Friday, May 24, 2019

Do I Really Need a Uterus? A Refutation of a Common "Pro-Choice" Argument

I am not usually one to get involved in debates on cultural issues. Generally speaking, I prefer to stick to biblical and theological questions and issues. But more and more, I am finding that I just cannot remain silent. Recently, with events that have transpired in Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and elsewhere, I have seen an uptick in what has become a standard tactic wielded by the "pro-choice" crowd concerning the alleged right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy (read: murder her child). In a nutshell, the argument goes, "no uterus, no opinion". This diversionary tactic essentially attempts to de-legitimize every man from having an opinion on the abortion debate (unless of course, the man in question acts like a good little beta male and slavishly gets in line with the Leftist agenda). After all, abortion is a "women's rights" issue and only women should have a say, right? Wrong.

First of all, let's put the "women's rights" issue to bed right away. The assertion that abortion is all about "women's rights" is a true red herring. A red herring, according to at least one website, is basically a way of distracting from the real issue at hand. It may sound good, but it's not actually relevant. In this case, appealing to "women's rights" distracts from the real issue, which is that some people just want to kill a developing child in its mother's womb, typically (but not always) for reasons of convenience. Now, equal pay for doing the same job as a man? That is a women's rights issue. Protecting against unwanted sexual advances and harassment? That also is a women's rights issue. Abortion? That is not. That is an issue of protecting the rights of the unborn, specifically the rights of the unborn to not be violently murdered by vacuum suction (or by any other savage means).



But let's return to the question of the alleged uterine-possession prerequisite to having a conviction on the matter. Basically, what is being said is that a man should not be allowed to have an opinion on what a woman should do with her body (this assumes of course that the child inside her doesn't have a body of his/her own, but I digress). It sounds plausible on the surface. I mean why should a man be concerned with what women do? The reason is because both men and women exist together on this planet. That is just an obvious fact of life. Men and women share the world with each other in a symbiotic way. What one does affects the other. What happens to one affects - positively or negatively- the other. Feminists would like you to believe that "liberated" women should just be left alone to do what they wish as if it was their business and theirs alone; but the world just doesn't work that way.  So be gone with stupid and foolish arguments that merely distract with pious sounding, but ultimately self-serving sophistry.

You see, the problem with most ideological/political liberals is that they live in a fantasy world. They are trying desperately to create a world that just doesn't exist and can't exist¹. They are masters at effectively trying to deconstruct and redefine the most basic of human institutions and then when their pretentious fantasies are called to account, they resort to crying, mewling, ad hominem attacks, and childish temper tantrums.

Again, this is not the kind of thing I like to do. As I mentioned before, cultural issues like abortion are not the main emphasis of this blog. Even less of an emphasis of this blog and ministry is the kind of bare-knuckled polemics I have just engaged in. Nevertheless, I felt that it was necessary to address this issue head-on because a bad argument advanced by depraved child-murderers and their enablers continues to make the rounds, particularly on social media.







¹ Of course I would be remiss not to point out that the problem with many ideological/political conservatives is that they are just jerks with a gun fetish. 


Saturday, May 4, 2019

Learning Theological Terms: Creation Ex Nihilo

One of the clearest contrasts between biblical Christianity and secular, evolutionary belief concerns the doctrine of creation. While the average secular person believes that the universe came into being basically by accident via the "Big Bang", the Christian holds that God created all things that exist by His powerful Word (Genesis 1:3; John 1:3). Moreover, the Christian believes that God, through Jesus Christ, continues to uphold the entire cosmos through that same powerful Word (Hebrews 1:3).


While Christians take different stances on many of the details of creation¹, biblical Christians of all stripes believe in what theologians refer to as creation ex nihilo. Ex nihilo is a Latin theological term which, when literally translated means, "out of nothing". In other words, creation ex nihilo declares that God created the entire universe - both things seen and things unseen - out of nothing. That is, God did not create using preexisting matter. Rather, God spoke the cosmos into existence by fiat, and it simply became.

There are several Scriptures which best bear this concept out. Although written in a context discussing justification by faith alone and God's promise to Abraham, Paul writes in Romans, ...As it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations” in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did... (Romans 4:17 NKJV). Paul, almost in passing, makes the point that God calls things which do not exist into existence. Obviously this implies that God creates out of nothing since what He calls into existence did not previously exist.

