I am saved and being saved?

"Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:11

Most of us realize that salvation is an event that happens. One minute I'm not a believer, the next minute I am a believer. One minute I am on the road to hell, the next minute God has saved me from the wrath to come! I have been born again, made new, and regenerated. I was once not righteous and now am righteous. Most of us know that we didn't do something to obtain this, but it was by God's grace and mercy and love. He made me be born again. He made me a believer. He made me justified. He deserves all credit and glory.

So today, I was asked a question about the author of Hebrews lack of terminology: justification, justified by faith alone, born again, and other one-point in time terminology that indicates an event.

To understand the point I am going to make, first we need to understand that the Bible provides breadth and depth to many doctrines within Scripture and allow Scripture to speak for itself.

If we think Salvation is only a one-time act, then we don't know what to do with the person who says he / she was a believer for 10 years, then fell away. We don't know what to do with the person who says God saved them and lets them live liberally and sin as much as he/she wants because God will forgive them!

The author of Hebrews (let's call him Paul from here on out) uses different language to speak of the believer.

"[We are in Christ's house] If we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end." (3:6)

"Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God."(3:12)

"For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end," (3:14)

"And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (6:11-12)

"For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised." (10:36)

None of these passages affirm man can save himself. Rather they teach that believers persevere to the end - "until the end - "you receive what was promised [to you]." Scripture indicates that true believers persevere until they are glorified, in heaven, with Christ. They endure trials, temptations, afflictions, sufferings, highs, lows and continually put their faith and trust in the Lord. Their faith will continue until the Lord returns or his / her death. True Christians will never perish or be cast away. God holds them until the end. It does not mean Christians will never sin again, or doubt their own salvation. But those who God calls, he redeems!

Therefore, "take care brethren, that there not be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called 'Today,' so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."

We who believe, must continue to seek out the Lord, continue fellowship with other believers, pray, study, and walk obediently. We are not excused to act however we want as long as we have the right 'point-of-view.' We are called to continually act and follow the Lord.

1 John habitually reinforces this doctrine as John reminds us that those who are habitually obedient, "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments." (1 John 2:3).

Understand therefore that your salvation is a walk with the Lord, guided by His grace and mercy. He deserves all glory and honor. And when you come across the man who says, "I was once a Christian, but de-converted and reject Christ." Know that he never really was, what he claims to be!

Jesus would be in the bars and other places of ill-repute!?

I have heard and read many say, "Jesus would have been in the bars ministering and loving the people." Some might even allude to Him being in a "Strip-club." Usually they appeal to one truth, "Jesus went to the sinners."

On one level we must recognize that Jesus did not snub His nose at men and women who were lower class and looked down upon as the "worst" sinners according to Jewish custom and the Pharisees. Jesus did love all people and he cared for them, showing them kindness, grace, truth, mercy, and love. He desires all to repent and love Him.

But does this mean that Jesus went to culturally vile places to minister like our modern advocates declare? I don't think so.

I'm guessing when Jesus called the tax-collector (Matthew / Levi) this serves as an example of Jesus communing with "sinners and the lowest of low people." We all know the tax-collector was not liked and welcomed by the Jews and their leaders. The advocate of "go anywhere to reach people for Christ" would probably use this as an example of Jesus going anywhere.

So, let us examine one line in this event from Luke 5:27.

"After that He went out and noticed a tax-collector named Levi sitting in the tax booth,"

Where was Levi sitting? "the tax booth."

What was the "tax booth?" James Jeffers comments in The Greco-Roman World, "[Levi] might have [his] 'place of toll' located where the residents could not easily avoid them: by city gates, on public roads or on bridges. Levi's post at Capernaum probably was near the sea on the important trade route entering Galilee from Damascus" (146).

Two important observations

1. His place was in a prominent area of town that was not easy to avoid. This probably means when Jesus ministered to Levi, it was done out in the open where many could see Him and watch Him.

2. Jesus did not call Levi while ministering to him in some place where "open, blatant sin and debauchery exists." This was not your local tavern, kereoke night, with $1 long-necks and .50 cent Jello shots.

Jesus called Levi while out in the open air, public arena. He called the vilest of sinners while out in public.

Objection! You just raised the classic blunder of not reading on in the story to see that in verse

29 Luke records, "And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?"

The classic (recent) argument is that Jesus dined with sinners and so should we.

