Another Failed End-Times Prediction

"Members of the Lord Our Righteousness Church near Des Moines believed they would escape their earthly bondage and ascend to heaven Friday night. Their once-active Web site came down, and a church representative sent the Journal an e-mail saying he didn't anticipate having anymore contact with the media.

But as a small crowd of people and a TV news crew looked on from the gate to the wind-swept compound, midnight came. And then midnight went." MORE

The New Jerusalem???

Destiny Church plans to create a ‘holy city’ his followers never have to leave

Destiny Church is planning to create a holy city for its followers in the heart of South Auckland. He is urging church members to sell up their homes around the country and move to his promised land - a suggestion that is not being welcomed by everyone. The church’s leader, Bishop Brian Tamaki has told supporters the plans are well advanced, and that donations for the project have topped $2.4 million.

Destiny Church exhibits many signs of being a cult-like church. Four years ago, Tamaki expected Destiny Church to rule New Zealand by now. At least one newspaper believes Tamaki’s destiny is irrelevance... MORE

Sobering Words about Preaching

"For myself, as I am ashamed of my dull and careless heart, and of my slow and unprofitable course of life, so, the Lord knows, I am ashamed of every sermon I preach; when I think what I have been speaking of, and who sent me, and that men’s salvation or damnation is so much concerned in it, I am ready to tremble lest God should judge me as a slighter of His truths and the souls of men, and lest in the best sermon I should be guilty of their blood.
Me thinks we should not speak a word to men in matters of such consequence without tears, or the greatest earnestness that possibly we can; were not we too much guilty of the sin which we reprove, it would be so."

Couple beaten to death in a stop-smoking "ritual"

Couple beaten to death in stop-smoking ‘cleansing ritual’

from Religion News Blog by Anton Hein

A couple who went to a relative's house to celebrate the end of Ramadan and agreed to an 'alternative treatment' to rid them of their problems, ended up dead after being battered with helmets and broomsticks during the cleansing ritual.

Five others who also participated in the ritual, including the couple's children and relatives, suffered head injuries and were being treated at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital here.

The Power of Words and the Wonder of God

The Power of Words and the Wonder of God - 2008 Desiring God Conference

I'm presently listening through this helpful conference. Worth the listen. Here's the Link to the Audio and Video - The Power of Words

Here's the Line Up:

Sinclair Ferguson - "The Tongue, the Bridle, and the Blessing"
Driscoll, Ferguson, Piper - Friday Panel Discussion
Bob Kauflin - "Words of Wonder: What Happens When We Sing?"
Mark Driscoll - "How Sharp the Edge: Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words"
Daniel Taylor - "The Life-Shaping Power of Story: God's and Ours"
Kauflin, Piper, Taylor, Tripp - Saturday Panel Discussion
Paul Tripp - "War of Words: Getting to the Heart for God's Sake"
John Piper - "Is There Christian Eloquence? Clear Words and the Wonder of the Cross"

Christianity's Greatest Enemy: Religion - Mark 2:1-12

Christianity's Greatest Enemy: Religion
September, 21 2008
Click Here the Audio

www.oasisnorthvalley.org

Jesus in the Dresser Drawer - Mark 1:21-39

Jesus In the Dresser Drawer
September, 14 2008
Click Here the Audio

www.oasisnorthvalley.org

Fighting the Unseen: An Intro in Spiritual Warfare - Mark 1:12 & 13

Fighting the Unseen: An Intro in Spiritual Warfare
August 31, 2008
Click Here the Audio

bethinking.org - Science + Christianity - Flew Speaks Out: Professor Antony Flew reviews The God Delusion

bethinking.org - Science + Christianity - Flew Speaks Out: Professor Antony Flew reviews The God Delusion: "Flew Speaks Out: Professor Antony Flew reviews The God Delusion
Antony Flew"

The "Lost" Years of Jesus - Mark 1:14-20

Series Title: The Real Jesus
Message Title: The “Lost” Years of Jesus
August 17, 2008
Mark 1:14-20

CLICK HERE to listen

Faith By Jealousy - Romans 11 pt.2

Romans 11: 11-15
July 20, 2008
Jake Magee

LISTEN

Israel: A Lesson in the Unexpected - Romans 11 pt.1

Romans 11:1-10
7/13/08
Jake Magee

LISTEN

oasis north valley - new location August 3rd

Starting August 3rd
We're Meeting at Victoria Community Church

Divorce and Remarriage pt. 1 - Is Divorce Justified in Cases of Neglect? Probably in the Old Testament.

by Jake Magee
www.oasisnorthvalley.org

Exodus 21:7-11

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 "If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."

This passage is believed to provide for us “neglect” as a legitimate cause for divorce. I would like to look some of the strengths and weakness of this position and offer some reasons for my tentative agreement of this position. In offering a tentative agreement, this isn’t necessarily an affirmation that neglect is a legitimate cause for divorce. We have yet to weigh the words of Jesus on his handling of Mosaic regulations on marriage.

In verse 7, we have the conditions of a father selling his daughter into slavery. Moses says that she is not to go free after the allotted time as the male slaves to. Why the permanency of the slavery? The answer seems connected with what position she’s appointed to: “If he designates her for himself (vs.8),” or “if he designates* her for his son” (vs.9). The appointment seems to have been for engagement or marriage, not to ordinary servitude.

It’s vital to know the precise nature of this “designation,” for in verses 10 & 11, the “designation” may be legally dissolved in the case of neglect. If the appointment is to engagement, then this verse would be irrelevant to the topic of divorce. All Moses would be saying is, “If a woman is engaged and her fiancée betroths someone else, she is free to exit her term of servitude.” If it refers to marriage, than we must address other issues related the particular relevancy of this passage for new covenant living.

So, does this designation refer to marriage or betrothal? The answer could be determined by what is meant by “conjugal rights.” The NIV, RSV, NKJV translates it “marital rights” or “marriage rights”. The KJV has “the duty of marriage”. The NAU has “conjugal rights.” The Hebrew word under girding these translations can mean “cohabitation.” The Septuagint has apostereo which Paul renders sexual intercourse in 1 Corinthians 7:5.**

“Stop depriving (apostero) one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

Cultural conditions would be consistent with taking this as being sexual in nature.

“Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives ( cf. Gen. 16:3 ; 22:24 ; 30:3 , 9 ; 36:12 ; Jud. 8:31 ; 9:18 ). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class (Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures . Victor Books: Wheaton, IL ).

