The Withering Flower – The Fad of TULIP Theology 10

Why would Paul preach the gospel to everyone if:

1. He knew Jesus didn’t die for everyone?
2. He knew God doesn’t love everyone?
3. He knew they didn’t have a choice unless God gave it to them?

Also, why would Paul even say, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rom 9:1-5)

If Paul knew Israel was not going to be saved, why even say this and even have a burden so deep for his people to be saved if it were not possible leading the Roman Christians, and us who have the Scriptures, to think that it were possible?

Charles Spurgeon said that Calvinism is the Gospel. Is Calvinism the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Does faith in Calvinism save? Is Calvinism the power of God unto salvation? (Rom 1:16) I think not. The Gospel IS the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of JESUS CHRIST!

Next, what is a choice? Do we really have one when it comes to the gospel?

Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one’s option.

The choice that sinners are left with when evangelizing is: Option A. Repent, turn from your sin and place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ or Option B. Spend eternity in hell.

Now, it is said that man has no choice. They cannot choose Option A unless God, in His infinite mercy has predestined that person to be one of the elect, therefore giving him the ability to repent and believe. They say it like this:

The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called “Total Inability.” The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God’s making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5)

The Calvinist asks the question, “In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?” The answer is, “He cannot. Therefore God must predestine.” Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God ordains people to eternal life (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; Rom. 9:9-23). (Note: This is from the perspective of the Calvinist)

So they give man a choice while sharing the Gospel, knowing full well that they don’t have a choice. THAT IS CALLED DECEPTION! WHICH IS A LIE! 9TH COMMANDMENT!

Then there are those that go back on this and say that man has a choice but he will only choose his sin. If there are two options, but the one is really void, is there really a choice? No. A choice demands two alternatives with the ability to choose one of the two. So how can you say they have a choice? That is the same idea that the sinner is incapable of believing the very gospel which offers him forgiveness and salvation and yet he is condemned by God for failing to believe. To say that God commands men to do what they cannot do without His grace, then withholds the grace they need and punishes them eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God’s Word, of His mercy and love, and is to libel His character. That’s like me saying to you, “Look, you have two options. You can jump out of this plane with or without a parachute, but you really can’t have the parachute unless I give it to you and well, today just isn’t your day.” I then proceed to allow you to jump with no parachute because I don’t love you the same way I love those that I choose to give the parachute to and you deserve what you get anyway.

Hermeneutics 101 – The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament part 3

H. To relate an Old Testament Situation to Christ “On a number of occasions the New Testament writers referred to statements in the Old Testament and then enlarged or extended those statements beyond their original historical setting to refer to Christ. Though the passages in the two Testaments refer to entirely different historical situations, parallels or analogies were seen by the New Testament writers in reference to Christ. The Old Testament situations were ‘heightened’ in the New Testament to speak of Christ. The New Testament references did not contradict the passages quoted from the Old Testament. Nor were they unrelated. Instead, they were expansions of related truths” (Zuck, p. 267).

1. Ex. Matthew 2:15 and its use of Hosea 11:1 “. . . that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled saying, ‘Out of Egypt did I call My Son.’” “A problem arises when we note the context of Hosea 11:1. That verse is clearly speaking of Israel. Since the ‘son’ in Hosea 11:1 is Israel and the ‘Son’ in Matthew 2:15 is Christ, how can Matthew have said that Jesus’ being in Egypt as a Child till the death of Herod was a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1?” (Zuck, p. 267).

a. A non-dispensational interpretation (George Ladd) “In Hosea this is not a prophecy at all but a historical affirmation that God had called Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus. However, Matthew recognizes Jesus to be God’s greater son and deliberately turns a historical statement into a prophecy. This is a principle which runs throughout biblical prophecy. The Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event” (Ladd, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 21).

b. A dispensational interpretation (Zuck) “One answer is to recognize that the word fulfilled does not always mean the realization of a prediction. This has already been seen in Matthew 2:23. The Greek words translated ‘that it might be fulfilled’ do indicate accomplishment of a prophecy, as in Matthew 1:22; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; and 21:4. On the other hand ‘fulfilled’ in 2:15, 17, 23; 13:14, 35; and 27:9 points to an enlarging or a heightening of the Old Testament statements to refer to Christ. In these verses the Old Testament incidents or statements were ‘fulfilled’ not in the sense of prophecies being realized but in the sense that they were ‘filled with more (higher) meaning.’”

“When God the Father ‘called’ His Son ‘out of Egypt,’ it was analogous to His calling Israel out of Egypt at the time of the Exodus. What was in one sense incomplete is now filled up or brought to a climax. Several analogies are evident between Jesus and Israel: both were in ‘exile’ in Egypt; both, being the objects of God’s love, were delivered; both came out of Egypt; both passed through the waters (Ex. 13:17-14:31; Matt. 3:13-17); both were tested in the wilderness (Ex. 15:22-17:15; Matt. 4:1-11); in both cases the multitudes were fed with ‘manna’ from heaven (Ex. 16; Matt. 14:13-21; 15:29-39). From these parallels it is evident that Jesus was seen as the ideal Israel. His experience was an enlargement of the experience of the nation” (Zuck, pp. 267-68).

(1) “When God calls His son ‘out of Egypt’ in Hosea 11 the event is history not prophecy. Hosea is looking back 700 years to the first Exodus from Egypt. He is not looking forward 700 years to Christ’s return from Egypt following the death of Herod” (Charles Dyer, “Biblical Meaning of Fulfillment,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, p. 55).

(2) “The mere presence of pleroo (“fulfilled”) in Matthew 2:15 does not require one to force a prophecy of Christ into Hosea 11:1. One must first look at Hosea 11:1 to see what the passage means in its own context. Only after determining the meaning in its context should one go to the New Testament to see how the writer is using the passage. Matthew used Hosea 11:1 because his purpose was to show that Christ succeeded as God’s Son while Israel failed as God’s son. Christ ‘realized the full potential’ or ‘filled completely’ God’s designs for Israel when He called them out of Egypt. Thus, Matthew was not using pleroo to point out a veiled prophecy in Hosea. Instead, he was looking back and focusing on the contrasts between Israel’s failures as God’s son and Christ’s obedience as God’s Son” (Dyer, p. 56).

2. Ex. Matthew 2:17-18′s use of Jeremiah 31:15 “Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled saying, A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, because they were no more” (Matt. 2:17-18). “In the original context, Jeremiah is speaking of an event soon to come as the Babylonian Captivity begins. As the Jewish young men were being taken into captivity, they went by the town of Ramah. Not too far from Ramah is where Rachel was buried and she was the symbol of Jewish motherhood. As the young men were marched toward Babylon, the Jewish mothers of Ramah came out weeping for sons they will never see again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachel weeping for her children. This is the literal meaning of Jeremiah 31:15. The NT cannot change or reinterpret what this verse means in that context, nor does it try to do so. In this category, there is a NT event that has one point of similarity with the OT event. The verse is quoted as an event that has one point of similarity with the OT event. The verse is quoted as an application. The one point of similarity between Ramah and Bethlehem is that once again Jewish mothers are weeping for sons that they will never see again so the OT passage is applied to the NT event.” (Fruchtenbaum, pp. 945-48) “The only point of comparison is the sadness felt in the hearts of both groups women. . . .He is not saying that Jeremiah was predicting the death of babies in Bethlehem. Instead, he is indicating that the measure of grief experienced by the women in Ramah who watched their sons being carried off into captivity was ‘seen in full’ for ‘filled completely’ by the women in Bethlehem who watched their sons being slaughtered” (Dyer, p. 57).