Again, this is right, but not to the degree that our advocate advocates. Jesus indeed dined with the sinners and he ate with them and the Pharisees were appalled by such actions. But again notice a few key observations:

1. Jesus went to a reception given for Him at Levi's house. Levi threw a reception for Jesus. He did not take Jesus to the bar for ministry.

2. Jesus did eat, recline, and fellowship with the sinners. We must acknowledge this.

3. Jesus was there with his disciples, not alone. (Now alone is not the issue here, but should be noted)

So what are the implications? Jesus went to dinner with Levi, Levi invited his friends, and Jesus hung out with them. I don't have a problem with this and this should indict us who want nothing the people in this world. 1 John 3:13-18 indicates that we should love people in this world and have a heart for them. Believers should fellowship with unbelievers, love them, serve them and try to win them to the Gospel.

The Pharisees attitude is often immulated by "Christians" and should be indicted and condemned.

But the degree our advocate stretches to is wrong. Jesus does not call us to the "bars, whore-houses, and other places of "ill-repute" to minister to the Gospel. I am not saying we don't find a way to reach them, love them, serve them, and share the Gospel with them. Indeed we need too, and there are ways of doing this in a public setting like our Savior did.

I am also not saying it is wrong for a Christian to go to a bar and have a beer with his / her friend. But I am saying, the bar, strip-club and other places like this are not the main location of our evangelism, ministry, and work.

You are an evangelist everywhere you are. Wherever you go, there you are as salt in a dying world with the greatest message. Certainly you are going to meet some "vile" people, love them, share the gospel with them, if the Lord saves them, go eat dinner with them! :)

Why my older child cries:

You do not need to have children to know that kids will cry. 

In fact, sometimes I am shocked by my child's openness concerning his crying. He'll look at me and say, "Daddy, I cryin." [there is not hard 'g' yet, so it's cryin]. 

We will then talk and he usually quits crying. But 2 and half years into this parenting thing I have figured out one major theological truth that must stay at the forefront of my mind. 

My child cries for one of two reasons: either he is hurt or he is idolizing something. 

I know if I hear a thud accompanied by crying, he is hurt. (And of course sometimes the thud is a result of him pursuing an idol).

But if I just hear crying and whining, I can be sure that he has an idol and something stands in the way of getting what he wants and therefore he responds with tears, yells, crying, and frowns. 

At the end of the day, this is important. He may not understand now, "Son, you want XYZ more than you want to worship the Lord. But someday the light will click."

Why Easter is not about church growth!

I remember being a part of a church that was excited about Easter because it was an opportunity to display the church and the people to visitors or yearly attenders. You put your best foot forward and use this Sunday as Rush week for your church. 

Certainly we recognize that many people will attend church this one (maybe Christmas too) day out of the year. Among these people are probably unbelievers and people with poor ecclesiology. Certainly this is even a good time to invite friends as well. 

The unbeliever comes. He likes what he experiences and says, "I could do this week in and week out." Now you have an unbeliever coming week in and week out.

What's wrong with unbelievers attending church? Nothing per se as long she/he realizes that he/she is an unbeliever. A person might wrestle with the truths of the Lord over a long period of time.

But, the main question I have is this, what is Easter Sunday about? Is it a time of year to "Rush" the unchurched? This line of thinking usually (but not always) accompanies a church that seeks growth. Is this wrong? Is it wrong to want your church to grow? I don't think so, if the heart motives are correct. But is it what Easter is about?

No!

Easter is a celebration of the greatest news ever told. "He is risen!" Paul says, "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:3-5).

Today, good Friday, celebrates his death on the cross. Here he took our place on the cross - paying the penalty I deserve. His death was real, His burial was real, and His resurrection is real."

History and theology are wedded together. Remove the actual historical event and you have no theological truth. Paul says, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also in vain" (1 Cor. 15:13, 14).

Our faith, eternal life, and His work is meaningless if there is no resurrection.

Sunday we, who believe gather together to celebrate the resurrection. We gather to celebrate His finished work to atone for our sins and provide eternal life. We do not gather this day to highlight our church for Rush week. Instead we gather to celebrate and honor His work on the cross. 

Colossians 1:15ff says that He is the firstborn of all creation. He is the preeminent one who deserves all honor and glory. We gather together to glorify and honor. Him. Sunday morning, I wake up and go to worship the One who has the place of honor. I go to celebrate His work on the cross. 

His work on the cross is highlighted and unbelievers will be in attendance. We who believe worship. The unbeliever is confronted with the One whom we worship and honor. They are exposed to the Good News. They come and learn that His work is sufficient to deal with their sins. He paid the penalty they deserve. He offers them reconciliation. They who repent, believe, and worship Him will be cleansed before a holy God. 

