The Seventh-Day Adventists hold to a doctrine referred to as "soul sleep." Their belief is that the intermediate state, i. e., the state of the soul, is a condition of unconsciousness. This is in contrast to the view of orthodox Christians, who believe that the soul enters its eternal state (Hebrews 9:27), whether in heaven (Luke 16:25, 23:43, John 5:24) or in hell (John 3:18, II Peter 2:9), to be joined by the body at the resurrection, at which time the final judgment will confirm each person's eternal state.
Jesus addressed this question indirectly when He was challenged by the Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of resurrection (Matt. 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40). In His answer (Matt. 22:31-32), Jesus reminds them, "As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." In rejecting the error of the Sadducees, Jesus describes the patriarchs as alive now, and worshiping God now. His whole argument would be meaningless if those men were in their graves, unconscious, with no relationship with God in their current state.
Another passage in which the Redeemer addresses this question is John 14:2-3: "In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also." If Jesus is going somewhere, from which He will return to us, where will that be? It can't be the grave; what meaning could there be for rooms built for us in the grave? Rather, He is obviously referring to heaven (see Acts 7:56, Col. 3:1, and Hebrews 1:3). Between His first and second Advents, Jesus is working to prepare for those who die during that same period. Would a Seventh-Day Adventist or Jehovah's Witness claim that He is preparing this home with the expectation that no one will make use of it? That would be futility, indeed.
The Jehovah's Witness have a distinct, though related, doctrine, that the souls of both believers and unbelievers are annihilated at death, to be reconstituted at the judgment. The words of Jesus in this story are even more telling against their doctrine. The SDA's and JW's share a common origin, but have diverged significantly. I don't know when they diverged on this doctrine, or who diverged from whom.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Monday, June 22, 2015
Bishops: Diotrophes in the Church
Before I start, I want to mention what a landmark this post is: Post number 300! When I first started this blog, I would never have imagined reaching 300 posts.
And now, to proceed: How many sermons have you ever heard from the Third Epistle of John? If your experience is like mine, not many, if any. In fact, out of my thirty-some years of listening to sermons, I can't recall even one. That's sad, because I think this epistle does have significance for the church today, even as small as it is.
I won't go into the question of authorship here; it isn't within the purview of this post. However, I take it as having been written by the Apostle John, as has been held throughout the history of the church.
government, but it is contrary to his very words! It is a self-justification for the papal tyranny over a billion souls, contrary to that attitude of service enjoined by Christ in the passage in Mark cited above.
And now, to proceed: How many sermons have you ever heard from the Third Epistle of John? If your experience is like mine, not many, if any. In fact, out of my thirty-some years of listening to sermons, I can't recall even one. That's sad, because I think this epistle does have significance for the church today, even as small as it is.
I won't go into the question of authorship here; it isn't within the purview of this post. However, I take it as having been written by the Apostle John, as has been held throughout the history of the church.
In III John 1:9-11, the Apostle tells us, "I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So
if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense
against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to [welcome them] and puts them out of the
church.
Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God."
It is from this passage that the Covenanters got their nickname for the bishops of Charles I, "Diotrophes in the church." They, like John's nemesis here, sought to be first in the church, as do their kin in today's Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches.
Jesus also addressed the issue of the lordship of men in the Church of which He alone is Head (Mark 10:42-45): "You know that those who are considered rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over
them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."
That is why a Presbyterian church cannot exist without at least two elders. This is what is practiced by Paul in Acts 14:23, and enjoined by him in Titus 1:5 (on which I have commented here). Notice that it says "elders in every church," plural, not "an elder in every church," or even "in every town," contrary to the diocesan system of the prelatic churches. Notice also the reference to "overseers" in Philippians 1:1. That word translates the Greek work "episkopos," the very word which has come into English as "bishop." The Church at Philippi had a multiplicity of bishops!
And here, I describe the words of the Apostle Peter, the supposed first pope, which forbid the very monarchical bishops which have claimed his name and title. And someone should inform the Vatican that the Apostle Peter that they claim as their source was the married Apostle Peter (Luke 4:38 and I Corinthians 9:5)!
The original Diotrophes thrust himself into a one-man rule over the congregation in III John (we don't know where this congregation was located). In the same way, the Pope and his bishops, along with the others in Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, have set themselves up as heads over the church, contrary to too many places in Scripture to be an accident. In his first epistle (I Peter 5:1-2), Peter commands the elders to "bishopize" (my own word, to translate "episkopountas") in the church. Thus, not only is it disingenuous for the Church of Rome to claim him as the origin of their church
Is a man saved by presbyterian church government? Of course not. Is he blocked from eternal life by the presence of bishops? Again, no man could say so. But, if Jesus has established a government in His Church, as I think I have proven, then it can only be rank rebellion to persist in ruling, or accepting rule, in that church, contrary to the express will of her Head. That is a serious sin, and cannot be anything but an obstacle to fellowship with that Head, who gave Himself to ransom her (Ephesians 5:25).