I. Summary Of the many ways the New Testament writers use the Old Testament, “only one relates to the fulfillment of prophecy. In the other nine the New Testament writers quote or allude to Old Testament people, events, and actions and use them to illustrate or illuminate their own messages to the church. These points of comparison relate more to the literary purposes of the New Testament writers than they do to prophetic purposes hidden in the pages of the Old Testament. One cannot determine the fulfillment of Bible prophecy merely on the basis of New Testament allusions to the Old Testament” (Dyer, p. 61).

IV. Tips for Interpreting the NT’s use of the OT

A. Be careful with the term “fulfilled.” “. . . the word pleroo [fulfilled] can mean far more than the ‘fulfillment’ of a prophecy, and the New Testament writers use the word in a variety of ways when citing the Old Testament.” (Dyer, p. 62) “Pleroo (fulfill) occurs ninety times in the New Testament, but only twenty-eight occurrences seem to be part of an introductory formula. Most of the remaining sixty-two occurrences have no connection with prophecy. Pleroo has five separate ranges of meaning in the New Testament. Only one of these five refers to the fulfillment of prophecy” (Dyer, p. 52).

1. To fill something with content “When (the net) was full (pleroo), the fishermen pulled it up on the shore” (Mt. 13:48).

2. To fulfill a demand or claim “He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled (pleroo) the law” (Rom. 13:8).

3. To fill up completely a specific measure “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (pleroo)” (Luke 21:24).

4. To complete “When Jesus had finished (pleroo) saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum (Luke 7:1).

5. To complete or to fulfill prophetic sayings which were spoken with divine authority “. . . less than one-third of the occurrences of the word pleroo in the New Testament fit this category. The mere presence of pleroo is not enough to indicate fulfillment of prophecy. ‘Clearly, to apply our English denotations of the word fulfill to its occurrences in the biblical text will sometimes result in an interpretation unintended by the author’” (Dyer, p. 53).

B. Look for OT meaning first “What then is the proper approach to discovering the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy? It is this writer’s contention that the proper approach to discovering the biblical fulfillment of a prophecy must begin in the Old Testament. One cannot determine the fulfillment of prophecy until one first knows whether a passage is prophetic and, if it is, what the parameters are that will constitute a biblical fulfillment” (Dyer, p. 62). For fulfillment, look for exact correspondence between OT and NT. “Biblical fulfillment occurs when the meaning of a specific Old Testament prophecy finds its exact correspondence in a New Testament person, activity, or event. If the New Testament writer looks back to the Old Testament and draws significance from the Old Testament for his specific audience, this is application of the Old Testament, not fulfillment of the Old Testament.” (Ibid, p. 67) “The process for determining the fulfillment. . . is (a) determine what each prophecy meant in its original, historical context and (b) look for a historical incident that corresponds to the meaning of the text. When the particulars of the text are paralleled in a historical event, then the prophecy is fulfilled” (Dyer, p. 66).

Hermeneutics 101 – The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament part 2

III. Ways the New Testament Uses the Old Testament

A. To point up the accomplishment or realization of an Old Testament prediction. According to Matthew 1:22-23, Jesus’ virgin birth was in fulfillment of the prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet. ‘The virgin shall be with Child and will give birth to a Son, and they will call Him Immanuel which means, God with us.’” Matthew also referred to Jesus’ birthplace in Bethlehem as being in fulfillment of the prophecy in Micah 5:2.

B. To confirm that a New Testament incident is in agreement with an Old Testament principle. For example, in Acts 15, the issue that faced the Jerusalem Council was Gentile salvation and whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. James quoted Amos 9:11-12, a reference to when the tabernacle of David will be rebuilt (which takes place in the millennium). He did so, not to show that Amos 9:11-12 is being fulfilled in this age, but to show that Gentile salvation is in harmony with what the Old Testament prophets said. Since Gentiles will be a part of God’s kingdom program in the millennium, there should be no problem with God calling Gentiles to be His people in this age. Nor did Gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved. “James’ main point is clear: Gentile salvation apart from the Law does not contradict the Old Testament prophets” (Stanley Toussaint, “Acts,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 394).

C. To support a point being made in the New Testament

1. Ex. God of the living “A good number of Old Testament citations are used to give support to the points being made in the New Testament. In Matthew 22:32 Jesus quoted Exodus 3:6, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ to support His point that God is the God of the living and that the resurrection will therefore be a reality” (Zuck, p. 261).

2. Ex. Divorce “In speaking against divorce Jesus emphasized that a husband and wife ‘are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:8). In support of this statement he quoted Genesis 2:24, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’” (Zuck, p. 261).

D. To illustrate a New Testament truth “The truth that the ‘message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing’ (1 Cor. 1:18) is illustrated by the Old Testament verse, Isaiah 29:14, which is cited in 1 Corinthians 1:19: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise’” (Zuck, p. 262).

E. To apply the Old Testament to a New Testament incident or truth

1. Ex. Object of God’s mercy “In Romans 9:15 Paul quoted Exodus 33:19: ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ In Exodus God spoke these words to Moses to assure him of His presence and blessing (see Ex. 33:14-20). But in Romans 9 Paul applied these words to a different situation, namely, God’s election of Jacob rather than Esau (Rom. 9:11-13). Paul was pointing up the fact that those whom God chooses are based not on their efforts but on God’s mercy (v. 16)” (Zuck, p. 263).

2. Ex. Support of church leaders “In 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Paul was applying that Old Testament verse, set in the context of kindness and justice to the poor and the needy, to his argument that those who serve the Lord have a right to be supported by those they serve” (Ibid.).

F. To summarize an Old Testament concept

1. Ex. Jesus the Nazarene “The example is found in Matthew 2:23. . . . that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that He should be called a Nazarene. However, no such statement is found anywhere in the OT. Since Matthew used the plural prophets, one should be able to find at least two, yet there is not even one. (This is) a summary of what the prophets actually said. The plural use of prophets is a clue to this category. In the first century, Nazarenes were a people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa 53:3) and this is summarized by the term, Nazarene” (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, pp. 945-948).

2. Ex. Persecution of the Messiah “Another example of this category is Luke 18:31-33. Using the plural for prophet again, Jesus states that the time for fulfillment has come and He states what is to be fulfilled: the Messiah will go to Jerusalem, be turned over to the Gentiles; the Gentiles will mock Him, treat Him shamefully, spit on Him, scourge Him, and kill Him, but He will rise again the third day. Not one prophet ever said all this, but the prophets together did say all this. Hence, this is a summation” (Fruchtenbaum, pp. 945-48).