The second Scripture which teaches creation ex nihilo is in Hebrews. In the eleventh chapter, the anonymous writer gives to his Hebrew Christian readers (and us) the very definition of faith and a very important, specific application of the same:

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

While it is true that God and His attributes are made obvious in the created order (Romans 1:18-20), nevertheless, it is by faith that we believe that all things were, in fact, created by God. But the important part for our purposes is the second clause of verse 3. The writer of Hebrews teaches that the visible universe is not the sum of preexisting parts, but is rather framed by the Word of God.

Finally, there are verses in the Bible which teach that Jesus Christ Himself is the creator of all things. These verses are not only powerful testimony to Christ's deity, but they are also further evidence that all things are created ex nihilo, that is, out of nothing.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
(John 1:1-3 NKJV)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

In both of the above cases, the Scripture writers are seeking to show the total preeminence of Jesus Christ. One of the ways in which they do so is to show that Jesus is the creator of the universe. By implication and by direct statement, this means that Jesus is God. But the above quoted verses also establish creation ex nihilo because they state unequivocally that there was absolutely nothing that existed prior to Christ. Jesus is literally before everything and in Him, everything that could possibly be came into being through Him. It is important to understand this. Everything that is, from quarks to quasars, from amoebas to archangels, and everything in between, exists only because Jesus Christ - as creator God - says so. God the Son did not create from anything preexisting precisely because there was nothing preexisting!

The creation of the universe and all things in it, whether seen or unseen, exists only through the sovereign word of Almighty God. And despite the originally good creation being marred by sin, it is still true that, The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1 NIV). Amen.




¹ The position of David's Throne Ministries is that of Six-Day, Young Earth Creationism. This position is most consistent with a plain sense, face value reading of the text of the early chapters of Genesis as well as being the assumption of the rest of the Old Testament, of Jesus, and of the writers of the New Testament. Two excellent ministries which defend this view of creation are Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

Monday, April 1, 2019

The Heavenly Throne of David

Is the throne of David heavenly? Or is it only earthly? Or is it both? One's answer to that question will tell you quite a bit about their theological outlook. Generally speaking, those of the Amillennial and Postmillennial persuasions will only find the Davidic throne in Heaven, while those espousing (one of the thousand forms of) Dispensationalism will argue for a future, earthly-only fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant in the Millennium. Consistent with my own position of Historic Premillennialism, I believe that David's throne has both a present heavenly and an earthly future manifestation. But my purpose in this post is not to argue for the Millennial display of Christ's Davidic Kingship. In another post, I made some brief arguments for Christ's earthly reign after His return.

My purpose today is to answer one of the most common arguments against the present session of Christ on the throne of David - namely that the Davidic throne must only be located on Earth and cannot be expressed from Heaven. This is a stock argument of Dispensationalism. I will argue that both Old and New Testaments, at least partially, locate the Messiah's Davidic rule in Heaven.

It is often said that Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament. Jesus Himself appealed to it to show that the Messiah is greater than David since He is David's Lord (Matthew 22:41-45). The reason why it is such a vital OT passage is because it proves that it was God's plan all along for the Messiah to return to Heaven as King and to minister as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek (verse 4; Zechariah 6:12-13). But the Dispensational theologian will attempt to distinguish between Christ's heavenly session and His Davidic Kingship. Does this distinction hold up? After all, there is no explicit reference to David or to David's dynasty in this text. I believe that we must understand Psalm 110 as a description of the heavenly reign of King Jesus upon the Throne of David. Take a look at the first two verses:


The LORD said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

Firstly, it should be noted that even the very language of sitting at the right hand of God is royal language. To sit at the right hand of a reigning monarch (YHWH, or the LORD) is to be that monarch's equal and to share rulership. Secondly, verse two describes Messiah's rod (scepter) and rule. These are obviously descriptions of a king. In fact, the language of Psalm 110:2 is almost completely parallel to that of Psalm 2! So if Psalm 110 is describing Messiah's Kingship at God's right hand, and the New Testament clearly applies Psalm 110 to the present session of Christ in Heaven (Acts 2:33-36; Ephesians 1:19-21; Hebrews 1:13), then it is clear that Christ rules as King from Heaven.