However, this is not without problems. If marriage is in view, then Moses seems to allow for polygamous marriages. To paraphrase, “if a man who is married to a former slave decides to marry another women, and if that man neglects the former wife for the latter, than she has the permission to leave the husband.” There’s no censure of the man marrying another women. And the former wife is bound in that relationship so long as the husband provides for her. Someone might argue that since Moses certainly would have addressed this perversion of the family unit, then it is best to interpret this passage as referring to engagement so as to avoid Moses’ tacit support of polygamy. Put differently, you can only have divorce in this passage if you embrace polygamy. Since no one wants to embrace polygamy, let’s interpret this passage as referring to engagement.

This objection is unconvincing when we look related passages like Deuteronomy 22:10-16. First, the passage refers to a clear case of divorce that neatly parallels Exodus 21. Secondly, this passage addresses polygamous relationships without explicit censure of such a relationship. Both of these factors diffuse the above argumentation that Moses couldn’t have meant espousal due to the resultant polygamy. Let’s look at the passage.

Deuteronomy 21:10-17

10 "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 "She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. 15 "If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, 16 then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. 17 "But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.”

This passage makes explicit what I said was implicit in Exodus 21:7-11. Here we have a woman of captivity taken into slavery and married by her captor. Due to the marriage bond and the subsequent divorce, she may chose not remain as a slave. She is a freed woman. Sounds a lot like Exodus 21.

Note the commonalities: (1) Both speak of women slaves: one sold in to slavery by a father, the other a slave in virtue of conquest. (2) If Exodus 21 is referring to taking the slave as a wife, then they both would refer to espousal, not engagement. (3) Both would refer to the condition of her freedom as the termination of marriage.

Exodus 21:11 11 "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

Deuteronomy 21:14 14 "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

In Deuteronomy, it’s the husband that is displeased. In Exodus 21, it is the putative wife that is displeased. Taking these two passages together, it is likely that Exodus 21 refers to espousal, and not engagement.

Surprisingly enough, the espousal view of Exodus. 21 is supported by the discussion of polygamy in Duet. 21. The passage transitions to a case in which a man has two wives (vss.15-17). How did he get the second wife? It’s reasonable to think that he obtained the second wife from the conquest of Canaan that is referred to in vss. 10-14. With the new espousal, the first wife becomes unloved, as well as her son. Moses provides parameters to protect the status of the first born.

Notice how the two parallel nicely.

Exodus 21:10 - 11

10 "If he takes to himself another woman (as a wife), he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights (reduce his love for her). 11 "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

15 "If a man has two wives (a new one taken from the captivity), the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, 16 then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. 17 "But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn

Exodus 21:11 leaves it to the women as whether she stay or go should she be neglected. In the case in Duet 21, it appears that the wife chooses to stay. Moses establishes some parameters to protect her child should this woman choose to stay.

This interpretation raises many questions. For example, “why are Scriptural writers silent on the issue of polygamy?” “Is this silence a tacit support for such a lifestyle?” For that matter, “why is slavery condoned?” “Why is chauvinism so pronounced?” “How come Moses doesn’t resist slavery, polygamy, and chauvinism?” In reality, these are topics outside the scope of my immediate topic of interest, and each person who has a stake the discussion on divorce are left to explain these same areas regardless of which side of the debate they fall.

My conclusion is that Exodus 21:10-11 did allow for divorce in the case of neglect.

*d[y verb qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular , suffix 3rd person feminine singular B4034 d[;y" vb. appoint -- Qal appoint, a time; place; a rod; assign or designate as concubine. Niph. 1. reflexive, meet at an appointed place, with l., of Yahweh meeting Moses at the Tent of `Meeting'; at the throne of the Kapporeth. 2. meet by appointment; with B. of place; la, of place. 3. gather, assemble by appointment, kings for a campaign (abs.); with la,, unto Moses; to the door of the tent of meeting; with l[;, unto Solomon; against Yahweh. Po`el sq. pers. + la, of place. Hiph. make meet, i.e. summon or arraign. Hoph. be set, placed before. (pg 416)

**The root meaning is defrauding or depriving someone from something. The context determines what is being deprived: house, justice, sex, etc…

Divorce and Remarriage - Introduction

by Jake Magee
www.oasisnorthvalley.org

The topic of divorce is ripe and relevant within evangelical churches. The garden variety evangelical appears to be neck and neck with his culture in the rate at which he divorces. This is likely due to the typical evangelical affirming the culture’s position on divorce, as well as manhood, womanhood, and family. We divorce too easily, because we marry too easily. We marry too easily, because we don’t have a clue on what commitment is. We also marry wrongly. We marry with fuzzy and sometimes reversed roles in the family. When the design for family has been ignored, it’s not surprising to see toxic environments that makes divorce a welcomed life-preserve in the midst of a storm-tossed relationship.

In the backdrop of multiple illegitimate divorces, this begs the question of what Biblically counts as a "legitimate" divorce. I think most people would agree that the scope for what counts as “justified” divorce has been made so broad so as to allow for the dissolving of the union due to matters as trivial as “burning dinner.” So what biblical condition or conditions give license for a person to divorce?

As a pastor, there is always a tremendous burden to have the “word of the Lord” when dealing with people so as to ensure that I’ve done my due diligence in communicating God’s word on topics that determine lives and eternity. This post, and all subsequent related posts, will chronicle my mental journey in seeking a more informed position on the parameters of divorce and remarriage. This means that most of these posts may appear disjointed, reflecting a disjunctive mind which will pursue suggestions that may arise randomly as I interact with the biblical text. Conclusions may be reached and discarded as further investigate discloses vulnerabilities. It will be in the homestretch that each respective area will begin to find their place and position as my position. With that, I sign off.

God Is Not Dead Yet

God Is Not Dead Yet

William Lane Craig

"You might think from the recent spate of atheist best-sellers that belief in God has become intellectually indefensible for thinking people today. But a look at these books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, among others, quickly reveals that the so-called New Atheism lacks intellectual muscle. It is blissfully ignorant of the revolution that has taken place in Anglo-American philosophy. It reflects the scientism of a bygone generation rather than the contemporary intellectual scene..."

For more: HERE

ONV - New Location

oasis north valley - new location come august 3rd. Here's a video tour...