Now, they who believe, because of His work on the cross and their belief are called into the church. Christ equips them with the Spirit and a role to play in the church (Eph. 4:7-10).

So you want to grow your church on Easter? Pray the Lord would be seen in His glory! Pray all who attend, see Him for who He truly is and proclaim Him as what He is - Our God and Savior!

The Jesus Crisis

I am currently reading The Jesus Crisis (and a slew of other books) concerning the issues over the Synoptic Problem. This book is not popular among scholars, but should be read by anyone wanting to evaluate the Gospels. As I develop this series, this book will be a part of the back-bone to the argument. Much of what I have read so far has been liberal thinking, philosophy (that influences historical-criticism), and some traditional view points. 

I encourage you to read this book!

The problem with Synoptic Gospel Commentaries

For almost two years now I have heard this question, "I am looking for a good commentary on [Matthew, Mark, or Luke]." Answering this question and pointing a person to a good critical commentary has been difficult. 

First, let me note that John MacArthur's Commentaries on Matthew are good and I stand by them. But they do not lend to

 critical analysis of the text or historical context. 

Second, if a person is studying Mark, let me recommend Hiebert's commentary. This is by far the best commentary I have read on ANY of 

the Synoptic Gospels and Hiebert focuses on important analysis of the text to help lead to rig

ht interpretation. Finally, for a greater over-view of all commentaries see Rosscup's Commentaries For Biblical Expositors.

Let me add, I am looking for more good books composed of good historical background that will help bring to light manners and customs during the NT time period. For the most part I have found good historical understanding enlightens the text and helps capture the meaning of the text. This makes sense: context is key to interpretation.

So the question must be asked, why is it difficult to recommend a commentary? What is it that makes study so difficult? The presuppositions of the commentators. Let me be clear. Everyone has presuppositions. And the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. To the believer, you have the Holy Spirit who gives wisdom and helps you understand the Scriptures.

Most modern commentaries on the gospels build exegetical analysis upon historical-critical ideologies. 

This is a problem. Historical criticism claims to be scientific studies on the Gospels. But there has been no scientific study done by proponents of this system. Instead, these men (and women) have built their ideas on methods that has roots in man based philosophies. 

Original proponents of this method believed and elevated human reason to the center of divine study. They looked at all the religions as equal and compare the Bible with other "religious" ideas. There is no supernatural. Therefore miracles are not real, there is no resurrection, and divine healing is not really healing. These are all "faith" stories told to display a theology. This thinking is corrupt and denies the Word! See how this presents a problem?

Their faulty ideologies are present in their commentaries. Every stroke of "Q" in their commentaries finds its roots in a denial of inerrancy and elevation of man's authority. The road of HC leads to a denial of Jesus. 

My goal over the next few weeks is to boil down their teaching and evaluate their claims. I plan on further expanding on their history and presuppositions. 

Let me clear. Many men today say that they can do Historical Criticism with right presuppositions. But this is wrong. Over time, they will undermine Scripture and the Word of God. 

A few thoughts on Moby-Dick

This will be my fourth time to read the book and I thought it might be interesting to post a few observations regarding the book. 

First, my college professor said, "Reading Moby-Dick" is like drinking a fine wine." This is wise advise. If you are in for a page turning, heart stopping adventure, then read another book. Yet, this book is filled with action and is worth the read. Melville's use of language is superb! This is a classic book and the adventure is great! Melville often "breaks" the story to impart necessary wisdom regarding whaling. One finishes this book with amazement at both Melville's language and the adventure of whaling. 

Second, when "Moby-Dick" was first published in Britain it was hated. (Of course the book did not do so well here in America at first too). Readers could not understand how a story could be told with no survivors. If you have read the book you understand the error of this analysis. But the English publisher erred. He did not print the last page of the book so the story was left incomplete. Upon discovery, the book was republished correctly. Of course the book has become a classic and well loved. 

Finally, I admit that the book posses as a challenge to the modern reader. The language is difficult and whaling has no context in the modern mind. If this were a story of the American Grid Iron concerning Notre Dame, you would have little problems with it. If you really want to enhance your understanding of "Moby-Dick" then read "Into the Heart of the Sea" by Nathaniel Philbrook. It is the store of the Whale ship Essex in 1812. This ship was lost at sea and is a great story of survival and whaling. It will help you with the context. Of course, Melville does a great job of providing context too!

Enjoy.