Further evidence for the heavenly Throne of David is found in Daniel 7. Elsewhere, I have made a similar argument so I won't repeat it here (but I definitely encourage the reader to view that post!). Suffice it to say however that in this very heavenly scene, the Son of Man receives: dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:14 NKJV; cf. Mark 14:60-62; Acts 1:9; Ephesians 1:19-21).

The last line of evidence that I will point out is from the mouth of the resurrected Lord Himself from the book of Revelation.  For example, Revelation 1:5, in the midst of a Trinitarian benediction, speaks of Jesus Christ as, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earthThis language is clearly borrowed from Psalm 2, which speaks of the "kings of the earth" making futile plots against the Messiah who rules over the nations.

In chapters 2 and 3, the Risen One appears to John and gives him several messages for the seven churches in Asia Minor. In each case, Christ opens His message with an exalted self-description and closes with a promise to him who overcomes. Several of these self-descriptions and promises to overcomers are germane to our discussion.

At the end of chapter 2, Christ ends His message to the church in Thyatira with this promise:

And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations -

‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—

as I also have received from My Father;

This is an important passage for a "now/not yet" understanding of the Kingdom of God. The promise is that those who overcome the seductions of the false prophetess "Jezebel" will rule with Christ over the nations in Psalm 2 fashion (which I understand to mean, at least partially, sharing in Christ's Millennial rule). But Jesus also goes on to add that this Psalm 2 rule over the nations has already been given to Him by God the Father as He reigns from Heaven.

Further evidence in Revelation that Jesus reigns as Davidic King from Heaven is found in chapter 3. In verse 7, Jesus begins His message to the church in Philadelphia by self-identifying as, He who is holy, He is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens". Adam Clarke in his commentary on this passage, explains:

"See this metaphor explained, Matthew 16:19. Key is the emblem of authority and knowledge; the key of David is the regal right or authority of David. David could shut or open the kingdom of Israel to whom he pleased. He was not bound to leave the kingdom even to his eldest son. He could choose whom he pleased to succeed him. The kingdom of the Gospel, and the kingdom of heaven, are at the disposal of Christ. He can shut against whom he will; he can open to whom he pleases. If he shuts, no man can open; if he opens, no man can shut. His determinations all stand fast, and none can reverse them. This expression is an allusion to Isaiah 22:22, where the prophet promises to Eliakim, under the symbol of the key of the house of David, the government of the whole nation; i.e., all the power of the king, to be executed by him as his deputy; but the words, as here applied to Christ, show that He is absolute."

Lastly, I want to consider Revelation 3:21. After Christ's loving rebuke of the church in Laodicea, He again makes a promise to those who overcome: 

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

The first and most obvious thing to point out is that by overcoming (dying and rising again), Christ has sat down on a throne. This would obviously make Him a King. But more than that, Christ states that He has sat down on His Father's throne. But by sitting on the throne of His Father, does that necessarily imply that Jesus also sits on the throne of David in Heaven? I believe it does. As we compare parallel Old Testament passages, it becomes apparent that Scripture equates David's throne with God's throne. 

Then Solomon sat on the throne of his father David; and his kingdom was firmly established.
(1 Kings 2:12 NKJV)

Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
(1 Chronicles 29:23 NKJV)

This is important for another reason. I believe that understanding the equation between God's/David's throne is further evidence (in addition to the mountain that already exists) of the full deity and humanity of Christ. After all, only a human (one descended from David) can sit on the throne of David. And it should go without saying that ultimately only God can sit on God's throne. 

Hopefully, the scriptural evidence I have provided should show beyond reasonable doubt that the heavenly session of Jesus Christ at the Father's right hand is equal to reigning as King/Priest from David's throne. May grasping the exalted heavenly place of Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit bring Him glory as His people love and worship Him to the glory of God the Father. Amen.




Friday, March 22, 2019

Learning Theological Terms: Aseity

If there is one thing that all people have in common, it is that we all have needs. Some people seem to have more needs than others. I am sure all of us have met other individuals who could easily be classified as "needy". But even without considering the ways in which some people practice manipulation, the reality is that every single human being has needs. We have physical needs like oxygen and food so as to provide energy for our cells to function properly. We have emotional needs like love and acceptance from others so that we can be productive people. And of course, each person has spiritual needs like forgiveness from sin so that we can escape the judgment of God which is coming. Even inanimate objects need things. My car requires gasoline, oil changes, and regular maintenance. Otherwise it won't take me where I need it to.

