Text: John 12:32-43
Last Call Before Lights Out!
Reply
Monthly Archives: March 2020
What Sola Scriptura Means
Justin Taylor: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/one-rule-to-rule-them-all-the-real-meaning-of-sola-scriptura/
Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 234:
[There is a] false notion, held widely, that the slogan sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the only source for theology. . . .
The slogan itself, still less the reality to which it pointed, never meant that the Bible was the only source for theology. The dangers of such a position are most clearly seen in the Socinians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in the early Plymouth Brethren, who, in their first decade, recapitulated many of the heresies of the early church.
When the slogan [sola Scriptura, Scripture alone] was devised, it was never intended to exclude the tradition of the church.
Oliver Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 17, discusses the various levels of sources and authority in Christian theology:
[First-Order Authority: Scripture: The Rule that Rules]
1. Scripture is
- the norma normans [the norm of norms, the rule that rules—a norming, adjusting, or measuring standard by which other measuring tools are to be measured],
- the principium theologiae [fundamental principle/foundation of theology].
It is the final arbiter in matters theological. . . . the first-order authority in all matters of Christian doctrine.
[Second-Order Authority: Ecumenical Creeds: Rules that Are Ruled]
2. Catholic creeds, as defined by an ecumenical council of the Church, constitute a first tier of norma normata [a norm that is normed, a rule that is ruled, a standard or measure that is itself subject to, and defined by, a greater standard] which have second-order authority. . . .
Such norms derive their authority from Scripture to which they bear witness.
[Third-Order Authority: Confessional Statements: Rules that Are Ruled]
3. Confessional and conciliar statements of particular ecclesiastical bodies are a second tier of norma normata, which have third-order in matters touching Christian doctrine.
They also derive their authority from Scripture to the extent that they faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture.
[Doctrines from Theologians: Legitimate Theological Opinions]
4. The particular doctrines espoused by theologians including those individuals accorded the title Doctor of the Church which are not reiterations of matters that are de fide, or entailed by something de fide, constitute theologoumena, or theological opinions, which are not binding upon the Church, but which may be offered up for legitimate discussion within the Church.
Avoiding Dropout Among Kids
Can Satan’s Followers Do Miracles?
by Gary Demar – original source here – https://americanvision.org/22443/can-satan-and-his-followers-perform-miracles/
Christian commentators often turn to the story of Moses and Aaron and their encounters with the magicians of Egypt as evidence that demonic miracles are real and can rival God’s miraculous works. If miracles are a way to demonstrate God’s power and authority over the created order, then “if something or someone other than God can perform miracles, then the value of miracles for attesting to Christ’s divinity is negated.” [1]
When Aaron threw down his rod before Pharaoh (Ex. 7:8–12), it became a serpent by the power of God. We shouldn’t be surprised that God can perform such a miracle since He created man from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7). For God, turning a dead stick into a serpent is child’s play. Could Pharaoh’s sorcerers and magicians also perform creation miracles? The Bible describes their “powers” as “secret arts,” or more accurately, “deceptive arts” (Ex. 7:11).
These were developed skills—conjurors tricks—that were concealed from Pharaoh and the general public. The livelihood of the magicians depended on their ability to convince Pharaoh that they had miraculous abilities. Pharaoh’s tricksters had no more power than the “magicians” who served in Nebuchadnezzar’s court and could not tell the king the contents of his dream.
Turning a staff into a serpent was a simple magician’s trick. Jannes and Jambres, the names that Paul gives to Pharaoh’s court magicians (2 Tim. 3:8), probably performed this spectacle quite often. It was their signature trick. But how did they create the illusion? Dan Korem, a trained magician, reminds us of similar illusions performed today. “The most practical method to duplicate the magicians’ feat is similar to a trick performed today where a magician changes a cane to a silk handkerchief, rope or a handful of flowers.” [2]
Modern magicians regularly work with animals, so we shouldn’t be surprised if ancient magicians did the same. Here’s how it could have been done. Susan Schaffer, a reptile curator at the San Diego Zoo,
explained that to measure the length of a snake, she takes a tightfitting tube and coaxes the snake into it, as snakes like dark, tight-fitting environs. To replicate the illusion of changing a rod into a snake, a telescopic shell must be constructed to house the snake. Given the materials available during that time period, such as a piece of pliable papyrus, this could easily be made. With the snake concealed inside the “staff,” the magician would simply have to pass his hand over the shell, collapsing it at the same time, leaving the snake in its place. This action could be covered by the motion of throwing the staff to the ground, creating the illusion that the staff visibly changes to a snake. [3]
Lighting would have been poor indoors, so the sleight of hand would have been easily concealed. A good magician could come up with several ways to perform this trick in a way that would convince the casual observer who probably saw what happened around Pharaoh’s court from a distance.