Mother’s Milk

BY JAKE MAGEE

www.oasisnorthvalley.org
www.jakemagee.blogspot.com


Infants eat voraciously. The slightest hunger pangs are broadcast with ear-piercing tongues of discontent. We know that as soon as they’re born they intuitively seek out mother’s milk. Though their eyesight is unclear and motor functions underdeveloped, they just seem to know where and how to find mother’s milk. They’ll eat until they burp up or until they’re exhausted. They’re not merely eating to live, they live to eat.

Peter says to those born from above,

“Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord” (1 Peter 2:1-3)
The apostle says that those who have tasted of the Lord will have an infant-like appetite for the word of God. Do you?

Do you eat God’s word to live? Or do you live to eat God’s word? One is a duty – driven out of law and obligation. The other compelled by the experience of pleasure and delight.

Is the word of God a duty or a delight?

Do you have an insatiable appetite for God’s word? Do you eat it until you’re exhausted and burp up? Or, are you satisfied with a sampler: a quick devotion here or an out of context verse there?

Do you treasure God’s word or handle it trivially?

If your approach to Scripture is trivial and duty driven, perhaps your appetite has been suppressed. Perhaps you need to put away malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander. I know of no greater things to suppress one’s appetite for God’s word than to consume and digest maligning and evil words. That’s easily done watching TV, surfing the web, or reading magazines. How many hours do we spend ingesting and digesting these sorts of things? How little time do we ingest and digest the word of God?

In the same way, I know of no greater thing which suppresses an infant’s appetite than gas. It takes the space that mom’s milk would take up. Here’s a novel ideal: Turn off the TV for once. Put down the magazine. Close the lap-top. It’s gaseous. It will fill you up with nothing. And it usually stinks.

Infants are marked with one focus – mother’s milk. Everything else is irrelevant. Let’s begin to long for God’s word like new born babes.

AMERICANS: MY FAITH ISN'T THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN

by Jake Magee

According to a new survey, 70 percent of Americans affirm that there are many religious traditions that may lead a person to God. 57 percent of evangelical church attenders agree.

“57 percent of evangelical church attenders agree.”

Do they attend our churches? You might be surprised.

What’s the attraction to this growing belief called “Pluralism”?

Rev. Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, voices the conviction: “Hey, we don’t have a hammer-lock on God or salvation, and God’s bigger than us and we should respect that and respect other people.”

Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance chimes in, “It indicates a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone.”

Also, among the buzz words was “tolerance.”

So allegedly the draw is respect, tolerance, and humility in one’s religious faith. A person is respectful, tolerant, and humble when she affirms many paths to God. Doesn’t that sound noble?

So I guess the question is this: does pluralism really promote respect, tolerance, and humility?

What about respect?

Is a person being respectful when they dismiss out of hand a critical component of a number of religious traditions? Exclusivity is critical to Christianity, as well as to other traditions. Is a person being respectful when they casually treat doctrines counted as sacred and essential?

It seems to me that for many of those who affirm “many paths” to God, either they have not and do not want to take the time to understand the historical faiths of which they are referring and are merely assuming their compatibility with pluralism. Or, they have taken the time to investigate the traditions, and because they dismiss their absolute truth claims, they assert to the world their compatibility with pluralism. The former is ignorance, the latter is dishonesty. In either case, I don’t detect respect.

What about tolerance?

Tolerance implies opposition and disagreement. We don’t tolerate the things we like and agree with, we tolerate those things we dislike and disagree with. I tolerate my wife’s taste for Dancing with the Stars, I don’t agree with her taste. My wife tolerates my taste for sci-fi, she doesn’t agree with my taste. Laurie would be intolerant in attempting to convince me that Dancing with the Stars is really Sci-Fi, and so I must enjoy it if I’m consistent. She’s trying to “redefine” Sci-Fi so that she can smuggle in her Chick-Show.

Pluralism argues that there are essentially no eternally significant differences between faith traditions. Worse yet, it ignores or redefines the differences, because at bottom Pluralism doesn’t tolerate differences. Pluralism is Intolerant.

What about humility? Humility is a “modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank.” Humility is a property of humans, not of other things like facts and world views. I’m humble about my worth, not the value and majesty of mountains, math, justice, and God. If by “humility”, Welton Gaddy means that a religious adherent has a “modest opinion or estimate of one’s own faith tradition,” then that’s just Hubris masked in Humility. To undervalue one’s faith tradition to the point that you’ll redefine what it has always taught, doctrines for which people suffered, is the height of hubris.

Respect, tolerance, and humility? I think not.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370588,00.html

Fool's Gold

By Jake Magee
www.oasisnorthvalley.org
www.jakemagee.blogspot.com

“6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1 Peter 1:6-9).

You’ve heard it before: “If you have big faith, then you’ll get gold.” Okay, people aren’t usually that brazen, at least not any more. The pitch has been purged of the conspicuous avarice and repackaged into more acceptable wrappings: “If you have enough faith, you’ll get golden circumstances, golden opportunities, golden dreams…”

It’s all fool’s gold.

Peter knows no such formula. He writes to a people whose gold was perishing: property confiscated, families divided, stability disrupted, peace vanquished, and for many lives were taken. The Roman dream disappeared in a column of smoke - literally. Caesar Nero set fire to the city of Rome and subsequently accused Christians for the deed. The persecution that ensued would take both Peter and Paul’s lives. The gates of hell advanced, but didn’t prevail.

Peter says to the faithful facing heightening persecution, “you’re losing your gold, but you’re getting something infinitely better: greater faith.”

“…faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable”

He directly links the loss of prosperity with the achievement of rich faith. It is the exchange of earthly commodities for heavenly currency that moves the battered remnant to “greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory.” “In this you greatly rejoice…”

Contrary to the modern formation: “get faith, and you’ll get gold.” Peter says, “Lose the gold, and you’ll get faith.”

Beware of Fool’s Gold.

A Heart All Aglow, A Life All Ablaze

by Jake Magee
www.oasisnorthvalley.org

In the establishment of ONV, I’ve been enthralled as of late on the vital connection between a person’s love for lost people and their effectiveness in reaching them. Expanding this to a church, what is the connection between a communities’ passion for reaching her community and her effectiveness in fulfilling that desire? Needless to say, the relationship is massive. I’ll be pleading with our two churches in the ensuring weeks the following position: If we have all the components of a healthy church in place, and yet as a group we have something less than a full-blown passion for lost people, we are fools to believe that we can still be successful. Without arguing that position here, I’d rather offer a positive example of a heart all aglow for the lost: George Whitefield.