But there is one notable exception to everything having needs: God Himself. Did you know that God doesn't have need of anything? That's right. God needs nothing in order to exist. God exists simply because God exists. God, and God alone has self-existence. Sometimes this is referred to as God's "independence". But this aspect of God's being is also described by the Latin theological term, aseity.  Aseity is the combination of the Latin prefix "a", meaning "from", and "se", meaning self. In other words, God exists from Himself. This is what is meant by aseity. The Westminster Confession of Faith put it like this:

God hath all life, glory, goodness,
 blessedness, in and of
himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing
in need of any creatures which he hath made

(WCF 2.2)

Now this is a concept that is very important practically. The reason why is because unless one is careful, one could begin to assume that by obeying and serving God, one is doing God a favor; that perhaps, I am supplying God with some good or service which He was previously in need of. Moreover, I have sometimes heard in popular religious settings that maybe God created the human race because He was lonely. I don't have to tell you how spectacularly wrong that is.

The truth of the matter is that even before creation, God had perfect fellowship within Himself in the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have all existed eternally as One God in Three Persons. God has never been lonely.

But more than that, we should not think of God as being in need of anything outside of Himself in order to exist and move. While people and things are derivative and require something else in order to be, God just is.

This is what God was communicating to Moses at the burning bush. You recall the story. God had called to Moses to deliver Israel out of Egypt. Moses, being unsure, asked God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM' has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:13-14 NKJV).

In calling Himself, I AM, God is stating that He consists in and of Himself, eternally. Note the present tense. No matter when or where - from eternity past to eternity future - God and God alone can say I AM. You and I could never say that. If we are discussing the distant past, the only thing I could say about myself is "I wasn't". If we're talking about the future, the best I can do is to say, "I will be, Lord willing" (James 4:13-15).

This independent, self-existence is attested to elsewhere in Scripture also. As the Second Person of the Trinity, it is written of Jesus that, in Him was life... (John 1:4a). Moreover, Jesus Himself spoke of the self-existence that He shares eternally with God the Father:

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself

(John 5:26 NKJV)

This verse is especially important because it not only speaks of the shared self-existence of the Father and the Son, but also points to the intra-Trinitarian relationship that the Father and the Son possess.

Paul likewise spoke of the independence, or aseity of God in his sermon at the Areopagus:

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

(Acts 17:24-25 NKJV)

Paul was speaking to Greek philosophers whose ideas of deity were very different from the Hebrew doctrine. While Greek "gods" were needy, fickle, and often capricious, the One true God revealed in Jesus Christ does not actually need physical temples to dwell in since He created all things and gives life to all that is. Still less does God demand worship because it fills Him with something that He otherwise would lack. God demands worship because He alone is worthy, and because it is right that we worship Him. 

I want to close this post with a very short video where the late R.C. Sproul speaks briefly about God's aseity.  One of the things I enjoy about the video is Sproul's enthusiasm for God's self-existence. Far from something merely abstract or theoretical, it is something that evidently filled him and certainly fills me with awe and worship for Almighty God. 






Saturday, March 2, 2019

Of Jesus, John the Baptist, Pharisees, Tax Collectors, and Sinners

Easily one of the most wonderful and glorious truths about Jesus in the Gospels is that He was a friend of sinners. Indeed, His most vocal opponents, the Pharisees, questioned and derided Jesus because of this.

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

(Matthew 9:10-13 NIV)



Clearly Jesus was more than willing to associate with those whom the larger society had deemed undesirable and unforgivable, and to forgive them. More on this later.

In addition to the occasion referenced above, other episodes in the earthly life and ministry of Jesus illustrate His compassion toward social outcasts like prostitutes, tax collectors (who collaborated with the hated, occupying Romans), Samaritans, gentiles, lepers, the blind, the crippled, and others who are simply called "sinners". For example, Jesus healed the daughter of a Canaanite woman from demonic possession (Matthew 15:21-28), a leper from his leprosy (Mark 1:40-45), the servant of a Roman centurion (Luke 7:1-10), forgave a sinful woman of her sins (Luke 7:36-50), dined with and forgave Zacchaeus the tax collector (Luke 19:1-10), as well as conversed with a Samaritan woman about Living Water (John 4:4-26), and forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11, though there are questions of textual variation which surround this account).

