9:27). For the Jews, God’s revelation of the Scriptures through the prophets ended around 430 BC with the book of Malachi.

2. Jesus and the Apostles never considered the Apocrypha as part of the Scriptures. Although there are hundreds of quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament, never did Jesus or the apostles quote from the Apocrypha. Incidentally, the authors of the Bible do refer to other books, but this does not make them Scripture. For example, Jude 14–15 refers to the book of Enoch, which is not part of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha.

3. Unlike the Old Testament prophets, none of the books of the Apocrypha ever claimed divine authority.

4. Some parts of the Apocrypha contain historical blunders.

5. The community who copied the Dead Sea scrolls never gave the same authority to books of the Apocrypha as to the Old Testament books.

Source: Answers in Genesis

Concerning Church Membership

Posted on by
Reply

storms-sDr. Sam Storms following a rigorous and careful study of the Scriptures, we implemented formal church membership here at Bridgeway. One of the biblical texts that moved us in that direction was the reference to the people in the local church as being in the “charge” of the Elders (1 Peter 5:3). Some may translate this as “those allotted to you,” or those for whom you bear responsibility.

In my opinion, there’s no way to escape the fact that this exhortation to Elders implies some expression of formal membership in the local church.

Of course Elders can and should extend their love to anyone and everyone, within the limits of their ability. But the question is whether the Bible tells Elders that they are to have a special responsibility and care for a certain group, a group of covenant members. Consider Acts 20:28 where Paul tells the Elders how to care for their flock.

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

This verse does not say Elders cannot visit unbelievers or those who are not yet members. But it does make clear that their first responsibility is to a particular flock. How are they to know who their flock is? Who are we as Elders and Pastors responsible for? For whom will we give an account to God?

“Those in your charge” (your portion, your lot) implies that the Elders knew whom they were responsible for. This is just another way of talking about membership. If a person does not want to be held accountable by a group of Elders or be the special focus of the care of a group of Elders, they will resist the idea of membership. And they will resist God’s appointed way for them to live and be sustained in their faith.

Church membership is also implied in the biblical requirement of Christians to be submitted to a group of church leaders, Elders, or Pastors. The point here is that without membership, who is it that the New Testament is referring to who must submit to a specific group of leaders? Some kind of expressed willingness or covenant or agreement or commitment (that is, membership) has to precede a person’s submission to a group of leaders.

Consider the way the New Testament talks about the relationship of the church to her leaders.

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account” (Hebrews 13:17).

“We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17).

How are this leadership and this submission going to work if there is no membership defining who has made the commitment to be led and who has been chosen as leaders? If we downplay the importance of membership, it is difficult to see how we could take these commands to submit and to lead seriously and practically.

Christ, the Image of God

Posted on by
Reply

Heb-13Mike Riccardi is the Pastor of Local Outreach Ministries at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles. He also teaches Evangelism at The Master’s Seminary. He God’s presence was mediated through fire (Exod 3:6; Deut 5:4, through blazing light (Exod 33:18–23), through visions (Ezek 1:28) and angels (Jdg 6:21–22; cf. 13:21–22), through the temple worship (Pss 27:4; 63:1–2), and even through God’s own Word (1 Sam 3:21). But with the coming of Jesus and the New Covenant era, the glory of God’s presence is now uniquely and supremely manifested “in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). This makes sense, of course, because Christ is the perfect “image of God” (2 Cor 4:4).

This is precisely the testimony of the opening verses of the Book of Hebrews. Though God had revealed Himself by speaking to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days He has spoken finally and decisively in His Son (Heb 1:1). Christ is therefore the radiance of the Father’s glory (1:3)—the manifestation of the very presence of God, the “effulgence of the divine glory,” as one commentator colorfully puts it.

The Son is also described as the exact representation of the Father’s nature (1:3). The word for “nature” there is hupostasis, which the lexicons tell us speaks of the “essential or basic structure/nature of an entity” and thus refers to the Father’s “substantial nature, essence [and] actual being.” And the phrase “exact representation” is a translation of the Greek term charakt?r, which denotes “a stamp or impress, as on a coin or a seal, in which case the seal or die which makes an impression bears the image produced by it, and . . . all the features of the image correspond respectively with those of the instrument producing it” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary, 577).

Just as the shape, impressions, and intricacies of a coin reveal precisely the nature of the original die, so does the Son reveal the very essence of God Himself. Anthony Hoekema’s conclusion is inescapable: “It is hard to imagine a stronger figure to convey the thought that Christ is the perfect reproduction of the Father. Every trait, every characteristic, every quality found in the Father is also found in the Son, who is the Father’s exact representation.”

This teaching is borne consistent witness throughout the NT. Though no one has seen the Father at any time, Christ the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father has explained Him (John 1:18). Literally, the Son has exegeted the Father, making known to finite humanity in His own person what was otherwise imperceptible. The glory that humanity beholds in Christ is the “glory of the only begotten from the Father” (John 1:14). Paul tells us that Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), such that, “though God is invisible, in Christ the invisible becomes visible; one who looks at Christ is actually looking at God” (Hoekema, 21). So full is the Father’s revelation of Himself in the Son that Jesus can say to Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), for in Him “all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9). Continue reading →

Prosperity Theology and the Osteens

Posted on by
Reply

Mohler“The problem with Prosperity Theology is not that it promises too much, but that it aims for so little.”

“Prosperity Theology certainly sells books and draws crowds in the United States, but what does it possibly say to a grieving Christian wife and mother in Iraq? How can it possibly be squared with the actual message of the New Testament? How can any sinner be saved, without a clear presentation of sin, redemption, the cross, the empty tomb, and the call to faith and repentance? Prosperity Theology fails every test, and fails every test miserably. It is a false gospel, and one that must be repudiated, not merely reformatted.”

“God’s pleasure in his human creatures centers in his desire and will that they come to faith in Jesus Christ and be saved. The great dividing line in humanity is not between the rich and the poor, the sick and the well, or even the happy and the unhappy. The great divide is between those who, in Christ, have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s glorious light.

Mere happiness cannot bear the weight of the Gospel. The message of the real Gospel is found in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” That is a message that can be preached with a straight face, a courageous spirit, and an urgent heart in Munich, in Miami, or in Mosul.

If our message cannot be preached with credibility in Mosul, it should not be preached in Houston. That is the Osteen Predicament.”

– Al Mohler

Full article here.