Here’s a short video of a trick I do to make a playing card float in mid air:
After church on Sunday, I picked R.C. Sproul’s book Moses and the Burning Bush that was on display. I was surprised to read the following and how it agreed with comments made by Korem and Kole:
Satan cannot perform miracles. The Bible warns us against the signs that Satan will perform, deceiving even the elect; but those signs are described as lying signs wonders. That doesn’t mean that they are true miracles that are performed for satanic purposes. Rather, they are false signs or tricks; they might be more astonishing than the most impressive magic acts, but they are still tricks. Satan is not God. He cannot do the things God can do. Real miracles that authenticate God’s messengers are acts that only God can do, such as creating something out of nothing or raising people from the dead. Satan can’t control the laws of nature; he’s just a magician. He’s good at his craft, but his craft is altogether evil.
We saw how that took place in the confrontation that Moses had with the magicians of Pharaoh’s court (Ex. 7:10–13). Moses took that rod), threw it on the ground, and it turned into a snake. But the magicians of Pharaoh just yawned and threw their sticks on the floor too—and they all became snakes. It was the oldest trick in the history of sleight-of-hand: inside each of their sticks was a snake. The sticks collapsed, so the snakes that were already in there could come out. Pharaoh’s court thought that was all Moses was doing, too. But Moses’ “trick” was real; his snake ate all of their snakes. Those magicians were no match for Moses—because they were no match for God. [4]
But didn’t Pharaoh’s magicians turn water into blood and produce frogs on command, replicating the miracles brought about through Moses? The miracle performed by Moses turned the Nile into blood as well as the “rivers … streams … pools … reservoirs” as well as the water in “vessels of wood and in vessels of stone” (Ex. 7:19). Pharaoh’s magicians did the same “with their secret arts” (7:22).
Thinking Straight in a Crooked World
There were “magicians, conjurers, and sorcerers” in Babylon who served under Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:1). If they truly had supernatural powers, they would have been able to interpret the king’s dream as well as to tell him what he dreamed. This they could not do (2:4–14). In fact, they admitted that it was impossible: “‘There is not a man on earth who could declare the matter for the king. . . .’” (2:10). Thinking Straight in a Crooked World explains why. If you are looking for a book to help with biblical apologetics, this is the book to start with.Buy Now
Their trick was to turn a small amount of water into blood. They must have gone to Pharaoh with a small pot of water and showed him how they too could turn it into blood. Magicians turn milk into confetti, a common trick performed by many stage illusionists. [5] Turning clear water into “blood” would be simple. Holding a pouch of blood in the palm of the hand—there was enough of it around—it would have been a simple thing to open it into the water. “Presto-change-o.” Water into blood!
The real miracle would have been for the magicians to turn some of the bloodied water throughout Egypt back into fresh water! This they could not do.
The plague of frogs, like the bloodied waters, occurred throughout Egypt. Once again, the court magicians went to Pharaoh and showed him that they could also produce frogs. “Magicians today produce live doves in the middle of a stage from handkerchiefs; and doves are far more difficult to handle than a docile frog.” [6] Like with the bloody water, the real miracle would have been to rid the land of frogs.
Reginald Scot, author of The Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584), takes an equally skeptical view of miraculous demonic powers being attributed to Pharaoh’s magicians. “If Pharaoh’s magicians had suddenly made frogs, why could they not drive them away again? If they could not hurt the frogs, why should we think that they could make them? … Such things as we are being bewitched to imagine, have no truth at all either in action or essence, beside the bare imagination.” [7]
If someone begins with the assumption that the devil can impart the ability to perform miracles, then he will see miracles in what the ancient and modern art of stage magic is. The replication of frogs was the last trick performed by Pharaoh’s magicians. They ran out of tricks. By the third miracle, “the magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘This is the finger of God’” (8:19). They knew a miracle when they saw it.