George Whitefield, known as the “apostle of the English Empire” was one of the fire brands of the Great Awakening in the 18th century transatlantic revival. Born in Gloucester England in 1714, he died in Newburyport, Massachusetts in 1770. At the age of twenty-one, he converted to Christ and commenced one of the most remarkable evangelistic ministries of the English speaking world.

“Over the 34 years between his conversion and death in 1770 in Newburyport, Massachusetts, it is calculated that he preached around 18,000 sermons…if one included all of the talks that he gave, he probably spoke about a thousand times a year during his ministry…his sermons were delivered to massive congregations that numbered 10,000 to 20,000 or so.”

During these thirty-four years, Whitefield preached all throughout England, visited Ireland twice and journeyed to Scotland fourteen times. He crossed the Atlantic thirteen times, as well as spending eleven weeks in Bermuda. He preached in virtually every major town on the eastern seaboard of America (all when traveling 20 miles from home was a serious challenge). He’d preach “in fields and foundries, in ships, cemeteries, and pubs, atop horses and even a hangman’s scaffold, from stone walls and balconies, stair cases and windmills.”

He seized every opportunity to share Christ.

“God forbid that I should travel with anybody a quarter of an hour without speaking of Christ to them.”

Millions heard the gospel through his itinerant ministry.

What was the great source of his missional prowess and productivity? What can Whitefield teach us? Though he is dead, what would is he speaking to us?

Robert Philips, mid-nineteenth century biography of Whitefield, answers:

“the grand secret of Whitefield’s power was…his devotional spirit.”

Sarah Edwards similarly observed,

“He speaks from a heart all aglow with love.”

Looking back on his earlier years, Whitefield himself speaks of the source of his power:

“My food and drink was praising God and a fire was kindled in my soul and I was clothed with power…and could have spoken to the King.”

On his third preaching tour, he prayed

“Oh that I was a flame of pure and Holy Fire, and had a thousand lives to spend in the dear redeemer’s service.”

What was the great source of his missional prowess and productivity? His life was ablaze because his heart was aglow. What can Whitefield teach us? Though he is dead, what would he speak to us? Do everything to cultivate rich and radical affections for God and our neighbors, and watch your life blaze for his glory.

“14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. 16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh” ( 2 Corinthians 5:14-16).

Books I'm currently reading

The Fogotten Ways - Alan Hirsch













Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon - Bryan Chapell









Brothers, We Are Not Professionals - John Piper













The Rise of Evangelicalism - Mark A. Noll












Biblical Eldership - Alexander Strauch

Oasis North Valley

Rediscovering Church. Begins May 18th, Sundays @ 6pm, 7341 Foxglove Place, Fontana. Join us as Oasis North Valley hosts a message series entitled: Myths and Urban Legends about Church. ONV is the second site of Oasis Church in Redlands. We’re all about Jesus and his mission. We seek to love God and others by being disciples of Jesus and making disciples for Jesus. We strive to be thoroughly biblical and relevant in our 21st century culture. May 18th marks the establishment of our core group. Join us in the greatest movement ever known. Join us in redisovering church. Contact: jake@oasisweb.org Childcare is Provided.

Muslims more numerous than Catholics: Vatican | Top News | Reuters

Muslims more numerous than Catholics: Vatican | Top News | Reuters: "Muslims more numerous than Catholics: Vatican"

Has the 'notion of sin' been lost? - USATODAY.com

Has the 'notion of sin' been lost? - USATODAY.com

Babies and Bathwater: Unwarranted Critiques of Modern Churches

by JM

There has been a growing trend in evangelical circles which charges the “institutional church” with the demise of Christianity in American Culture. Certainly, this is not without merit. There is irrefutable evidence that the typical church has failed to impact her culture. The question then becomes, “what is it about the typical evangelical church that renders it ineffective in infecting her communities with the transformative power of the gospel?” In the attempt to purify the church, unfortuantely some have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Among the elements of Western church that are labeled as deliterious to the church, there are these:

1. Sermons - Monological talks (i.e. sermons) that last longer than 30 minuites: "They" say that the Word of God should be shared in a discussional format. One person laboring over a passage promotes passivity, disengagement, and at the worst, is an expression of dominance.

2. The Suppression of Music/ Arts: "They" say that music and emotional expression should constitute the bulk of our time, not one man talking about the bible. To the extent that a church fashions their worship around the exposition of God's word, that church isn't worshipping.

3. Large gatherings: A church should be no bigger than who you can relationally connect to. The house church movement is the most appropriate form of church.

4. Sunday Morning Gatherings. Some say that Sunday mornings have become esteemed higher than they should. They proceed to argue that these day-specific gatherings actually have pagan roots.

5. Litergy - most "formalized" expression of worship (that aren't monastic or eastern orthodox) is a suppression of the Spirit's movement.

In light of this criticism, listen to the description of the early church in 140 AD by Justin Martyr.

‘On the day called the day of the Sun a gathering takes place of all who live in the towns or in the country in one place. The Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. Then the reader stops, and the leader by word of mouth impresses and urges to the imitation of these good things. Then we all stand together and send forth prayers’ (Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon).”

Notice, we read that they

1. Met on Sundays
2. Met corporately in large gatherings
3. Spent most of their time having one guy talk at them
4. No Worship Band.
5. Proto-litergy.

It's facinating to note that the church grew from 25,000 in 100 A.D. to 20,000,000 by 300 A.D. Apparently, these components did not impede the progress of the early church

May I counsel our well-intended brothers: emerge gently, thoughtfully, and graciously.

Moses on Drugs???

Oh, what passes as "research."

"High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.
Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible."

Source

Confusing Charisma with the Charismata

As a minister of God’s word within the charismatic stream of Christendom, I’ve persistently seen these three errors:

• Some confuse fully-empowered preaching with a preaching style: Some think that if a person is loud or emotional (esp. both), then the minister and message is “anointed.” I don’t know how many times I’ve heard preachers bellow and blow (sweat pouring down the face…) and what little is said!!! And yet some walk away saying, “that was anointed.” They have mistaken charismatic individuals with the charismatic. People cry when Obama speak for the same reason. Some of the greatest preachers were poor orators.