G. To draw a parallel with an Old Testament Incident “In speaking of ‘a remnant chosen by grace’ (Rom. 11:5), that is, a remnant of believing Jews, Paul said this was redolent of Elijah’s day when a remnant of 7,000 people did not worship Baal (v. 4, quoting 1 Kings 19:18). The situation in Paul’s day paralleled the Old Testament incident” (Zuck, p. 266).

Hermeneutics 101 – The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament

I. Introductory issues

A. NT use of the OT “. . . more than 10 percent of the New Testament text is made up of   citations or direct allusions to the Old Testament” (Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Rightly Divided, p. 183).

B. The problem “The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation. As you read the New Testament, you are no doubt struck by the numerous times it quotes or alludes to the Old Testament. Examining the quotations closely, you notice they are not always exact word-for-word quotations” (Zuck, p. 250).

C. Important questions “Does this overturn all we have said about the principles of normal interpretation? As the New Testament writers exercised freedom in the way they quoted the Old Testament, were they abandoning normal, grammatical, historical interpretation?. . . Were the New Testament writers interpreting the Old Testament by a different standard as\ they quoted from it? And if so, does that give us liberty today to do the same?” (Ibid.).

II. How the NT uses the OT

A. Variations in wording of quotations Many quotes of the OT in the NT are verbatim, but many are not. “When citing the Old Testament, the New Testament writers often changed the wording or omitted words. They used freedom in changing points of grammar, in paraphrasing, omitting selected portions, giving partial quotations, using synonyms, and recognizing new aspects of truth” (Ibid., p. 254).

1. Substitute pronoun for a noun “The New Testament writers sometimes substituted a pronoun for a noun. When Matthew quoted Isaiah 40:3, ‘make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God,’ he wrote, ‘Make straight paths for Him’ (Matt. 3:3), substituting ‘Him’ for ‘our God’” (Ibid.).

2. Nouns in place of pronouns “Nouns were sometimes used in place of pronouns.  ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord’ (Luke 19:38) makes more specific the words of Psalm 118:26, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Ibid, pp. 254-55).

3. Plural noun in place of singular noun “A plural noun is sometimes used in place of a singular noun. Matthew referred to Jesus speaking ‘parables’ (Matt. 13:35), but the verse he quoted (Ps. 78:2) has the singular ‘parable’ in the Hebrew” (Ibid, p. 255).

4. Substituting a pronoun “Sometimes the writers changed a pronoun. Isaiah said, ‘The virgin. . . will call Him Immanuel’ (Isa. 7:14). When Matthew quoted this verse, he said, ‘They will call Him Immanuel’ (Matt. 1:23).

5. Personal reference in quote “Occasionally the speaker is identified in the quotation. John the Baptist quoted Isaiah 40:3, but included in it the fact that he was the one Isaiah referred to. . . . ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert’ (John 1:23)’” (Ibid.).

6. Direct changed to indirect discourse “Sometimes direct discourse is changed to indirect discourse. This is seen in Hosea 2:23, ‘I will say to those called “Not My people,” “You are My people,”’ which is quoted in Romans 9:25 as follows: ‘ I will call them “My people” who are not my people’” (Ibid.).

7. Indirect changed to direct discourse “Other times an indirect discourse is changed to direct discourse. ‘He’ in Isaiah 29:16 (‘He did not make me’) is changed to ‘You’ in Romans 9:20” (Ibid, p. 256).

8. Verbal forms altered “The verbal form is sometimes altered slightly. The commands beginning with the words ‘You shall not’ in Exodus 20:13-16 are changed to the imperative ‘Do not’ in Mark 10:19” (Ibid.).

9. From general to more specific reference “A general reference is occasionally made more specific in the New Testament quotations. Amos 5:26 refers to ‘the shrine of your king. . . the star of your god.’ When Stephen quoted this in Acts 7:43, he referred to the ‘shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan’ (Acts 7:43).” (Ibid.).

10. Change extent of reference “Sometimes the extent of the reference is changed. Amos 5:27 referred to ‘exile beyond Damascus,’ but Stephen extended it to refer to ‘exile beyond Babylon’ (Acts 7:43)” (Ibid.).

11. Order rearranged “The order of the clauses is sometimes rearranged. When Jesus quoted five of the Ten Commandments in Luke 18:20, He gave them in an order that differs slightly from the order in Exodus 20:12-16” (Ibid.).

12. Combining of quotations “Sometimes two quotations are combined and assigned to the more prominent of the two Old Testament authors. This is the case in Mark 1:2-3. Verse 2 quotes Malachi 3:1 and verse 3 quotes Isaiah 40:3, and yet Mark introduced the verses with the words, ‘It is written in Isaiah the prophet.’ Isaiah obviously is the more prominent of the two authors, and his book begins the section in the Hebrew Old Testament known as the Prophets, which concludes with Malachi” (Ibid.).

13. Paraphrase “Sometimes the New Testament writers rendered the sense of an Old Testament passage loosely as a paraphrase. An example is Matthew 13:35, ‘I will utter things hidden since the Creation of the world,’ which paraphrases Psalm 78:2, ‘I will utter’.

B. Omitting certain portions of verses “Writers of New Testament books occasionally shortened Old Testament verses they quoted.” (Zuck, p. 257) “Zechariah wrote regarding the Lord’s triumphal entry, ‘Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!’ When John cited the passage he changed the imperative to a negative, ‘Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion’ (John 12:15). Also it is interesting to note that Zechariah 9:9 has six lines, but John selected only three to quote. Matthew, however, cited four of the lines (Matt. 21:5)” (Ibid.).

C. Partial quotations “When Jesus read from Isaiah 61:2, as recorded in Luke 4:18-19, He stopped in the middle of verse 2 of Isaiah 61, not reading the words, ‘and the day of  vengeance of our God.’ This was because His carrying out of the day of vengeance is yet future and was not relevant to His first advent” (Ibid.).

D. Using synonyms “The word ‘highway’ in Isaiah 40:3 is replaced by the word ‘paths’ in Matthew 3:3. Apparently John the Baptist felt this word was more appropriate as he quoted this passage to his audience in the desert of Judea” (Zuck, p. 258).

E. Summary “All of this above material illustrates that the New Testament writers often preserved the thought of the Old Testament passages cited, rather than always giving verbatim quotations (though they often did that as well). We should not conclude that verbal variations we have noted are inaccurate” (Zuck, p. 259).

Hermeneutics 101 – Comparison of Prophetic Views Part 4

V. Historic Premillennialism “One type of premillennialism is nondispensational. It is known as covenant [historic] premillennialism. Its adherents often prefer to be called ‘historic premillennialists.’ That is because much of their position was the view that was held by many of the church fathers during the first several centuries of the church” (Paul Benware, p. 93).