- André Kole and Jerry MacGregor, Mind Games: Exposing Today’s Psychics, Frauds, and False Spiritual Phenomena (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1998), 79.[↩]
- Dan Korem, Powers: Testing the Psychic and Supernatural (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 174.[↩]
- Korem, Powers, 174.[↩]
- R.C. Sproul, Moses and the Burning Bush (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2018),99–100.[↩]
- Korem, Powers, 175.[↩]
- Korem, Powers, 175.[↩]
- Reginald Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft (New York: Dover Publications, 1972), 180.Scot’s work was originally published in 1584, and only 250 copies were reprinted in 1886. It was reprinted once again in Great Britain in 1930. The 1972 Dover edition is the latest reprint, retaining the spelling of the original edition.[↩]
Finding Dispensationalism
Article “Dispensationalist Charges William Lane Craig with ‘Willful Ignorance” on the Rapture by Gary Demar – original source – https://americanvision.org/22432/dispensationalist-charges-william-lane-craig-with-willful-ignorance-on-the-rapture/
While doing my daily trek through Facebook looking for relevant news stories, I came across a post with a link to an article with this title: “The Willful Ignorance of William Lane Craig.” The author of the article takes Dr. Craig to task for his comments on the historicity of the rapture in his short video “Is the Rapture a Biblical Doctrine?”
Eschatology is not Dr. Craig’s main field of study.
In recent years, several scholars have worked hard to prove that dispensationalism existed prior to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) around 1830. Here’s the standard argument: “Dispensationalists … argue that while Darby may have been the first to order dispensational distinctives into a lucid system, other theologians held certain dispensational-like presuppositions far before Darby.” [1] For example, William C. Watson’s Dispensationalism Before Darby: Seventeenth-Century and Eighteenth-Century English Apocalypticism (2015), a book that is loaded with great historical sources, argues this way.
I contend that every prophetic system can make the same claim. For example, dispensationalists are premillennial, but premillennialists often argue vociferously against dispensationalism. Consider historic or classical premillennialist George Eldon Ladd:
We can find no trace of pretribulationalism in the early church, and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held aby any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century. [2]
Also, apocalypticism and dispensationalism are not synonymous since amillennialists believe in an end-time apocalypse. Neither is a belief in a future great tribulation, the rise and demise of antichrist, or the future redemption of Israel. These and other prophetic doctrines can be found among most prophetic systems.
For example, in the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer (“Thy kingdom come”) of the 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the following is found: “we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, [and] the fullness of the Gentiles brought in … and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends” (Larger Catechism, Q/A. 191).
A dispensationalist could agree with what’s stated above, but only within the context of its system. It’s dispensationalism as a system that does not have historical support.
Long before dispensationalism, many Christians commenting on eschatology, most of whom would be described today as postmillennialists, taught the future conversion of the Jews. What they did not teach is the “rapture of the church” prior to a seven-year period in order to separate a remnant of Jews from a new entity called the “church.” See Chapter 3 of my book 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered.
So much of what we read in the historical record on the topic of Bible prophecy is marred by a failure to consider the nearness of certain prophetic events that Jesus and the New Testament writers specify. Watson and Craig are aware of preterism but do not do a good job dealing with preterist arguments from a biblical perspective.
Watson has numerous entries of preterism in his subject index. He mentions and quotes John Owen (1616–1683) who believed in a future papal antichrist, a belief common to most of the Reformers, many of who were historicists. There is no way that anyone would identify Owen as a dispensationalist even though dispensationalists and Owen (among others) believed in a future conversion of the Jews.
As Watson admits, Owen was mostly a preterist who believed that in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) Jesus “came to destroy Jerusalem and put an end to the Jewish state and dispensation.”
Owen had this to say about 2 Peter 3:10 and the passing away of heaven and earth, a position that dispensationalists, premillennialists, and most amillennialists and postmillennialists would not agree with:
On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state — i.e., the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (John Owen’s Works (9:134–135).
Dr. Craig has addressed the subject of preterism from a biblical perspective here. My responses are here, here, and here.
Craig and the dispensationalists share a similar textual fault by failing to account for audience relevance and the timing of prophetic events.
Craig’s views on eschatology are all over the map, but he does seem to share some of the same tenets of dispensationalisms, for example, the belief that “[t]he fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 may have been just a foreshadowing of a final great tribulation and fall of Jerusalem that will take place again at the end of the age. Although Jesus may have thought that many of ‘these things’ would take place within his generation, I don’t think we have any solid grounds for saying that Jesus believed that the coming of the Son of Man was going to take place within the lifetime of his contemporaries.”