But it is not only in the ministry of the incarnate Son of God where we find this willingness from God to forgive and accept the socially unacceptable. The Apostle Paul tells the Roman Christians to, Live in harmony with one another, Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited (Romans 12:16). Elsewhere, Paul says, Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are... (1 Corinthians 1:26-28).

At the risk of belaboring the point, even the Old Testament provides evidence of God's mercy for outcasts.

David left Gath and escaped to the cave of Adullam. When his brothers and his father's household heard about it, they went down to him there. All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their leader 

(1 Samuel 22:1-2 NIV).

Now in contrast to the compassion and mercy of Jesus was the smug self-righteousness of the Pharisees. It is well known that they were the primary antagonists to Jesus during His earthly ministry. And it is also well noted that their antagonism to Jesus was at least partly due to the way He openly associated Himself with those who were considered by the Pharisees to be "sinners", especially the hated tax collectors (Luke 15:1-2). Of course the Pharisees' self-righteousness was broader than their disdain for common sinners and Roman collaborators, but this was nevertheless a major bone of contention.

Even so, with all of this biblical data, one can excuse me if I find incredulous the many ways these facts are often twisted out of biblical proportion and used to justify all kinds of compromise, muddled thinking, half-truths, and even outright falsehoods (the theological left is particularly guilty of this, though certainly not alone). What I hope to do in this article is to challenge common assumptions about Christ's interactions with Pharisees and the tax collectors and sinners, and find some contemporary application. 

Let's talk about the Pharisees first. It is often just assumed that the modern equivalent to the Pharisees are religious (especially Christian) Fundamentalists. Now to be sure, that can be and often is one very relevant contemporary application. But what if I told you that it's not that simple? I am convinced that a Pharisee is anyone who adds to the Word of God through tradition, and/or nullifies the Word of God through that tradition, and/or trusts that they are "good people" and looks down at others who are "sinners" - and they may or may not be religious!

Now of course a modern day pharisee may not exemplify all of these traits in exactly the same way. But consider that last characteristic - that a modern pharisee may not be religious. How could I possibly say that? Isn't a pharisee by definition someone who is religiously conservative? Actually, not necessarily. I don't know about you, but I have met plenty of non-religious secular people who, trust in themselves that they are righteous and despise others (Luke 18:9). I know of plenty of people with no discernible religious affiliation who look down on other people for not being as "loving" as they are, or not as "tolerant" or not as #woke, or some other pretentious secular value. Now someone will object that the Religious Right is full of hypocrites and bigots. I will buy that. My purpose is not to excuse evil or hypocrisy from the Fox News-loving crowd. But I can find just as much, if not more, pharisaism from the CNN-loving crowd!

And what about the "sinners"? Certainly in the days that Jesus walked the earth, they were usually found among the morally loose segments of society. But it seems to me that the modern versions of the "tax collectors and sinners" are those whom the larger society as a whole (not just the religious crowd) considers too dirty to associate with, whatever the specifics of their sin. I would venture to say that white supremacists are just one example of contemporary "tax collectors and sinners".

Now I am not trying to be edgy here, or do any kind of "shock jock" routine. The reason I say it is because to really understand the compassion of Jesus toward tax collectors and sinners, one must first feel the outrage at what they were guilty of. So let's consider the tax collectors (of whom was Matthew, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, whose names are written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem - Revelation 21:14). Do you really know and understand just how evil and disgusting these people were? They had sold out their people and had collaborated with the brutal, oppressive occupation of the Romans. These tax collectors had gotten unbelievably rich off of bilking hard-working men and women out of their rightfully earned wages. They had turned social injustice and systemic oppression into an art. They could make even the most shady of con artists blush with embarrassment. To the common Jew in the 1st century, the tax collectors were traitors, collaborators, and swindlers. All of their fancy clothes and jewelry was paid for by the toil and labor of people who could barely feed their families. To be honest, one could almost understand the offended reaction of the Pharisees at seeing Jesus eat a meal with them. They truly deserved their reputations.

Is it really that much different with the outright, in-your-face racism of white supremacist groups? Consider how offensive and abominable they are. Consider how evil is the level of hatred and murder toward others simply over the color of their skin! Ponder how disgusting and outrageous it is to violate the image of God in other human beings because they come from a different country or culture, or speak a different language. Think of the visceral reaction their Satanic symbols, flags, banners, and salutes engender within you. Now imagine if the Son of God, the Messiah, the One promised to come to save and deliver - imagine if he had dinner at the house of one of their leaders. Picture Jesus eating at his dinner table and promising him full forgiveness and cleansing if he would simply confess his sin, give up everything, and follow. Imagine the outrage! Think of the scandal!