A. Hermeneutics of Historic Premillennialism The foundation of historic premillennialism is built on the following:

1. Church is spiritual Israel “The hermeneutical system of historic premillennialism distinguishes it from dispensational premillennialism. In historic premillennialism a distinction between Israel and the church is not maintained nor is a consistently literal interpretive method demanded” (Enns, pp. 386-87).

a. “Ryrie correctly identified myself as a nondispensationalist because I do not keep Israel and the church distinct throughout God’s program” (George Ladd, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, Robert Clouse ed., p. 20).

b. “I do not see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that the New Testament applies Old Testament prophecies to the New Testament church and in doing so identifies the church as spiritual Israel” (Ladd, p. 23).

(1) Ex. The application of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) to the church (Hebrews 8; 2 Corinthians 3:6) supposedly means that the Church fulfills the promises made to Israel.

(a) REBUTTAL 1: Though the church may participate in the blessings of the New Covenant, the eternal and unconditional nature of the New Covenant demands a fulfillment with literal Israel.

(b) REBUTTAL 2: “The crucial point is how we know whether something in the OT (especially prophecy about Israel’s future) is still binding in the NT. . . . If an OT prophecy or promise is made unconditionally to a given people and is still unfulfilled to them even in the NT era, then the prophecy must still be fulfilled to them. While a prophecy given unconditionally to Israel has a fulfillment [application] for the church if the NT applies it to the church, it must also be fulfilled to Israel. Progress of revelation cannot cancel unconditional promises” (John Feinberg, Continuity and Discontinuity, p. 76).

2. Priority of the New Testament over the Old Testament “Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a nondispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be fulfilled. . . .” (Ladd, p. 27).

a. Concerning the Millennium “A millennial doctrine cannot be based on Old Testament prophecies but should be based on the New Testament alone. The only place in the Bible that speaks of an actual millennium is the passage in Revelation 20:1-6. Any millennial doctrine must be based upon the most natural exegesis of this passage” (Ladd, p. 32) (emphasis mine).

(1) REBUTTAL: The concept of a kingdom of God on earth is well-grounded in the Old Testament (Gen. 13:15; Isaiah 2:1-4; Daniel 2:44; Zech. 14:9). It does not rest on Revelation 20:1-6 alone. “It is unfortunate that he [Ladd] cannot see that the Old Testament supplies the vast portion of material for putting the picture in full perspective” (Herman Hoyt, The Meaning of the Millennium, p. 44).

b. New Testament Reinterpreting the Old Testament Ladd states that often the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament: “The Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event.”

(1) Ex. Matt. 2:15 reinterprets Hos. 11:1

(2) Rom. 9:24-26 reinterprets Hos. 1:10; 2:23.

(a) REBUTTAL 1: “In passage after passage Ladd insists that the New Testament is interpreting the Old when the New Testament is simply applying a principle found in the Old Testament. Rushing to the conclusion that these references identify the church and Israel as the same body of the saved is wholly gratuitous. Even though ‘the New Testament applies Old Testament prophecies to the New Testament church,’ it does not do so in the sense of identifying the church as spiritual Israel. It makes such application merely for the purpose of explaining something that is true of both.”

(b) REBUTTAL 2: “NT application of the OT passage does not necessarily eliminate the passage’s original meaning. No NT writer claims his new understanding of the OT passage cancels the meaning of the OT passage in its own context or that the new application is the only meaning of the OT passage. The NT writer merely offers a different application of an OT passage than the OT might have foreseen; he is not claiming the OT understanding is now irrelevant” (Feinberg, p. 77).

B. Views of Historic Premillennialism concerning:

1. Second Coming Rapture and second coming happen simultaneously.

2. Resurrections A resurrection of believers takes place at the beginning of the Millennium. The resurrection of unbelievers takes place at the end of the Millennium.

3. Judgments Judgment for believers takes place at second coming. Judgment for unbelievers takes place at end of Millennium.

4. Church’s relation to the Tribulation The Church goes through the future Tribulation (Posttrib)

5. Millennium Millennium is both present and future (already/not yet). Christ is presently reigning in heaven but there will also be a future earthly aspect to His reign.

6. Israel’s relation to the Millennium “All premillennialists also anticipate that Israel will have a special place in the millennium. They disagree, however, as to the nature of that special place. Dispensationalists hold to a continuing unconditional covenant of God with national Israel, so that when God has completed his dealings with the church, he will return to his relations with national Israel. Jesus will literally sit upon David’s throne and rule the world from Israel. All of the prophecies and promises regarding Israel will be fulfilled within the millennium, which will therefore have a markedly Jewish character. Nondispensationalists put much less emphasis upon national Israel, holding instead that Israel’s special place, being spiritual in nature, will be found within the church. Israel will be converted in large numbers during the millennium” (Erickson, p. 1211) (emphasis mine).

C. Evaluation of Historic Premillennialism Historic Premillennialism has three main

weaknesses:

1. Non-literal approach to prophecy “It spiritualizes the prophecies of the Old Testament, applying them to the church, which is viewed as spiritual Israel” (Benware, p. 94).

2. Does not do justice to God’s eternal covenants with Israel “Second, it fails to give the nation of Israel its proper place in the program of God. The unconditional, eternal biblical covenants ratified by God require that Israel as a nation be the recipient of certain blessings” (Ibid.).

3. Faulty view of progressive revelation “Third, there is some inaccuracy in its view of progressive revelation. It is true, of course, that God has revealed more and more truth progressively over the years. And it is true that the New Testament reveals new truth and develops truth previously given in the Old Testament. However, it fails to recognize that many of the Old Testament prophecies should be understood on their own merit because they are clear in their meaning. The idea of progressive revelation does not mean that the Old Testament cannot be understood apart from the New Testament. It does not mean that clear Old Testament prophecies must be reinterpreted, changed or altered” (Ibid.).

Hermeneutics 101 – Comparison of Prophetic Views Part 3

III. Premillennialism

A. Definition “Premillennialism is the view that holds that the second coming of Christ will occur prior to the Millennium which will see the establishment of Christ’s kingdom on this earth for a literal 1,000 years.” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 450) “Unlike postmillennialism (and amillennialism), premillennialism sees Christ as physically present during this time; it believes that he will return personally and bodily to commence the millennium. This being the case, the millennium must be seen as still in the future” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 1209).

B. History of Premillennialism

1. Early church “In the earliest centuries of the church a general premillennial scheme was widely held, though chronological details were not always clear.” (Ryrie, p. 451) “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:614).

2. Medieval and Reformation periods “In the medieval period most doctrines, including eschatology, were eclipsed by the darkness of those centuries. . . . The reformers were generally amillennial in their eschatology, though Anabaptists and Hugenots were chiliasts” (Ryrie, p. 452).

3. Modern period The modern period has witnessed the rise of premillennial teaching.

C. Two main views Within premillennialism exists two divisions— Dispensational Premillennialism and Historic Premillennialism.

IV. Dispensational Premillennialism (Preferred View)

A. Basis for Dispensational Premillennialism Within the premillennial position, dispensational premillennialism is the majority view. The following are the foundational elements on which dispensational premillennialism is built:

1. A consistent use of the literal hermeneutic (including prophecy) “According to premillenarians the normal approach to Scripture means that the promises about Christ’s returning to establish His millennial reign on earth of 1,000 years are to be taken literally.” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 238) “Because prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, it makes good sense to expect the prophecies concerning His second coming to be interpreted literally.” (Enns, p. 389) One amillennialist, Floyd Hamilton stated, “Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal kingdom interpretation of the Old Testament promises” (Floyd Hamilton, The Basis of the Millennial Faith, p. 38).