To repeat, to hold similar positions on some prophetic topics does not mean that the people who held these similar positions can or should be identified as proto-dispensationalists.
Many premillennialists and amillennialists hold a similar mixed view of the Olivet Discourse but would not see eye-to-eye on the rapture of the church. See Chapter 4 of my book Prophecy Wars for my response to this interpretation.
Prophecy Wars
Prophecy Wars covers topics related to (1) the time texts, audience reference (the use of the second person plural), and prophetic signs that are described by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), (2) the claim made that preterism is based on the historical works of first-century Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37–100), (4) the meaning of Jesus’ use of “this generation,” (5) John Murray’s (1898–1975) interpretation of Matthew 24–25, (6) Isaiah 17: Prophecy Fulfilled, (7) Blood Moons, Prophecy, and the Integrity of the Bible, (8) “Just Like the Days of Noah,” (9) Calculating the Number of the Beast, and (10) Refuting the Charges of “Replacement Theology.”Buy Now
If there is something in the historical record that aligns with something dispensationalists teach, then that source is often used by dispensationalists to support their claim that dispensationalism was taught before the 19th century. For example, in the first chapter of the book Ancient Dispensational Truth, the author states the following as if it’s historic evidence that dispensationalism existed before Darby and Co.:
Ancient writers called the various ages in which God dealt with mankind in different ways, “dispensations.”
This claim isn’t new to critics of dispensationalism. The system called dispensationalism is more than differences between the covenants or the fact that theologians divided redemptive history into dispensations. “Rightly dividing the word of truth” (a more accurate translation is “accurately handling the word of truth”: 2 Tim. 2:15), a favorite Scofieldian phrase, does not mean dividing up the Bible into sealed off redemptive divisions. The NT itself makes this clear by declaring that there has been a change in the operation of God’s covenant as is obvious from the book of Hebrews and Paul’s writings.
In reading some of these early authors, the word “dispensation” is most often used as a synonym for “covenant.” For example, from John Chrysostom’s “Letter to a Young Widow”: “And God has furnished us with certain tokens, and obscure indications of these things both in the Old and in the New Dispensation.”
Chrysostom is saying nothing more than that both the Old and New Testaments have something to teach widows. This is hardly an endorsement in any way of modern-day dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism, as a system, is not found prior to the 19th century. There is no such system among the early church fathers since their writings lack the necessary elements of the system that defines dispensationalism.
Alan Patrick Boyd, author of “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr),” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology (May 1977) at Dallas Theological Seminary, sums up his detailed study of the period with the following:
It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie’s statement [that “premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church” [3]] was the view of the early is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: 1). the writers/writings surveyed did not generally adopt a consistently applied literal interpretation; 2). they did not generally distinguish between the Church and Israel; 3). there is no evidence that they generally held to a dispensational view of revealed history; 4). although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic similarity with the modern system (in fact, they and dispensational pre-millennialism radically differ on the basis of the Millennium); 5). they had no concept of imminency or a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church; 6). in general, their eschatological chronology is not synonymous with that of the modern system. Indeed, this thesis would conclude that the eschatological beliefs of the period studied would be generally inimical to those of the modern system (perhaps, seminal amillennialism, and not nascent dispensational pre-millennialism ought to be seen in the eschatology of the period).
This means, if premillennialism is not the historic faith of the Church, then neither can dispensationalism be. The system known as dispensationalism is a 19th-century invention.
Considerations for Choosing a Church
Not by Faith Alone? An Analysis of the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification from Trent to the Joint Declaration
Improving Your Sermon Delivery
Dr. Steve Lawson (original source: http://www.onepassionministries.org/blog/2020/2/26/improving-sermon-delivery )
Whenever the word is preached, the manner with which the sermon is delivered is always important. To be sure, the substance of what we have to say is the greatest priority. Truth is king, and it must reign supremely in our preaching. But how we deliver this truth is also important. Just as no one likes to eat cold scrambled eggs, neither does anyone like to be fed a steady diet of cold preaching. The manner in which the truth is served plays a large factor in how it is received.
That being said, I want to survey ten keys to improve the delivery of your preaching. Each of these should help you to reflect upon your preaching and to incorporate these into your delivery, as they are needed.