Or imagine if Jesus were to have lunch with an A-list celebrity or high-level corporate big shot that has just recently been credibly accused by multiple women of sexual assault and showering forgiveness and grace on that person! Maybe now we can appreciate what it was like when Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners.

But why did Jesus associate so freely with people who so richly deserved their place at the bottom of the social ladder? It isn't a big secret.  It is because, unlike the pharisees, the tax collectors and "sinners" were most acutely aware of their sinfulness and most eager to repent and to receive Christ's forgiveness. There were no religious sensibilities; and there was no social cachet that they could hide behind. The pharisees by contrast, believed themselves already to be "good people" and not in really in any substantial need of repentance and forgiveness. To be honest, at least in my experience, this is less like a Christian Fundamentalist and more like a leftist liberal (whether secular or "Christian").

But more than that, I would argue that most of the tax collectors and sinners were already in a penitent state even before Jesus came to them. And that is because before the "tax collectors and sinners" responded to Jesus, they first responded to John the Baptist.

What do I mean by that? Well, to answer that question, we first have to understand the purpose of the ministry of John the Baptist in relation to that of Jesus. John the Baptist was sent before Jesus as the "forerunner". His ministry was to "prepare the way" for the Messiah, so that the people of Israel could be ready to receive him. But John did not just appear in a vacuum. The Old Testament Scriptures had predicted his coming:

A voice of one calling: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
(Isaiah 40:3-5 NIV)

"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. 
(Malachi 3:1 NIV)

God had promised the people of Israel to bring them back from exile and to return to them and forgive them of all their sins through the ministry of the "Servant" (Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-7; 52:13-53:12). However, before the Servant/Messiah could come, the way had to be prepared for his coming through the ministry of a herald, or forerunner - as Isaiah and Malachi predicted. 

And that is exactly what John did. He preached to the people that they should repent of their sins and receive ceremonial washing through baptism (Mark 1:4). But the interesting thing is that the New Testament records that large crowds came out to him to be baptized from Jerusalem and from the area surrounding it (Matthew 3:5). The Gospel writer Luke goes into greater detail though. Luke gives examples of the kinds of people who came to John to be baptized:

 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.

Luke 3:10-13 NIV

According to this text, even the hated tax collectors had gone to John the Baptist to receive his baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that they received Jesus and His ministry out of an already penitent and prepared heart. The other reason this is relevant is when one considers just what kind of preacher John was that "prepared" the people of Israel to meet their Messiah. John was, if you will, a true hellfire and brimstone preacher of repentance. Far from glossing over sin, he was easily a take-no-prisoners, black-and-white Old Testament Prophet. Just before the above exchange, John had been preaching this:

John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Luke 3:7-9 NIV

And before we so easily dismiss John the Baptist as being some legalistic meanie, I should point out that Jesus explicitly endorsed John and connected his ministry with preparing the tax collectors and sinners to receive the Gospel:

 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

“The first,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Matthew 21:28-32 NIV

Or consider this:

After John’s messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces.  But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written:

“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
    who will prepare your way before you.’

 I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)

Luke 7:24-30 NIV

As these Scriptures show, John's no-holds-barred preaching of repentance was what led to the repentance of the tax collectors, which prepared them to receive the grace that Jesus offered to them. This angered the sanctimonious, self-righteous pharisees, who now rejected Jesus, just as they had previously rejected John. This also tells us that preaching repentance from sin and the reality of Final Judgment is in harmony with the ministry of Jesus, despite what much popular piety would have us believe. 

To summarize, it is evident that the wishy-washy platitudes of those who most loudly proclaim to imitate Jesus in receiving "tax collectors and sinners" do not accurately understand what was really happening in the ministry of the Lord. They may think that they are following Jesus, but they are actually following the wisdom of this world, which will perish. While it is true that extreme Fundamentalism can and does exhibit a pharisaic spirit, it is equally true that pharisaism is very much at home in a liberal, "progressive" environment.