2. Unfulfilled unconditional covenants God made with Israel must be fulfilled “Since the promises to Israel—about being a nation and being regathered to and having possession of the land with their Messiah-King ruling over them—are unconditional and have not yet been fulfilled, they therefore yet remain to be fulfilled” (Zuck, p. 238).

a. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3) “Described in Genesis 12:1-3, the Abrahamic covenant promised a land (v.1; cf. 13:14-17; further developed in the Palestinian covenant); numerous descendants involving a nation, dynasty, and a throne (v. 2; cf. 13:16; 17:2-6; further developed in the Davidic Covenant); and redemption (v. 3; cf. 22:18; further developed in the New covenant)” (Enns, p. 390).

b. Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 30:1-10) This covenant guarantees Israel’s permanent right to the land.

c. Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:12-16) “The provisions of this covenant are summarized in v. 16 by the words ‘house,’ promising a dynasty in the lineage of David; ‘kingdom,’ referring to a people who are governed by a king; ‘throne,’ emphasizing the authority of the king’s rule; ‘forever,’ emphasizing the eternal and unconditional nature of this promise to Israel” (Enns, p. 390).

d. New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) “This covenant provides the basis by which God will bless Israel in the future—Israel will enjoy forgiveness of sins through the meritorious death of Christ” (Enns, p. 390).

e. POINT: “If these covenants are understood according to their normal meaning, then they call for a future blessing of believing, national Israel in the land under Messiah’s rule. These covenants await a fulfillment in the Millennium” (Enns, p. 390).

3. Israel and the Church are distinct entities “Since Israel is yet to possess the land under her Messiah-King, the promises to the nation have not been transferred to the church. Since the church began on the Day of Pentecost, the church is separate from the nation Israel and therefore is not inheriting Israel’s promises. Grammatical interpretation thus makes a warranted distinction between Israel and the church. The church does not now possess the land of Palestine, promised to Israel. And in the New Testament Age, since the church began, there is still a distinction between unsaved Jews, unsaved Gentiles, and the church (1 Cor. 10:32)” (Zuck, p. 238).

4. Premillennial beliefs

a. Second Coming The second coming has two phases: 1) a rapture for the church; 2) a second coming to earth seven years later.

b. Resurrections Distinctions exist in God’s resurrection program: 1) Church at rapture; 2) OT and Tribulation saints at second coming; 3) Unbelievers at the end of the Millennium.

c. Judgments Distinctions exist in God’s judgment program: 1) The church faces the Judgment Seat of Christ after the Rapture; 2) Jews and Gentiles face a judgment to see who enters the Kingdom at the end of the Tribulation; 3) Unbelievers face the Great White Throne judgment in order to be sentenced to the lake of fire.

d. Church’s relation to the Tribulation The church is raptured prior to the Tribulation (Pretrib.)

e. Millennium At second coming Christ inaugurates literal 1,000 year Millennium on earth.

Hermeneutics 101 – Comparison of Prophetic Views Part 2

II. Postmillennialism

A. Definition “Postmillennialism may be defined as ‘that view of the last things which holds that the Kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals, that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the Millennium.’” (Enns, p. 384) “The term postmillennialism means that Christ will return after the Millennium. The present age will develop morally and spiritually until it issues in the millennial age, with Christ returning to earth at the conclusion of the Millennium” (Enns, p. 384).

 B. Basic view of Postmillennialism on:

 1. The Millennium (kingdom) “Postmillennialism adopts an optimistic view with respect to this present age, envisioning a golden age of progress in the church age that affects every dimension of life: economic, social, cultural, and political. Postmillennialism envisions a church triumphant, spreading the gospel to the ends of the earth with the result that ‘evil’ in all its many forms eventually will be reduced to negligible proportions, that Christian principles will be the rule, not the exception, and that Christ will return to a truly Christianized world” (Enns, p. 384).

 a. “The present age will gradually give way to the Millennium as a result of the progress of the gospel, but life will continue in its present form. Christ will return at the conclusion of the Millennium” (Enns, pp. 384-85).

b. “The church is not the kingdom but it will bring the kingdom (a utopian, Christianized condition) to the earth by preaching the Gospel” (Zuck, p. 231).

 c. The millennium for postmills is not a literal 1000 year period but rather a long period of time.

 2. Second Coming / Resurrection / Final Judgment Postmills like amills would see one phase of Christ’s second coming, a general resurrection and a general judgment followed by the eternal state.

C. Postmillennialism in history

1. Not taught in apostolic age “All seem to agree that postmillennialism is quite foreign to the apostolic church. There is no trace of anything in the church which could be classified as postmillennialism in the first two or three centuries” (Walvoord, p. 19).

2. Beginnings “Postmillennialism was first taught by Daniel Whitby (1638-1725) and was held by Jonathan Edwards, Charles Wesley, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Augustus H. Strong, James Snowden, and Lorraine Boettner. Postmillennialism virtually died out a number of years ago. The impact of two world wars led many to renounce postmillennialism because of its optimistic view that the world is getting better. But in recent years postmillennialism has been revived. Present-day ‘dominion theology’ is postmillennial. Dominion theologians maintain that Christians should ‘take over’ (have dominion or leadership) in every aspect of society, including government. In this sense they teach that the church should Christianize society and thus ‘bring in the kingdom.’ Proponents of this view include Greg L. Bahnsen, David Chilton, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., James B. Jordan, Gary North, Rousas J. Rushdoony, and Douglas Wilson” (Zuck, p. 232).

D. Is the World getting better? Postmills point to many areas to show the world is progressively getting better — the spread of the gospel, advances in medicine, the status of women, the near disappearance of slavery and polygamy. (See Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views) However as George Ladd says, “The argument that the world is getting better is a two-edged sword. One can equally well argue from empirical observation that the world is getting worse.” (George Ladd’s response to Boettner in the same book, p. 143) “As postmillennialism had risen in an atmosphere of scientific and educational progress, so it declined in an atmosphere of war and world chaos” (Walvoord, p. 35).

E. Hermeneutical basis of Postmillennialism In order to find fulfillment of millennial promises in the present age, it is necessary for them to follow an allegorical or figurative system of interpretation in great areas of Biblical prophecy” (Walvoord, p. 24).

International Blasphemy Day next Friday (Sept. 30)

Atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and free-speech advocates around the world will mark Blasphemy Day by mounting their soapboxes—figuratively and literally—and uttering words and displaying images that may cause offense.

And they’re making no apologies.

“We’re not seeking to offend, but if in the course of dialogue and debate, people become offended, that’s not an issue for us,” said Justin Trottier, a Toronto coordinator of Blasphemy Day and executive director of the Ontario chapter of the Center for Inquiry. “There is no human right not to be offended.” {1}

BLAS’PHEMY, n. An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah. Pointed profanity–this includes the words “God,” “Lord,” “Jesus,” “Christ” (unless used reverently), “Hell,” “S.O.B.,” “damn,” or every other profane or vulgar expression, however used–is forbidden.