• Some believe that fully-anointed preaching will most likely be Event-Oriented: unless the worship service ends with an altar call in which people have power encounters, the service failed at its potential. This can be dangerous if it becomes the norm. Although we can have significant moments of breakthrough during times like this, most long-lasting spiritual growth occurs incrementally through the daily discipline of our lives for godliness. It’s not one Bible Study that makes a person more Christ-like (or one prayer), it’s the long term exposure of the word of God through its preaching and proclamation, a life of ever-increasing prayer, and godly relationships of accountability which transform us. In an event-oriented environment, we devalue the very thing that will provide long-lasting growth: a good old-fashion daily fight against sin. I find that this venue has been abused by some who want a quick –fix to what God wants to work out through daily faith.

• Some believe that fully-empowered preaching cannot be Intellectual: if the preaching is structured, scripted, content driven, then it is probably less empowered than something that is less structured, unscripted, and on the fly. Here are two problems with this sentiment: (1) Scripture ranges from expressions of ecstatic rapture to precise definitive logic. Yet, All Scripture is inspired. Psalms is poetic, Romans is highly structured and logical. Both are inspired. Both should be appreciated and preached in such a way as to preserve those styles. (2) Personally, I put extraordinary prayer and devotion in what I say. I’m begging God from Monday to the time I’m finished my message on Sunday that I’m speaking the words of God for our congregation (I’m haunted the whole week with it). After a week of prayer and interaction with Scripture, I feel that what I have on paper is “Thus saith the Lord.” To deviate from that which was birth out of a week long process of prayer and devotion to Christ in his word seems presumptuous and contrary to the leading of the Spirit. It like Noah spending all those years building the Ark, and then at the last minute jumping into a dingy.

Timothy Outline

Here's an informal outline I've put together on 1st Timothy.

Timothy Outline

New Site for The Timothy Project

http://thetimothyproject.blogspot.com/

I've established a site to host all things related to Oasis' Site-Planting Training and Ministry.

C.S. Lewis: from theism to Christianity

Cletus Take the Reel

Powerful!

Defining Success

by JM

Here are two working definitions of success related to ministry, one unique to me, the other I've adapted from a wise-guy.

1. Success: Whatever happens after we've prayerfully, thoughtfully, and passionately applied God-appointed tools in a relevant way to any mission.

This formulation moves us to ask a few questions:

Are results what ultimately and primarily drive us?

For some, either in theory or practice, the goal throughly defines method and practice. We must resist this view. Though results and methods are vital, they are subordinate to God's word and will. That leads to the next question.

Are the tools that we use in our ministry...

God appointed/allowed?
Appropriately applied given the mission and circumstances?

Are ministry plans...

Prayerfully Birthed?
Throughtfully Crafted?
Passionately Executed?

2. Success: the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiam to try again.

TULIP Blooming | Christianity Today

"TULIP Blooming Southern Baptist seminaries re-introduce Calvinism to a wary denomination. Ken Walker | posted 1/17/2008 09:09AM"

William Carey

Biography of William Carey

Download Here

Relentless Soul Winning

by Steve McCoy

"If I never won souls, I would sigh till I did. I would break my heart over them if I could not break their hearts. Though I can understand the possibility of an earnest sower never reaping, I cannot understand the possibility of an earnest sower being content not to reap. I cannot comprehend any one of you Christian people trying to win souls and not having results, and being satisfied without results."

Charles Spurgeon, quoted in Don Whitney's Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life (p113)

Resolutions for a Lifetime

THE RESOLUTIONS of Jonathan Edwards

Here

Tools for the New Year

Bible Memorization - Here

Family Worship - Here

Bible Reading Calendar - Here

Revealed: The seven great medical myths | Reuters

Revealed: The seven great medical myths | Reuters: "Revealed: The seven great 'medical myths'"

Guard calmly returned fire at church - with the help of the Holy Spirit

Wow - talk about courage!!

JM

By Kieran Nicholson
The Denver Post

Larry Bourbonnais, a combat-tested Vietnam veteran, said it was the bravest thing he's ever seen.

Bourbonnais, who was among those shot by a gunman Sunday at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, watched as a security guard, a woman who has not yet been named, calmly returned fire and killed the shooter.

"She just started walking toward the gunman firing the whole way," said Bourbonnais, who was shot in the arm. "She was just yelling 'Surrender,' walking and shooting the whole time."

Bourbonnais, 59, had just finished up a hamburger in the cafeteria on the sprawling church campus when he heard gunfire, he recalled.

Bourbonnais headed in the direction of the shots as frightened people ran past him looking to escape to safety.

"Where's the shooter? Where's the shooter?" Bourbonnais kept yelling, he recalled.

Near an entryway in the church, Bourbonnais came upon the gunman and an armed male church security guard who was there with his gun drawn but not firing, he said.

Bourbonnais said he pleaded with the armed guard to give him his weapon.

"Give me your handgun. I've been in combat, and I'm going to take this guy out," Bourbonnais recalled telling the guard. "He kept yelling, 'Get behind me! Get behind me!' He wouldn't hand me his weapon, but he wouldn't do anything."

There was an additional armed security guard there, another man, who also didn't fire, Bourbonnais said.

Bourbonnais yelled at the gunman to draw his attention, he said.

"First, I called him 'Coward' then I called him 'S---head' " Bourbonnais said. "I probably shouldn't have been saying that in church."

That's when the shooter pointed one of his guns at Bourbonnais and fired, he said.

Bourbonnais ducked behind a hollow, decorative pillar and was hit in the arm by a bullet and fragments of the pillar.

At about that moment, a female guard with a drawn handgun turned a corner and walked toward the gunman and yelled "Surrender!" Bourbonnais said.

The gunman pointed a handgun at the woman and fired three shots, Bourbonnais said. She returned fire and just kept walking toward the gunman pressing off round after round.

The female guard fired off about a dozen shots.

After the gunman went down, Bourbonnais asked the woman, who has only been identified as a volunteer security guard with the church, how she remained so calm and focused.

Bourbonnais said she replied:

"I was asking the Holy Spirit to guide me the entire time."

Justification by Faith Alone

"This doctrine [justification by faith] is the head and the cornerstone. It alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God; and without it the church of God cannot exist for one hour…. For no one who does not hold this article – or, to use Paul's expression, this 'sound doctrine' (Titus 2:1) – is able to teach aright in the church or successfully to resist any adversary . . . this is the heel of the Seed that opposes the old serpent and crushes its head. That is why Satan, in turn, cannot but persecute it...Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolater . . . For when this article has been taken away, nothing remains but error and hypocrisy."

- Luther

Cautioning Preterism

by JM

pret•er•ist ˈprɛt ər ɪst - [pret-er-ist]
–noun
a person who maintains that the prophecies in the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled. Compare FUTURIST (def. 2), PRESENTIST.