But ultimately the takeaway must be that the grace of Jesus is available to all who are willing to receive it by faith, in humility recognizing their need for forgiveness. The self-righteous and arrogant, whether they be religious fundamentalists, so-called "Progressive" Christians, secular SJWs, or just the man on the street, will find themselves without a wedding garment (Matthew 22:11-14) unless they too come to humility and repentance. Amen.




Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Learning Theological Terms: Common Grace

In the last post in this series, I explored the theological term adiaphora, and found how it refers to matters that are indifferent. In this post, I will unpack the theological concept of common grace. Although the term itself does not appear in Scripture, the truth that it conveys is well-grounded in Holy Writ. Wayne Grudem defines common grace as follows: Common grace is the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation. 

(Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology (p. 657). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.)

In other words, common grace refers to the many ways in which God bestows non-salvation grace to all people, whether they are among the Elect or not. Common grace is in contradistinction to saving grace - that is grace that is given only to the Elect by God to cause them to believe in Jesus.

We might say then that common grace is general, while saving grace is particular.  Examples of common grace would be air, food, clothing, talents and skills, physical beauty or attractiveness, material possessions, influence and respect, athletic ability, conscience, law and government, families, etc... These are blessings that God may give or withhold at His sovereign discretion, irrespective of whether or not the recipients ultimately believe the Gospel or not.

Scripture gives us a few examples of texts which teach common grace:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

(Matthew 5:43-45 NKJV)

While preaching in Iconium, Paul said,

[God] in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

(Acts 14:16-17 NKJV)

Paul, in preaching to the Athenians on Mars' Hill told them this:

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 

(Acts 17:24-25 NKJV)

And these are just in the physical world. As noted earlier, there are many other ways in which God has given common grace to mankind. Conscience is an area where common grace can be seen. Even in a world in rebellion against God and His rule, typically speaking, even non-believing people we encounter on the street understand the difference between right and wrong in the abstract. To be sure, the Depravity of Man ensures that that sense of right and wrong is often warped and twisted, but it's there nevertheless. 

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them, in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

(Romans 2:14-16 NKJV) 

As can be seen, God has given many manifold blessings to all of mankind. Indeed, the very fact that the human race is not immediately consumed because of sin, is itself an act of grace. While common grace does not save, it is nevertheless a vital aspect of God's dealings with the human race. 

Saturday, February 2, 2019

What Ministries Does DTM Do?

This blog has been in existence since 2011 in one form or another. In 2016, I rechristened it "David's Throne Ministries". In another place, I clarified why I call it "David's Throne" Ministries. But in this post, I want to talk about why it is called David's Throne "Ministries". In other words, what kinds of "ministries" (note the plural) is DTM involved with? That is an excellent question!



At the moment, the primary ministry of DTM is this blog. This blog is designed to be a place where I, Christian Edmiston, can write freely about various, biblical and theological issues from the perspective of an ultra-conservativepredestinarian, charismatic, and non-dispensational believer in Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that Christians with differing views than mine are unwelcome to interact, or that I think of them as somehow lesser than myself. I feel though that it is good to state where I am on these issues for the sake of clarity. I also have found that in most other places, I would be hampered from ministering according to my conscience based on my beliefs. Therefore, I set up this blog where I can be unfettered. 

As much as I love writing, that is not all that I hope to do. In the coming months, I am (Lord willing) going to begin a YouTube Channel where I will begin producing videos along the same lines as this blog, but which can go deeper. But in addition to that, I hope to begin posting more sermons on this site. At the moment, you can hear one message I preached here (click the link, go to "speakers", and find my name). But next month, I will be bringing the Sunday morning message at Allentown Bible Church, which I plan on making available via recording on this site. Hopefully, that will lead to more opportunities to teach and preach, something which is a passion of mine. As time goes on, I hope to make myself available for pulpit supply.

Additionally, I also have experience leading congregational worship and singing. If God sees fit, I hope to also make myself available as a fill-in worship leader for Sunday services, mid-week gatherings, or conferences. 

Mind you that all of these things are only possible through God's sovereign will and prayer. If you are reading this, I hope that you will consider praying for me and with me. I do not dare believe that I am sufficient unto myself to do anything of value in the Kingdom of God. But I do believe that I possess the calling, gifting, and passion that would make these possible through God's grace. Blessings in Christ.

-Christian 


Doctrine of the Bible, Part 2, Infallibility and Inerrancy

 In my  last post , I began a new series discussing key aspects of a Protestant and Evangelical doctrine of the Bible, specifically the conc...