Should this type of thing bother us as Christians? To me, it makes me angry. As I reflect on it I guess I’m like Peter at the betrayal and want to start chopping off ears to defend my Lord. But, what did Jesus do in this situation? Let’s look at Matthew 26:52-53

But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?

Ouch! I guess I would be rebuked by the Lord. Well, what should we do as Christians in this situation? We should be like Moses. Let’s look at Hebrews 11:24-26

24By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;

25Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

26Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

You see, we should esteem the reproach of Christ, not bring reproach to Him. What does that mean? It means to suffer disgrace for the sake of Christ and not bring disgrace to His name. So for now we can comfort ourselves with these words:

Romans 12:19 (King James Version)

19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Hebrews 10:30 (King James Version)

30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Ezekiel 35:11-12 (King James Version)

11Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thy hatred against them; and I will make myself known among them, when I have judged thee. 12And thou shalt know that I am the LORD, and that I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, They are laid desolate, they are given us to consume.

Jeremiah 7:18-20 (King James Version)

18The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

19Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

20Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

Second, we need to be in prayer for these blasphemers that the Lord would draw them to repentance. As we have seen from these Scriptures, God will ultimately pour out His Wrath upon them. On that day, it will be too late for the blasphemers to repent. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. They desperately need prayer and repentance. Please, pray for them.

Third, remember that this day of blasphemy proves the existence of God. The very purpose in which they set out to achieve has back fired. They say there is no God, yet prove it by the very celebration they want to partake in! Glory to God! How can I say that? Because if there is no God, there could be no blasphemy!

As we know from Scripture, he has said in his heart there is no God. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

{1}By Leanne Larmondin September 24, 2009 RNS www.ReligionNews.com

The Withering Flower – The Fad of TULIP Theology 9

This leads me to this point: Was Christ then a liar too? Matthew 4:17 says of Jesus:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Let’s look at some other verses. Is Christ a liar or is everyone He preached to elect? He also commands us to preach the gospel.

Matthew 4:23
And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Matthew 9:35
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Matthew 11:5
The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Why would Christ command everyone to repent if:

1.He knew who the elect where?
2.He knew who He would die for?
3.He knew whom He loved?
4.He knew they didn’t have a choice unless He gave it to them?

This would make Christ either a liar or evil because of His sarcasm. This would also make Him a sinner and His sacrifice for us would be null and void. Therefore, salvation would not be possible.

What about Paul? Is he a liar too, especially under inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Acts 14:7
And there they preached the gospel.

Acts 14:21
And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

Acts 16:10
And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

Romans 1:15
So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

Why would Paul preach the gospel to everyone if:

1. He knew Jesus didn’t die for everyone?
2. He knew God doesn’t love everyone?
3. He knew they didn’t have a choice unless God gave it to them?

Also, why would Paul even say, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rom 9:1-5)

If Paul knew Israel was not going to be saved, why even say this and even have a burden so deep for his people to be saved if it were not possible leading the Roman Christians, and us who have the Scriptures, to think that it were possible?

Hermeneutics 101 – Comparison of Prophetic Views

Comparison of Prophetic Views

“In conservative theology there are three major views concerning last things: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism. The word millennium comes from the Latin mille, meaning ‘thousand,’ and relates to the statement in Revelation 20:4, ‘They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.’ Should this statement be understood literally or symbolically? The answer determines in part one’s doctrine of last things” (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 380).

I. Amillennialism

A. Definition “The prefix a means no. Amillennialism is the view that does not believe in a future literal reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of God.” (Robert P. Lightner, The Last Days, p. 72) “Amillennialists do not deny the literal return of Christ, but they reject a literal thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. According to amillennialism, the kingdom of God is present in the church age, and at the consummation of the present age, the eternal state is inaugurated without any intervening millennium” (Enns, p. 380).

B. Basic views of Amillennialism on:

1. The Kingdom (Millennium) “The kingdom is in existence now between Christ’s two advents. Since Christ is ruling from heaven, He will not reign on the earth for 1,000 years. ‘We are in the millennium now’” (Zuck, p. 231). Among conservative amillennialists two views exist concerning the Millennium:

a. The church on earth (Augustine, Allis, Berkhof) “The amillennial position on the thousand years of Revelation 20 implies that Christians who are now living are enjoying the benefits of this millennium since Satan has been bound for the duration of this period” (Anthony A. Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. Robert G. Clouse, p. 181).

b. The saints in heaven now (B.B. Warfield) “Amillennials also teach that during this same thousand-year period the souls of believers who have died are now living and reigning with Christ in heaven while they await the resurrection of the body” (Hoekema, p. 181).

c. No 1000 year earthly kingdom Both views agree there will be no future earthly kingdom and that “1,000″ is a symbolic number indicating a long period of time.

d. Can both views be right? Within amillennialism there appears to be two conflicting and mutually exclusive views. Is the Kingdom the Church on earth or the saints in heaven?

2. Present reign of Christ “Christ is ruling now in heaven where He is seated on the throne of David, and Satan is now bound between Christ’s two advents”(Zuck, p. 231).

3. Tribulation Tribulation is experienced in this present age.

4. Second coming of Christ “Amillennialists understand the second coming of Christ as a single event; in contrast, dispensationalists understand Christ’s coming in two phases” (Enns, p. 381).

5. Resurrection There will be a general resurrection of believers and unbelievers at the second coming of Christ.

6. Final judgment When Christ comes again there will be one general judgment for believers and unbelievers.

C. Hermeneutical basis of Amillennialism

1. The Kingdom is the Church “The interpretive system of amillennialism begins with the assumption that God’s kingdom is being manifested today in the church. . . .” (Zuck, p. 236).

2. Israel and the Church are the same The Church is the new Israel. There is no distinction between the two. The promises to Israel, therefore, are applicable to the Church.“The traditional Reformed position as illustrated in Calvin is that the church takes Israel’s place as its spiritual successor” (Walvoord, p. 101).

3. Spiritualizing of prophecy “The promises to Israel about a land, nationality, and throne (Gen. 12:2; 15:18-20; 2 Sam. 7:12-16) are being fulfilled now in a spiritual way among believers in the church.” (Zuck, p. 231) “Amillennialists see the church as fulfilling God’s promises in an antitypical and spiritual way” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 445).

a. Church inherits Israel’s promises “God’s promises to Israel were conditional and have been transferred to the church because the nation did not meet the condition of obedience to God.” (Zuck, p. 231) “Amillennial ecclesiology denies to Israel any future as a nation. Israel is never to be a political entity in the world in fulfillment of the promises of a glorious kingdom period” (John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 100).

b. Premillennial response “Premillennialists point out that if the yet unfulfilled part of that covenant is to be fulfilled literally (the promise of the land of Palestine), this will have to occur in a future Millennium, since there has been no place in past or present history for a literal fulfillment. Amillennialists say that we need not expect a future fulfillment because (a) the promises were conditional and the conditions were never met; or (b) the land promise was fulfilled in the time of Joshua (Josh. 21:43-45); or (c) it was fulfilled under King Solomon (1 Kings 4:21); or (d) it is now being fulfilled by the church; or (e) it is fulfilled in the heavenly Jerusalem. I only observe that each of those five suggestions negates the validity of the other four. One receives the impression that the amillennialist does not really know how or when the Abrahamic Covenant should be fulfilled. He is only certain that it will not be in a future, earthly Millennium” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p.447).