It is essential for interpreters to focus on the chronological cues given in Scripture. It’s precisely this norm that has led a body of interpreters to regard many of the New Testament prophecies, which have been largely taken futuristically by modern interpreters, as having already been fulfilled.

So, when we read Jesus catering the prophecies of the Olivet discourse to a particular group of guys in a known historical setting that have clear connection with the events experienced in their lifetimes (e.g., such as the destruction of Jerusalem), it is our interpretative responsibility to view those prophecies as having complete fulfillment in that chronological locale rather then in some distant era which holds so relevance to the audience.

“When you see all these things, recognize that He is near; right at the door; truly I say to you too, this generation will not pass way until all these things take place” (Matt 24:33&34).

Again, this would be true of John who addresses seven existing churches about the book he pens,

“Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near” (Rev. 1:3).

Many more instances could be cited.

I believe that this value for chronological fidelity is one that should be taken seriously and would do much to dispel much extravagant thinking within eschatology, as well as to enrich our understanding of history. However, I think many who support it have adopted an unfortunate and unnatural prophetic reductionism that makes the prophetic portraits of Scripture feel like wearing one’s high school pants – too tight and too restrictive. I contend that genre of language found in places like the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation allows for a more flexible reading of chronological markers (e.g., “this generation” “the time is near”), and in fact requires a qualified exception of the interpretive rule which says that the right interpretation is the one the audience would have understood. When I say “qualified,” I mean precisely to keep the Pandora’s box of unbridled subjectivistic interpretation closed. This exception would only apply to particular apocalyptic portions of Scripture, as the context of such portions would demand.

In what follows, I won’t offer a defense for how I believe this to be the case with supposed second coming passages disputed between futurists and preterist. Instead, I offer the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7:1-16, affirmed by both futurists and preterists as having its fulfillment in the first coming of Christ, as an example of the kind of flexibility allowed for and arguably required for second coming prophecies. In particular, I contend that if preterists are consistent, their principle of interpretation would lead to a rejection of Isaiah 7 from messianic status. This prophecy contains many of same the qualities that lead preterist to their particular stance on most of New Testament prophecies. If I’m correct, then we have strong precedent which allows us to have a futuristically inclined kind of interpretation as an option in dealing with debated second coming passages.

Isaiah 7 starts out setting up the context of the prophecy. We read of a confederation of apostate Israel and Syria joined to oppose Judah (vs.1). It appears that they previously had great success against Judah, deporting a significant number of people to Damascus (2 Chronicles 28:5-8). Emboldened by their previous exploits, and perhaps motivated by a power play against Assyria, they plan to strike again.

When Ahaz hears the news that Syrians had arrived in Israel, preparing for a second campaign against Judah, it is said that “his heart shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind” (vs.2).

It’s in the midst of this present terror of impending doom that God sends Isaiah to King Ahaz with prophetic hope. God tells Ahaz that though these two kings have planned evil against him, even toppling the Kingdom and setting up another king, “It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass” (vs.7). Not only does God relate the failure of this impending campaign, but also declares that Israel will be shattered within sixty-five years.

We read that King Ahaz was “at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller’s field” when Isaiah gave this prophecy (vs.3). He probably was evaluating the status of the cities water supply, bracing for the imminent attack. As Ahaz stands next to this conduit, having heard the prophetic assurances of Isaiah, he receives an important cue as to the prophecies fulfillment. Though King Ahaz rejects the need for assurances, nevertheless God insists:

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” (14-16).

Notice which event precedes and signals the above mentioned events: A virgin will be with child and bear a son. Before the boy reaches a sense of moral obligation, the treat to Judah will be dissolved. According to this passage,

•This sign will occur in the midst of this particular threat (vss.5-7)
•This sign could occur no later than 65 years after its utterance (vs.8).

Most date this prophecy at 734. We know that this particular confederacy was broken within two years of this prophecy. Tiglath Pilesar III destroyed Damascus in 732, making Rezin the last king of Syria, therefore destroying the confederacy which could have toppled Judah. We also know that twelve years later Assyria would proceed to topple the Kingdom of Israel, and within sixty-five years (vs.8) depopulated it to the point of obscurity, thus bringing into fruition the saying “the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.”

Contextually, therefore, Isaiah 7:14-16 has its fulfillment some six hundred years before the birth of Jesus. If chronologically cues are the decisive determining factor for prophetical placement and fulfillment, as the preterists insist for prophecies like the Olivet Discourse, then one is forced to say that there has been a misreading and misapplication of this prophecy by Matthew.

However, if we instead allow the usage of prophecy to inform our theory of interpretation, it is not at all unreasonable to affirm that some prophecies have multiple layers. Each layer taken by itself fulfills particular elements of the immediate context; however a layer taken by itself will be insufficient to fulfill the totality of the prophecy. In the case of Isaiah 7, it seems that there was a particular young lady that Ahaz knew who was with child and perhaps even gave birth within a few days of his meeting with Isaiah. Whatever the case, this prophecy spoke to him. This sign had immediate relevance. We have to affirm something like this to handle the context properly. However, Matthew records that this prophecy has fuller-fillment in the Messiah.

So at the very least, I’ve removed a principle that leads preterists to immediately dismiss all futurist fulfillments of prophecies which have clear historic fulfillments. This forces the combatants in the overall debate to wrestle with each particular disputed prophecy to identify markers that may suggests a fuller-fillment of an already fulfilled prophecy.

Nehemiah's wall uncovered

Nov 28, 2007 23:17 | Updated Nov 28, 2007 23:21
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

The remnants of a wall from the time of the prophet Nehemiah have been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem's ancient City of David, strengthening recent claims that King David's palace has been found at the site, an Israeli archeologist said Wednesday.

The section of the 2,500-year-old Nehemiah wall, located just outside the Dung Gate and the Old City walls facing the Mount of Olives, was dated by pottery found during a recent dig at the site, said Hebrew University archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar.

The archeologist, who rose to international prominence for her recent excavation that may have uncovered the biblical palace of King David, was able to date the wall to Nehemiah as a result of a dig carried out underneath a nearby tower, which has been previously dated to the Hasmonean period, (142-37 BCE) but which now emerges was built centuries earlier.

As a result of the excavation, both the 30 meter section of the wall and a six-by-three-meter part of the previously uncovered tower have now been dated to the fifth century BCE based on the rich pottery found during the dig under the tower, she said.