Clarity and Passion
First, clarity. Clarity is never overrated. When you stand to preach, people should be able to easily understand what you are saying. They need to be able to follow you without laboring to grasp your point. You need to be a linear thinker, not a circular thinker. Structure, development of thought, and correct pronunciation of your words are all important parts of a lucid delivery.
Second, passion. When you are excited about something, it causes others to be enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, when you are bored with a matter, other people will tend to be bored. Passion is contagious. A fire in the pulpit will soon spread to the pew.
For your preaching, there needs to be a fire in your bones. There needs to be a holy enthusiasm for what you proclaim. There must be an excitement in your soul for what you say. Passion conveys to the listener the importance of what you are expositing.
Eye Contact and Tone
Third, eye contact. One of the greatest hindrances in sermon delivery is when the preacher is staring at his notes. If you are not looking up at the people to whom you are speaking, they will probably not listen to you.
We call that kind of preacher a “bubble preacher,” because it is as if he is standing in a glass bubble, separate from the congregation. It is like he is in a remote sound booth, and the people are in another room. Without eye contact, this preacher is disconnected from the people to whom he is speaking.
Think about your own preaching. Eye contact is critically important to you being heard, because it helps you establish rapport with the people to whom you speak.
Fourth, tone. The warmth and volume with which you speak is critically important to the effectiveness of your sermons. Depending on the size of the room and the number of people you are addressing, it needs to be appropriate for the setting.
There are many different settings in which we preach. There is Sunday morning in the worship center to the largest group. There is Sunday night to a smaller congregation. There is Wednesday night to a yet smaller group. There is Sunday School in a classroom. There is a men’s discipleship group in a more intimate setting. There is an elders’ or a deacons’ meeting in a boardroom setting.
Each of those venues influence the tone with which we speak. I have a louder, more demonstrative tone when I am speaking to 5,000 people at a national conference. I have a more pastoral tone when I am speaking to a smaller group of fifty people. A part of effective delivery is to be conscious of your setting and use the proper volume of your voice.
Volume and Gestures
Fifth, variance. You should learn to raise and lower the volume of your voice. You should not be blaring and loud for the entire forty-five minutes of the sermon. I will admit that I can be loud for too sustained of a period of time, but that is a personal weakness, not a strength. To use an airplane metaphor, you cannot step into the pulpit, soar immediately to 36,000 feet, stay at that altitude for almost an hour, and then abruptly end the message. That kind of prolonged intensity does not make for effective communication.
For example, when I highlight my sermon notes with a yellow marker, if every word in my sermon notes is highlighted in yellow, nothing stands out. In like manner, if you are loud the entire sermon, nothing that you say stands out. You need to have peaks and valleys in your delivery, with an alternating loud and soft volume, as is appropriate.
In fact, some of the most impactful things you will say may be when you lower your voice. Varied volume is an important part of effective delivery.
Sixth, gestures. You are speaking not only with your voice, but with your hands. How you use your hands in the pulpit to gesture is another critical factor in preaching.
You should not stand in the pulpit with your hands in your pocket for the entire sermon. You should not stand there with two hands tightly gripping the pulpit. There needs to be a natural freedom with the use of your hands as you preach.
At the same time, there should be a diversity with the kind of gestures that you use. You should not stand in the pulpit, and every gesture is a repetition of the same one. You should not repeat the “first down” gesture. Nor should every gesture be the triumphant “touchdown” gesture. You should use your hands in a variety of ways as you speak.
Natural Disposition and Vocabulary
Seventh, be natural. When you preach, you must be yourself. You should not be an imitation of another preacher, in which you try to mirror their delivery. It would be unnatural for you to preach like someone else. You should sound like the same person in the pulpit as when you step out of it.
You must be you. You are an original creation of God, that He has made uniquely. Use your own God-given temperament, personality, and vocabulary as you speak.
Eighth, synonyms. You should learn to vary your vocabulary. Do not repeat yourself, using the same word over and over. There is a point of diminishing return when you use the same word again and again. After you have used a word four or five times, it begins to lose its effect. It could even lose its luster after two or three uses, especially if it is within the same sentence or the same paragraph.
I try to vary my word choice and use multiple synonyms. I also try to layer out my synonyms so that some words are accessible to teenagers and still others are for businessmen. All the while, though, I am communicating the same idea, but with different synonyms that connect with different people.
Vary Verbs and Maintain Energy
Ninth, verb moods.