D. Evaluating the term “amillennialism.”

1. Positively “The term amillennial is a good descriptive term used to describe an attitude toward the millennium put forth by the premillenarian or by the postmillenarian. For amillenarians admittedly do not believe in any such millennium” (Cox, Amillennialism, p. 10).

2. Negatively “A word should first be said about terminology. The term amillennialism is not a happy one. It suggests that amillennialists either do not believe in any millennium or that they simply ignore the first six verses of Revelation 20, which speak of a millennial reign. Neither of these two statements is true” (Anthony Hoekema, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 155).

3. An alternative term “For this reason, some amillennialists suggest a term such as realized millennialism to indicate that they do not deny a millennium but believe it is fulfilled entirely in the present age” (Enns, p. 380) (This is the opinion of Jay Adams and Anthony Hoekema. See Hoekema, p. 155).

E. History of Amillennialism

1. Origen (185-254) Up until Origen the church fathers were premillennial. Origen, however, spiritualized the future kingdom and understood it to be the present church age (see Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 448).

2. Augustine (354-430) “With the contribution of Augustine to theological thinking amillennialism came into prominence. While Origen laid the foundation in establishingthe non-literal method of interpretation, it was Augustine who systematized the non-literal view of the millennium into what is now known as amillennialism” (Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 381).

a. “. . . .there are no acceptable exponents of amillennialism before Augustine. . . . Augustine is, then, the first theologian of solid influence who adopted amillennialism” (John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 47).

b. “. . . . his viewpoint became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Church and it was adopted with variations by most of the Protestant Reformers along with many other teachings of Augustine” (Pentecost, p. 381).

c. “In his famous work, The City of God, Augustine set forth the idea that the church visible was the Kingdom of God on earth” (Ibid.).

3. Reformation period (1500-1600′s) “The great leaders of the Reformation were amillennial in their eschatology. They were content to follow the Roman church’s teaching which in turn followed Augustine” (Ryrie, p. 448).

a. Calvin

b. Luther

c. Evaluation of the Reformers Though the Reformers broke with Roman Catholic soteriology, they did not break with Roman Catholic eschatology. “The gift of the Protestant reformers to the Christian church consists not only in an open Bible but also in the literal method of interpreting the Bible. Unfortunately, however, the reformers refused to be involved in the issue of prophetic interpretation, and so the whole of Protestantism went the way of Roman Catholic amillennialism by default. This omission of the reformers is probably explainable by the fact that truths such as justification by faith and the problems of ecclesiology were claiming the immediate attention of the reformers as the latter sought to sift through the Roman debris” (Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 54).

4. Modern period

a. Warfield

b. Allis

c. Hoekema

Hermeneutics 101 – Hebrew Poetry

HEBREW POETRY

The most outstanding feature of Hebrew Poetry is its parallelism. “This term refers to the practice of balancing one though or phrase by a corresponding thought or phrase containing approximately the same number of words, or at least a correspondence in ideas” (G. Archer)

By this technique, the poetry is not only easy to memorize in Hebrew, but is easy to translate into other languages. There are three basic types of parallelism: synonymous, antithetic and synthetic. There are three other categories widely recognized: emblematic, climactic, and formal.

Some illustrations follow:

1. Synonymous: very close similarity between each of the two lines. Psalm 3:1 O Lord, how many are my foes! Many are risen against me!

2. Antithetic: the second line contrasts the first. Psalm 1:6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous. But the way of the wicked shall perish.

3. Synthetic: the second line takes up and develops further a thought in the first line. Psalm 95:3 For the Lord is a Great God And a great king above all gods.

4. Emblematic: one line conveys the main point, the second line illuminates it by an image. Psalm 42:1 As a hart longs for flowing streams, So longs my soul for thee, Oh God!

5. Climactic: the first line is an incomplete thought and the second line repeats the first with the exception of the term which it changes to complete the thought. Psalm 29:1 Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings, Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.

6. Formal: two lines are joined solely by metric considerations. Psalm 2:6 I have set my king On Zion, my holy hill.

PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING THE PSALMS

I. RELATE THE PSALMS TO THE THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS THAT UNDERGIRD THEM

A. God is a personal Creator, moral Lawgiver, theocratic Ruler, and the Purposer of history. He has theocratic program to establish upon the earth.

1. The Psalms stress the activity of the living God (cf. Ps. 42: 2) as the God who creates, saves, reigns, and reveals.

2. The Psalms stress the nature of the living God in affirming that God is holy, righteous, loving and faithful, Spirit. and one.

B. Since the Bible is the unfolding of God’s purposes throughout history, the Psalms can be viewed as episodes in the outworking of that purpose.

1. The Psalms present for praise and contemplation the acts of God in history, law, nature, and in the lives of people.

2. The historical conflict between good and evil pervades the Psalms, the people of the Psalms being the good and the evil (the godly and the godless), with the psalmist dramatizing the choice between good and evil, and making his choice for God and good.

C. God is the transcendent Creator of nature which is meaningful and orderly.

1. The Israelites had both a utilitarian (as farmers) and aesthetic appreciation of nature. In contrast with their pagan neighbors, they saw God and nature as separate. Yet they viewed nature as the achievement, artistic product, and revelation of God. They even appreciated those aspects of nature that are indifferent or hostile to man.

2. In the Psalms nature is seen as God revealing His Glory, creative craftsmanship, universal presence, and orderliness. Nature is seen as both the object and vehicle of praise.

3. Note that the biblical interpretation of nature is equated more with law, rule, order, and reason (the classical view of nature) than with impulse, instinct, spontaneity, and energy (the romantic view of nature). Yet the Psalmists would have found both views of nature empty, for their concern with nature was a part of their broader concern with God.

II. BE AWARE OF ANY MESSIANIC IMPLICATIONS IN THE PSALMS

A. Consult Delitzsch’s fivefold categorization of Messianic Psalms.

B. Note the clearly Messianic Psalms in each category, and be careful of forcing Messianic implications into others.

III. TREAT THE PSALMS AS POETRY

A. The Psalms must be handled as poetry, which is the interpretive presentation of human experience in an artistic form.

1. In comparison with other types of literature, poetry is a more concentration and more consciously artistic form of discourse.

2. Concentration is achieved through the use of images, symbols, allusions, metaphors, similes (and other figures of speech), emotive vocabulary, and multiple meanings.

3. The fact that poetry is artistic means that as an object of beauty a poem will display in fuller measure and with greater frequency the components of artistic form, including pattern or design, unity, theme, or centrality, balance, harmony, contrast, unified progression, recurrence, and variation.