I am concurring here with the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor
can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist,
that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church
against Christ, and all that is called God..."
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Has Anyone Seen God? The Confusion of Atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons
Atheists like to refer to these verses, together with Exodus 33:18-23, where Moses is said to see Jehovah's back. Such atheists shout, "Aha! Here is a contradiction! One place says that Moses saw God's back, while another says that no one has ever seen God." I will deal with that below.
The other abuse I have seen is from Jehovah's Witnesses, when they try to deny the deity of Christ. They argue that the words of John prove that Jesus isn't God, because God is invisible (as the Bible indeed says, e. g., Col. 1:15 and I Tim. 1:17), but people could see Jesus.
The answer to both arguments, as inane as they are, is in the verses themselves.
The word "God," when it is otherwise undefined in the New Testament, usually refers to the Father. Jesus says that "no one has seen the Father." But Who did Moses see? Jehovah, the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity (though I would describe the experience as an anthropomorphism). The verses at the top of this page say that no one has seen the Father (or "God" undefined), i. e., the First Person of the Trinity. Thus, I say to the atheist, there is no contradiction. To the Jehovah's Witnesses, your error regarding the Person of Christ also causes you to err in your understanding of these Scriptures, the logical fallacy of begging the question. Of course people could see Jesus in His human nature; but not in His deity. Yet, even if they (or we) could see His deity, that would not conflict with these verses.
These verses also address one of the errors of Mormonism. Mormons believe that the Persons of the Godhead have literal, physical bodies, comparable to our own. How can that be if the Father is invisible? In the two verses cited above, Paul explicitly refers to God as invisible. Would a Mormon therefore claim that He has some sort of ghostly body, with all the physical attributes of ours, but somehow transparent? I think that the absurdity of the Mormon doctrine is evident.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Who REALLY Loves His Neighbor? Telling the Truth in a Relativistic Culture
I have been dealing with people online who criticize me for "lack of love" when I insist that one's relationship with Christ determines one's relationship with God the Father. That is, does the unbeliever, whether of another religion or none, have access to God, such as to have cause to expect His love and
answers to his or her prayers? I answer "no," without regard to any concept of personal worthiness in that person. My answer is the same whether the question regards Gandhi or Stalin. I have addressed the supposed universal love of God before, such as here.
But Scripture addresses the question I present here in a more-explicit fashion. In Proverbs 15:8-9, 26, we read,
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to Him.
The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
but He loves him who pursues righteousness.
The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord,
but gracious words are pure."
We see three times in these verses that the spiritual activities of unbelievers, "the wicked," are an abomination to the Lord. That is not a word that indicates a universal love toward them, but rather wrath! In the words of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7), we are to warn unbelievers to "flee the wrath to come." Instead, they must turn to "Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come" (I Thessalonians 1:10).
Biblical Christianity holds forth this contrast: If you remain in your unbelief, then you remain under the wrath of God. The way to escape that wrath is turn from your sin to Christ our redeemer. As Paul said to the Christians in Rome (Romans 5:9), "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God."
Will people be offended when we tell them this? Absolutely! The Bible even calls Jesus "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (I Peter 2:8). To attempt to avoid offending people is to turn Jesus into something other than Who He is. And how is it loving? How can it be called love not to warn a person that he is on a path to destruction? If a person were about to walk over a cliff, wouldn't a loving person call out in warning? Of course! To warn a person of danger is to act in a loving manner.
Here I must, in love, give a warning to the preachers of love of the wrath that they risk themselves. God says (Ezekiel 3:18), "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand." If your concept of love is so syrupy that you will not warn your neighbor of his spiritual danger, then God will hold you accountable for your neighbor's destruction. If you don't love him enough to warn him, I hope that you love yourself enough to avoid that kind of judgment, so that you warn him, out of a sense of self-preservation.
But Scripture addresses the question I present here in a more-explicit fashion. In Proverbs 15:8-9, 26, we read,
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to Him.
The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
but He loves him who pursues righteousness.
The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord,
but gracious words are pure."
We see three times in these verses that the spiritual activities of unbelievers, "the wicked," are an abomination to the Lord. That is not a word that indicates a universal love toward them, but rather wrath! In the words of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7), we are to warn unbelievers to "flee the wrath to come." Instead, they must turn to "Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come" (I Thessalonians 1:10).
Biblical Christianity holds forth this contrast: If you remain in your unbelief, then you remain under the wrath of God. The way to escape that wrath is turn from your sin to Christ our redeemer. As Paul said to the Christians in Rome (Romans 5:9), "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God."