Scores of bullae, arrowheads and seals from that period were also discovered during the excavation.
"This find opens a new chapter in the history of Jerusalem," Mazar said. "Until now, we have never had such an archeological wealth of finds from Nehemiah's period."

Nehemiah, who lived during the period when Judah was a province of the Persian Empire, arrived in Jerusalem as governor in 445 BCE with the permission of the Persian king, determined to rebuild and restore the desolate city after the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians a century earlier, in 586 BCE.

The Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire that had destroyed Jerusalem and taken most of the inhabitants of Judah into captivity in what is now modern Iraq.

The Bible relates that despite the resistance of hostile neighbors who had occupied the area around Jerusalem in the Jews' absence, the whole wall was completed in a speedy 52-day period.

The tower at the site lies on the back of the walls of the palace that Mazar uncovered at the site two years ago, indicating that the palace must have been built first and strengthening the claim that the site was indeed King David's palace, she said.

The three-year-old dig is being sponsored by the Shalem Center, a conservative Jerusalem research institute, where Mazar serves as a senior fellow, and the right-wing City of David Foundation which promotes Jewish settlement throughout east Jerusalem

A.W. Pink, Limited Atonement, and 1 John 2:1&2. Pt. 5

by JM

Here’s a fifth reason Pink gives for thinking 1 John 2:1-2 conclusively doesn’t teach unlimited atonement (You can refer to the previous posts for the other reasons, as well as a little bit of background involved in this debate). Here’s Pink in his own words:

In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody". There could be no "also" if He is the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of verse 2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." Confirmatory of "not for ours (Jewish believers) only, but also for the whole world"—Gentile believers, too; compare John 10:16; 17:20.

Pink argues that his interpretation is the only one that is consistent, seeing that John’s statement would be redundant or unintelligible. If John means by “the whole world” everybody in it, then this would obviously include the “for our sins only.” However, the us seems to be in addition to “the whole world,” therefore one can only take John as meaning Jews and Gentiles.

This seems pedantic. For example, if I gave my daughter a mini pizza sliced four ways, she having eaten one piece, I might firmly command her, “Eat the whole pizza.” This doesn’t negate that there’s ¾ of the pizza left and that my daughter has consumed ¼ of it. It would be silly for my daughter to protest, “I can’t eat a whole pizza in addition to the slice I had,” as if what I meant was for her eat 4/4 of the pizza in addition to ¼ of another pizza. The ¼ is included in my command to eat the whole thing. In the same way, the Christians that John is addressing are included in the whole world. Pink’s charge of idle tautology is true only if John was trying to delineate his claims in formal logic. Everyone concedes that language is far more fluid.

The Real Meaning of Christmas

"It's Not a Hoax: 'The Golden Compass'

It's Not a Hoax: 'The Golden Compass'
Chuck Colson
All of you have probably received the e-mail by now. A lot of Christians have, including many of us here at BreakPoint. One of my colleagues received it from five different people no less!

Listen Here

Prince Caspian

Here's a preview of the upcoming movie: Here

Divorce and Remarriage

"Time Magazine picks up on the CT cover story on divorce and remarriage by David Instone-Brewer and the ensuing controversy." Here

A.W. Pink, Limited Atonement, and 1 John 2:1&2. Pt. 4

Here’s a forth reason Pink gives for thinking 1 John 2:1-2 conclusively doesn’t teach unlimited atonement (You can refer to the previous posts for the other reasons, as well as a little bit of background involved in this debate). Here’s Pink in his own words:

In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world", he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51,52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die".

Pink’s forth argument is that his interpretation of 1 John 2:2, namely that John is referring to groups of people and not every individual, is buttressed by John 11:51 & 52. Since these are parallel passages, and given that John 11 displays a Jew & Gentile distinction, then so does 1 John 2:2.

John 11 is certainly relevant in looking at 1 John 2:2. But typically, the interpretive principle to follow would be to look at the immediate context of the book, then investigate other books written by the same author, and finally consult different authors in Scripture. When this is done, it seems reasonable to posit a universality in 1 John 2:2 given the universality in 1 John 5:19. From this, we should proceed interpret John 11: 51 &52 in light of our interpretation of 1 John 2:2 and 5:19. The results of such an approach are quite positive for my position, but more importantly, with maintaining the interpretive flow of each passage taken individually. In John 11:51 & 52,

"Jesus should die for the nation" - the Jews
"and not for the nation only," - but also the Gentiles
"but to gather into one" - the church (Eph 2:14)
"the children of God who are scattered abroad" - Jews and Gentiles who are elect

This rendering is consistent with my position, for one of the intentions in Christ's death is to rescue the elect who are Jews and Gentiles.

Free Audio Book - Biography of David Brainerd by Edwards

From Justin Taylor - http://theologica.blogspot.com/

Free Audiobook of the Month: HERE
America's greatest Theologian, Jonathan Edwards, had a heart for missions. And Edwards deeply respected David Brainerd, who gave his life for missions to Native Americans. The Life of David Brainerd is an inspiring tale of one of the most notable missionaries in American history.

Use the coupon code OCT2007 to receive the Download Format of The Life of David Brainerd for free in the month of October.

Our Price: $0.00
List Price: $25.98

The Divine Majesty of the Word

John Calvin: The Man and His Preaching

1997 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors

Speaker: John Piper

Listen | Download

A.W. Pink, Limited Atonement, and 1 John 2:1&2. Pt. 3

by JM

Here’s a third reason Pink gives for thinking 1 John 2:1-2 conclusively doesn’t teach unlimited atonement (You can refer to the previous posts for the first and second reason, as well as a little bit of background involved in this debate). Here’s Pink in his own words:

In the third place, who are meant when John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins"? We answer, Jewish believers. And a part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader.

In Galatians 2 :9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i.e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad" (1:1). So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (1 Pet.1:1, R. V.). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles. Some of the evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows.

(a) In the opening verse he says of Christ, "Which we have seen with our eyes . . . . and our hands have handled". How impossible it would have been for the Apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!

(b) "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning" (1 John 2 :7). The "beginning" here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ—in proof compare 1:1; 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the "old commandment" from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.

(c) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning" (2:13). Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.

(d) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us" (2:18, 19).These brethren to whom John wrote had "heard" from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matt. 24). The "many antichrists" whom John declares "went out from us" were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins" he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers.