Verbs are used with various moods. There is the indicative mood, which is a statement of fact. Most of the sermon will be given in the indicative mood. Then there is the interrogative mood, which is the sentence that ends with a question mark. It is where you are asking a question, which causes the listener to think and search for the answer.
Moreover, the imperative mood issues a command. It charges the listener to follow a particular course of action. In addition, there is the exclamatory mood, which is the sentence that ends with an exclamation point. It is intended to excite the hearts of those to whom you are speaking.
As I write my sermon manuscript, I am consciously aware of shifting the moods in my notes from the indicative, to the interrogative, to the imperative, to the exclamatory. Read your Bible and you will notice the same verb moods.
When I am in the pulpit, I may not be looking down at my notes, but I am still mindful to not be stuck in one mood with my verbs.
So many preachers stay in the rut of the indicative mood and never use the other moods of verbs. Their sermon sounds like this: statement of fact, statement of fact, statement of fact, statement of fact, statement of fact. This is why their preaching becomes very monotone and becomes little more than a data dump.
Tenth, energy. In the pulpit, there needs to be an energy level that comes through with your voice, eyes, gestures, and countenance. It conveys you are alive and awake, not tired or listless. When you are full of the Holy Spirit, there is a dynamic force in your preaching that will penetrate the soul of the listener.
Distinguished Delivery
For your part, make sure you have enough sleep the night before you preach. Make sure that you have had a proper breakfast. Make sure if you are a coffee drinker, that you have had enough caffeine. Whatever helps you to be energetic in the pulpit, you need to follow that path.
All this to say, your sermon delivery is very important to your message being heard and received. It is what distinguishes you from another preacher who teaches the same truth. The difference is not in the doctrine, but in the delivery. The substance of your sermon is important, but so also is the style with which it is delivered. Think about how you are coming across and how you can improve, for the glory of God alone.
Do you take the Bible literally?
Whenever I am asked the question, ‘do you take this Bible passage literally?’ my answer is always ‘yes, of course!’ Every verse in our Bible should be taken literally. With this affirmed, something more needs to be said.
The word ‘literal’ means ‘according to the literature.’ To interpret a passage or verse in our Bible ‘literally’ means that we determine its meaning by first acknowledging the type of genre in which it is expressed. This allows you and I as the readers, to interpret the verse according to the purpose and intent of the original writer.
When we come to the text seeking a literal interpretation it means historical narrative should be understood as historical narrative, poetic passages as poetry, didactic (teaching) as didactic, parables as parables, etc. When a gospel writer introduces us to words Jesus spoke by informing us ‘And Jesus spoke a parable to them saying…’ he is giving us the information we need to interpret the words that follow properly. In this case it means that Jesus’ words here should be interpreted according to the literal genre of ‘parable.’
Let us take a passage such as Luke 2:1-7 where the gospel writer (Luke) records historical events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Here, we should not be viewing the names of people and cities in symbolic terms. ‘Caesar Augustus’ refers to Caesar Augustus, ‘Quirinius, governor of Syria’ refers to Quirinius governor of Syria and ‘Bethlehem’ denotes Bethlehem. Luke is recording history and is simply anchoring the events of Christ’s birth in their historical context. No secret or hidden meanings should be sought.
Other passages in our Bibles are highly figurative and need to be interpreted as such. The book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature. Much of the entire book contains figurative and symbolic language. This is significant for us because it means that a true interpretation can only be obtained by recognizing its figurative genre. A verse or passage found in the book of Revelation should be interpreted figuratively unless it is obvious it cannot.
Twin Graces – Repentance & Faith
An article by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson entitled “Which Comes First: Repentance or Faith?” ( https://www.ligonier.org/blog/faith-repentance/ )
When the gospel is proclaimed, it seems at first sight that two different, even alternative, responses are called for. Sometimes the summons is, “Repent!” Thus, “John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, ‘Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 3:1–2). Again, Peter urged the hearers whose consciences had been ripped open on the day of Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38). Later, Paul urged the Athenians to “repent” in response to the message of the risen Christ (Acts 17:30).
Yet, on other occasions, the appropriate response to the gospel is, “Believe!” When the Philippian jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved, the Apostle told him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
But there is no mystery or contradiction here. Further on in Acts 17, we discover that precisely where the response of repentance was required, those who were converted are described as believing (Acts 17:30, 34).