Will people be offended when we tell them this? Absolutely! The Bible even calls Jesus "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (I Peter 2:8). To attempt to avoid offending people is to turn Jesus into something other than Who He is. And how is it loving? How can it be called love not to warn a person that he is on a path to destruction? If a person were about to walk over a cliff, wouldn't a loving person call out in warning? Of course! To warn a person of danger is to act in a loving manner.
Here I must, in love, give a warning to the preachers of love of the wrath that they risk themselves. God says (Ezekiel 3:18), "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand." If your concept of love is so syrupy that you will not warn your neighbor of his spiritual danger, then God will hold you accountable for your neighbor's destruction. If you don't love him enough to warn him, I hope that you love yourself enough to avoid that kind of judgment, so that you warn him, out of a sense of self-preservation.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Kicking and Screaming into the Kingdom of God: His Irresistible Grace
I would suggest, on the contrary, that Scripture explicitly states the opposite. Consider the prophecies of Hosea 11:1-4 (emphasis added):
"When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
The more they were called,
the more they went away;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals
and burning offerings to idols.
and out of Egypt I called my son.
The more they were called,
the more they went away;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals
and burning offerings to idols.
Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk;
I took them up by their arms,
but they did not know that I healed them.
I led them with cords of kindness,with the bands of love,
and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws,
and I bent down to them and fed them."
I took them up by their arms,
but they did not know that I healed them.
I led them with cords of kindness,with the bands of love,
and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws,
and I bent down to them and fed them."
There is a progression here: Jehovah deals with Israel in a cajoling voice, like a mother encouraging her toddler to eat (an anthropomorphism; I certainly do not believe that God is in any way impotent in dealing with us). Yet, Israel continues his devotion to idolatry. In contrast, while Israel is faithless, God continues faithful (II Timothy 2:13). So, what does He do? He draws them (and us, as well) with "cords of kindness" and "bands of love." Those words represent force, but not aggression, not violence. It is out of love and kindness that He curbs our penchant for idolatry and all sin, and draws us - unfailingly - to Himself (John 6:44).
Here is the Word of God on the matter, not the self-serving speculations of the Arminian. To my mind, that settles the argument.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Legalized Theft: Property Rights in an Entitlement Society
Much in the news today, as well as in water-cooler discussions, is the effort to force businesses, such as florists and bakeries, to serve social functions against the religious convictions of their owners. On one side, we see those who protest discrimination by the business-owners. On the other, we see those who have suddenly read the First Amendment about freedom of religion.
I say to both sides: That ship sailed a long time ago.
To the tolerance campaigners, I have a question: when a bar serves a particular clientele, is it discriminating? When there is a bowling league - or insert any social activity of your choice - for a particular segment of society, is that intolerant? My point is that discrimination cuts both ways. To discriminate in favor of a group is just as intolerant as to discriminate against that group, isn't it? Yet, I'm not seeing any public outrage about that. I recommend repeating this sentence to yourself, until you see my logic: "I can't tolerate intolerant people."
To the other side, the supposed defenders of religious liberty: Where were you when interracial marriage was declared legal by the Supreme Court? If a person has religious convictions against interracial marriage, is that a religious right that you want to protect? Speak up. I can't hear you. Why is it that "religious freedom" has suddenly become a rallying cry when it wants to discriminate against gay people? Yet, that phrase was never heard when so-called "civil rights laws," especially "public accommodations" laws became de riguer in the sixties.
My thought is that the answer is the Eighth Commandment, which reads simply, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15). One of the sins forbidden by that commandment, according to Question 142 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, is "all unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor of what belongs to him." To my mind, that covers both sides of this debate. As to the social activities to which I referred above, the commandment preserves the right of individuals to spend their own money on peaceful, voluntary interactions with associates of their choice. For the business owners, it preserves their right to perform interactions with individuals of their choice. Do you see the two sides of the coin here? The conflict arises from the efforts of government officials to insert force where there was none. And both sides, in their efforts to get government force for their own efforts, fail to recognize that force that works for them can just as easily be used against them.
I say to both sides: That ship sailed a long time ago.
To the tolerance campaigners, I have a question: when a bar serves a particular clientele, is it discriminating? When there is a bowling league - or insert any social activity of your choice - for a particular segment of society, is that intolerant? My point is that discrimination cuts both ways. To discriminate in favor of a group is just as intolerant as to discriminate against that group, isn't it? Yet, I'm not seeing any public outrage about that. I recommend repeating this sentence to yourself, until you see my logic: "I can't tolerate intolerant people."
To the other side, the supposed defenders of religious liberty: Where were you when interracial marriage was declared legal by the Supreme Court? If a person has religious convictions against interracial marriage, is that a religious right that you want to protect? Speak up. I can't hear you. Why is it that "religious freedom" has suddenly become a rallying cry when it wants to discriminate against gay people? Yet, that phrase was never heard when so-called "civil rights laws," especially "public accommodations" laws became de riguer in the sixties.