Here’s a summary of the above argument: John is writing to Jews. As such, John’s declaration in 2:2 is merely to instruct these Jewish believers that Christ’s propitiation is trans-racial, not that everyone in each race is propitiated for. Pink gives four reasons for thinking that John’s audience was Jewish.

(a) Pink feels that John includes his audience in being eye-witnesses to Christ. So when John says “Which we have seen with our eyes,” “our” refers to both John and his audience. If this is true, then John’s audience were probably Jews.

Response: Pink’s argument is unfounded. In the very text he quotes, John differentiates between those who were eye-witnesses and those to whom he is writing. Note:

1 John 1:3 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

John is clearly saying that his audience were not eye-witnesses of Christ. In all probability, John is probably referring to the apostolic witness of Christ’s ministry when he says “we“ “us“, etc.

(b) Pink believes that when John refers the “commandment” which his audience had from the beginning, this commandment is related to the public ministry of Christ. As such, only Jews could relate to this.

Response: However, it’s not clear that “the beginning” has to refer to Christ’s ministry. It can simply refer to the beginning of their faith. To the “children” of the faith (certainly, these are not eye-witnesses), John says:

1John 2:24, “24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.”

(c) Pink argues that John must be referring to Jews in that he refers to them as “Fathers” who have known Christ from the beginning.

Response: First of all, this ignores that John was also writing to “young men” and “children” of the faith, people who probably weren’t eye-witnesses to Christ’s ministry and perhaps Gentile. Furthermore, it seems that Pink has misquoted the text. It doesn’t say that the Fathers have known Christ from the beginning, but that the Fathers have known Christ “who has been from the beginning.” John isn’t speaking about the audience’s relation to the beginning, but Christ’s.

(d) Pink argues that the anti-christ is Jewish. That is, only Jews can pose as the Messiah. So when John speaks of propitiation, he can only mean the sins of Jewish believers.

Response: To be honest, this sound incoherent. Suffice it to say, the spirit of anti-Christ that John is referring to is far broader than a Jewish man. In fact, the text deals mainly with a non-Jewish (Hellenistic) heresy of Gnosticism.

Against Pink, it is quite probable that John is writing to both Jews and Gentiles. Many scholars date these epistles as late 1st century works directed towards churches in Asia Minor. If these assertions are reasonable, then John’s attempt to clue in Jewish believers about God’s relation with Gentiles is anachronistic given the "Jerusalem council", Paul's and Timothy's teaching and Paul's letters, common knowledge of the composition of Christ's body universal, the immediate knowledge of the composition of their own fellowships, which most probably included more Gentiles than Jews.

Putting that aside, the immediate context of this book serves to substantiate the contention that "the whole world" refers to something outside of the elect. After a discussion about our belief in Christ rendering us victorious over the "world" and ourseparation from the "world," John says in chapter 5:19,

"We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Certainly we wouldn’t want to import Pink’s interpretation, for this would read, “We know that the Jewish Christians are of God, and that Gentiles lie in the power of the evil one.” This is the same construction we find in chapter 2. Us verses the Whole world. Does the "whole world" in 5:19 include the non-elect? If the answer is yes, then the immediate context of John's letter gives far more credence to chapter 2 also including the non-elect.

Online couple cheated with each other | The Daily Telegraph

Online couple cheated with each other | The Daily Telegraph: "A married couple who didn't realise they were chatting each other up on the internet are divorcing. Sana Klaric and husband Adnan, who used the names 'Sweetie' and 'Prince of Joy' in an online chatroom, spent hours telling each other about their marriage troubles, Metro.co.uk reported. The truth emerged when the two turned up for a date. Now the pair, from Zenica in central Bosnia, are divorcing after accusing each other of being unfaithful. 'I was suddenly in love. It was amazing. We seemed to be stuck in the same kind of miserable marriage. How right that turned out to be,' Sana, 27, said. Adnan, 32, said: 'I still find it hard to believe that Sweetie, who wrote such wonderful things, is actually the same woman I married and who has not said a nice word to me for years'."

Making Travel Plans: The Dalai Lama's Itinerary for the Next Life

JM

"At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it's under Chinese control. Assuming he's able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks. "It will be a very hot issue," says Paul Harrison, a Buddhism scholar at Stanford. "The Dalai Lama has been the prime symbol of unity and national identity in Tibet, and so it's quite likely the battle for his incarnation will be a lot more important than the others."

Source: MSNBC

A.W. Pink, Limited Atonement, and 1 John 2:1&2. Pt. 2

by JM

Here’s a second reason Pink gives for thinking 1 John 2:1-2 conclusively doesn’t teach unlimited atonement (You can refer to the previous post - Sept 7th - for the first reason, as well as a little bit of background involved in this debate). Here’s Pink in his own words:

In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament which speak of "propitiation," be compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Romans 3:25 we read that God set forth Christ "a propitiation through faith in His blood". If Christ is a propitiation "through faith", then He is not a "propitiation" to those who have no faith! Again, in Hebrews 2:17 we read, "To make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17, R. V.).

This seems to be Pink’s argument:

(1) Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17 say that God is propitious to those who believe. Conversely put, God is not propitious to those who don’t believe.
(2) 1 John 2:2 says that Jesus is the propitiation for the world.
(3) Yet, not everyone in the world believes.
(4) Therefore, the “world” in 1 John 2:2 does not refer to all people, only the elect.

Pink’s comments assume that propitiation can’t refer to something both objective and subjective. In relation to a person, I believe that the atonement may be an “objective reality” and/or an “appropriated” reality. By “objective reality” I mean that the atonement made by Christ some 2000 years ago is something real apart from my believing it. By “appropriated,” I mean that this objective reality has been applied to a subject. For a person who believes and is regenerated on August 5th 2007, the atonement was an unappropriated but objective reality up until conversion. From the point of faith on, it is both an objective and appropriated reality.

My contention is that the first facets always obtains for all people (Christ’s atonement is an objective reality on the behalf of all people), but the second doesn’t (Christ’s atonement is only appropriated to the elect). The failure to make this distinction leads to a puzzling result for Pink’s argument: If God has propitiated all those whom he has elected, then there was never a time the elect were not believers. Or put differently, the elect have always believed. This is unacceptable. Pink has forgotten about the many passages which indicate that our justification occurs when we believe, meaning in part that we were not right with God prior to this declaration. We were genuinely children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), which means that we had not be propitiated in some way. Finally, Pink has committed a non-sequitur: To show that in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17 God is propitious to those who believe is not to show that God is propitious only to those who believe.