Any confusion is surely resolved by the fact that when Jesus preached “the gospel of God” in Galilee, He urged His hearers, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14–15). Here repentance and faith belong together. They denote two aspects in conversion that are equally essential to it. Thus, either term implies the presence of the other because each reality (repentance or faith) is the sine qua non of the other.
In grammatical terms, then, the words repent and believe both function as a synecdoche—the figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole. Thus, repentance implies faith and faith implies repentance. One cannot exist without the other.
But which comes first, logically? Is it repentance? Is it faith? Or does neither have an absolute priority? There has been prolonged debates in Reformed thought about this. Each of three possible answers has had advocates:
First, W. G. T. Shedd insisted that faith must precede repentance in the order of nature: “Though faith and repentance are inseparable and simultaneous, yet in the order of nature, faith precedes repentance” (Dogmatic Theology, 2.536). Shedd argued this on the grounds that the motivating power for repentance lies in faith’s grasp of the mercy of God. If repentance were to precede faith, both repentance and faith would be legal in character, and they would become prerequisites for grace.
Second, Louis Berkhof appears to have taken the reverse position: “There is no doubt that, logically, repentance and the knowledge of sin precede the faith that yields to Christ in trusting love” (Systematic Theology, p. 492).
Third, John Murray insisted that this issue raises
an unnecessary question and the insistence that one is prior to the other is futile. There is no priority. The faith that is unto salvation is a penitent faith and the repentance that is unto life is a believing repentance … saving faith is permeated with repentance and repentance is permeated with saving faith. (Redemption—Accomplished and Applied, p. 113).
This is, surely, the more biblical perspective. We cannot separate turning from sin in repentance and coming to Christ in faith. They describe the same person in the same action, but from different perspectives. In one instance (repentance), the person is viewed in relation to sin; in the other (faith), the person is viewed in relation to the Lord Jesus. But the individual who trusts in Christ simultaneously turns away from sin. In believing he repents and in repenting believes. Perhaps R. L. Dabney expressed it best when he insisted that repentance and faith are “twin” graces (perhaps we might say “conjoined twins”).
But having said this, we have by no means said everything there is to say. Entwined within any theology of conversion lies a psychology of conversion. In any particular individual, at the level of consciousness, a sense of either repentance or trust may predominate. What is unified theologically may be diverse psychologically. Thus, an individual deeply convicted of the guilt and bondage of sin may experience turning from it (repentance) as the dominant note in his or her conversion. Others (whose experience of conviction deepens after their conversion) may have a dominant sense of the wonder of Christ’s love, with less agony of soul at the psychological level. Here the individual is more conscious of trusting in Christ than of repentance from sin. But in true conversion, neither can exist without the other.
The psychological accompaniments of conversion thus vary, sometimes depending on the dominant gospel emphasis that is set before the sinner (the sinfulness of sin or the greatness of grace). This is quite consistent with the shrewd comment of the Westminster Divines to the effect that faith (that is, the trusting response of the individual to the word of the gospel) “acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof [of Scripture] containeth” (WCF 16.2).
In no case, however, can real conversion take place apart from the presence of both repentance and faith, and therefore both joy and sorrow. A “conversion” that lacks all sorrow for sin, that receives the word with only joy, will be temporary.
Jesus’ parable of the sower is instructive here. In one type of soil, the seed sprouts quickly but dies suddenly. This represents “converts” who receive the word with joy—but with no sense of fallow ground being broken up by conviction of sin or any pain in turning from it (Mark 4:5–6, 16–17). On the other hand, a conversion that is only sorrow for sin without any joy in pardon will prove to have been only “worldly grief” that “produces death” (2 Cor. 7:10). In the end, it will come to nothing.
This, however, raises a final question: Does the necessity of repentance in conversion constitute a kind of work that detracts from the empty-handedness of faith? Does it compromise grace?
In a word, no. Sinners must always come empty-handed. But this is precisely the point. By nature, my hands are full (of sin, self, and my own “good deeds”). However, hands that are full cannot hold on to Christ in faith. Instead, as they take hold of Him, they are emptied. That which has prevented us from trusting Him falls inevitably to the ground. The old way of life cannot be retained in hands that are taking hold of the Savior.
Yes, repentance and faith are two essential elements in conversion. They constitute twin graces that can never be separated. As John Calvin well reminds us, this is true not only of the beginning but of the whole of our Christian lives. We are believing penitents and penitent believers all the way to glory.