My thought is that the answer is the Eighth Commandment, which reads simply, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15). One of the sins forbidden by that commandment, according to Question 142 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, is "all unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor of what belongs to him." To my mind, that covers both sides of this debate. As to the social activities to which I referred above, the commandment preserves the right of individuals to spend their own money on peaceful, voluntary interactions with associates of their choice. For the business owners, it preserves their right to perform interactions with individuals of their choice. Do you see the two sides of the coin here? The conflict arises from the efforts of government officials to insert force where there was none. And both sides, in their efforts to get government force for their own efforts, fail to recognize that force that works for them can just as easily be used against them.
Friday, April 24, 2015
"The Lord's Day"? Or "the Day of the Lord"?
In Revelation 1:10, the Apostle John wrote that he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" as he wrote this final book of the Bible. In general, Christians have taken this to refer to the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week. However, that tradition is challenged by seventh-day sabbatarians, such as Seventh-Day Adventists, who claim instead that he was in the Spirit on "the day of the Lord."
However, in favor of the traditional wording is that John uses a different word in the genitive here from what is used in the New Testament for "day of the Lord." In the passage at hand, the Greek reads "te kuriake hemera." In contrast, where the New Testament writers referred to "the day of the Lord," such as in I Thessalonians 5:2, the writers use "he hemera kuriou." "Kuriakos" is used only here and in I Corinthians 11:20 (to refer to "the Lord's Supper"). "Kurios," in contrast, is used 720 times, both for Christ and for higher authorities, in general, which is why it is sometimes translated "master." Thus, the difference is that "kurios" is the more-generic term, while "kuriakos" is used only for Christ, which is why it came into Germanic languages as the word for "church" ("kirk" in Scottish dialect, "kirche" in German), instead of the Greek and Latin "ekklesia" ("eglise" in French, "iglesia" in Spanish, "chiesa" in Italian).
The point is this: the day in Rev. 1:10 is not the Day of the Lord, such as appears not just in I Thessalonians, but also in the Old Testament prophets (e. g., Amos 5:18, Zephaniah 1:14, and Joel 1:15). Rather, it is specifically the day of Christ! That is because the first day was the day of His resurrection (John 20:1ff), and when He revealed Himself glorified to His disciples (John 20:19), and when He sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1; Pentecost was fifty days after Passover, i. e., seven seventh-days plus one, the first day of the week), and the day that the apostolic church gathered for worship (Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 16:2). Thus, for John to have been involved in spiritual exercises on that day is only to be expected. To say that he was doing so on "the day of the Lord" makes no sense, at all.
Accordingly, I affirm the statement of the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXI:7): "As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath." I find the biblical case for the first-day Sabbath, ever since the resurrection of Christ, to succeed over that for a continuing seventh-day Sabbath. I consider the latter to be an effort at judaizing the Christian faith, and, therefore, to be opposed.
However, in favor of the traditional wording is that John uses a different word in the genitive here from what is used in the New Testament for "day of the Lord." In the passage at hand, the Greek reads "te kuriake hemera." In contrast, where the New Testament writers referred to "the day of the Lord," such as in I Thessalonians 5:2, the writers use "he hemera kuriou." "Kuriakos" is used only here and in I Corinthians 11:20 (to refer to "the Lord's Supper"). "Kurios," in contrast, is used 720 times, both for Christ and for higher authorities, in general, which is why it is sometimes translated "master." Thus, the difference is that "kurios" is the more-generic term, while "kuriakos" is used only for Christ, which is why it came into Germanic languages as the word for "church" ("kirk" in Scottish dialect, "kirche" in German), instead of the Greek and Latin "ekklesia" ("eglise" in French, "iglesia" in Spanish, "chiesa" in Italian).
 |
| Apostle John |
The point is this: the day in Rev. 1:10 is not the Day of the Lord, such as appears not just in I Thessalonians, but also in the Old Testament prophets (e. g., Amos 5:18, Zephaniah 1:14, and Joel 1:15). Rather, it is specifically the day of Christ! That is because the first day was the day of His resurrection (John 20:1ff), and when He revealed Himself glorified to His disciples (John 20:19), and when He sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1; Pentecost was fifty days after Passover, i. e., seven seventh-days plus one, the first day of the week), and the day that the apostolic church gathered for worship (Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 16:2). Thus, for John to have been involved in spiritual exercises on that day is only to be expected. To say that he was doing so on "the day of the Lord" makes no sense, at all.
Accordingly, I affirm the statement of the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXI:7): "As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath." I find the biblical case for the first-day Sabbath, ever since the resurrection of Christ, to succeed over that for a continuing seventh-day Sabbath. I consider the latter to be an effort at judaizing the Christian faith, and, therefore, to be opposed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