4. The writers of the Psalms were imaginative, creative, lovers of poetry as well as lovers of God, and people who regarded the artistry of their poems as something important, and try to communicate the beauty of the poetry.

B. Give special attention to both the artistic structure and artistic language of the Psalms.

1. Parallelism, the major component of structure, should be utilized in your interpretation, brought out in your presentation of the Psalm; the artistic nature of the acrostic (alphabetic) Psalms should also be explained.

2. The artistic language of the Psalm frequently concentrates its subject into an image. (Where the narrative writer might describe the blessedness of a godly person by telling about some representative events in his life, the psalmist (Psalm 1) pictures the vitality, fulfillment, and stability of the godly person through the single image of a tree planted by a stream of water.)

3. Because of its concentration, poetry often says several things at the same time, resulting in possible multiple meaning (e.g., Ps. 23 is on one level a description of the shepherd’s relationship to his sheep, but throughout the poem there is also a second deeper set of meanings).

IV. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OR CATEGORY OF PSALM

A. The type of Psalm you are dealing with will have a major influence on how you understand, interpret, and teach the Psalm.

B. The structure of the Psalm category will be most important in helping to outline the Psalm.

V. UTILIZE THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PSALMS WHENEVER POSSIBLE

A. Sometimes the Psalm appears in the context of a historical book.

B. Sometimes the historical background is identified in the superscription.

C. Where the historical context is not specifically stated, it is probably best not to speculate.

VI. TRY TO GIVE A PICTURE OF THE PEOPLE WHO USED THESE PSALMS

A. The following picture of the Old Testament Hebrews emerges from the Psalm:

1. They were very religious–worshippers of God and having a strong sense of right and wrong.

2. They unapologetically viewed themselves as the people of God in contrast to wicked unbelievers.

3. Their strong emotions produced in the Psalms the greatest anthology of lyric poetry ever produced.

4. They lived close to nature and mostly lived in the country rather than the city.

5. They had strong nationalistic loyalty and their theocratic concern is captured in many Psalms.

6. As warriors they carried out their military endeavors in an awareness of religious commitments.

7. They enjoyed good poetry.

B. The Psalms were known and recited as a shared cultural experience as perhaps no other body of poetry has ever been.

VII. LOOK FOR THE CENTRAL IDEA OF THE PSALM (ITS MESSAGE)

A. Being emotional poems intended to be sung, the Psalms are (for the most part) relatively brief, and so are self-contained units.

B. Each Psalm usually has a single controlling topic or theme.

1. The fragmentation partly fostered by the conventional division into verses needs to be overcome by recognition of the unifying theme.

2. The unifying theme may be a thought or an emotion that controls all of the details in the poem and unifies them into a single whole. It is usually stated early in the poem, functioning as the stimulus or point of departure and exercising a formative influence on the development of the poem as a whole.

The Church Walking with the World: A Poem By by Matilda C. Edwards

The Church and the World walked far apart
On the changing shores of time,
The World was singing a giddy song,
And the Church a hymn sublime.
“Come, give me your hand,” said the merry World,
“And walk with me this way!”
But the faithful Church hid her gentle hands
And solemnly answered “Nay!
I will not give you my hand at all,
And I will not walk with you;
Your way is the way that leads to death;
Your words are all untrue.”
“Nay, walk with me but a little space,”
Said the World with a kindly air;
“The road I walk is a pleasant road,
And the sun shines always there.
Your path is thorny and rough and rude,
But mine is broad and plain;
My way is paved with flowers and dews,
And yours with tears and pain.
The sky to me is always blue,
No want, no toil I know;
The sky above you is always dark,
Your lot is a lot of woe.
There’s room enough for you and me
To travel side by side.”
Half shyly the Church approached the World
And gave him her hand of snow;
And the old World grasped it and walked along,
Saying, in accents low:
“Your dress is too simple to please my taste;
I will give you pearls to wear,
Rich velvets and silks for your graceful form,
And diamonds to deck your hair.”
The Church looked down at her plain white robes,
And then at the dazzling World,
And blushed as she saw his handsome lip
With a smile contemptuous curled.
“I will change my dress for a costlier one,”
Said the Church, with a smile of grace;
Then her pure white garments drifted away,
And the World gave, in their place,
Beautiful satins and shining silks,
Roses and gems and costly pearls;
While over her forehead her bright hair fell
Crisped in a thousand curls.
“Your house is too plain,” said the proud old World,
“I’ll build you one like mine;
With walls of marble and towers of gold,
And furniture ever so fine.”
So he built her a costly and beautiful house;
Most splendid it was to behold;
Her sons and her beautiful daughters dwelt there
Gleaming in purple and gold.
Rich fairs and shows in the halls were held,
And the World and his children were there.
Laughter and music and feasts were heard
In the place that was meant for prayer.
There-were cushioned seats for the rich and the gay,
To sit in their pomp and pride;
But the poor who were clad in shabby array,
Sat meekly down outside.
“You give too much to the poor,” said the World.
“Far more than you ought to do;
If they are in need of shelter and food,
Why need it trouble you?
Go, take your money and buy rich robes,
Buy horses and carriages fine;
Buy pearls and jewels and dainty food,
Buy the rarest and costliest wine.
My children, they dote on all these things,
And if you their love would win
You must do as they do, and walk in the ways
That they are walking in.”
So the poor were turned from her door in scorn,
And she heard not the orphan’s cry;
But she drew her beautiful robes aside,
As the widows went weeping by.
Then the sons of the World and the Sons of the Church
Walked closely hand and heart,
And only the Master, who knoweth all,
Could tell the two apart.
Then the Church sat down at her ease, and said,
“I am rich and my goods increase;
I have need of nothing, or aught to do,
But to laugh, and dance, and feast.”
The sly World heard, and he laughed in his sleeve,
And mockingly said, aside:
“The Church is fallen, the beautiful Church;
And her shame is her boast and her pride.”
The angel drew near to the mercy seat,
And whispered in sighs her name;
Then the loud anthems of rapture were hushed,
And heads were covered with shame.
And a voice was heard at last by the Church
From Him who sat on the throne:
“I know thy works, and how thou hast said,
‘I am rich, and hast not known
That thou art naked, poor and blind,
And wretched before my face;’
Therefore from my presence cast I thee out,
And blot thy name from its place.”

I had to post it because it fits so well with the last post.

The Church vs. The World – Is there a difference?

To simply answer this question, there should be. Here is the real question, can the world tell us apart from them? I was reading Answers Magazine, and I came across an article by Ed Stetzer and Jason Hayes, entitled: Reaching Twenty-Somethings. In it, Jason is telling a story about being on an airplane and talking to three individuals about small talk, trying to warm them up to spiritual things. He said he brought up the issue of faith and the dialogue turned from positive to negative in a hurry. He says they began to share their experiences with the local church and he said that the sad thing is that their feelings often seemed justified. He said he just sat there and listened and wondered what he could do to reach this generation.

He says, “As I sat there, I wondered how we can reach their generation. Traditional approaches – like inviting them to church – don’t seem to get very far. A quick chat on an airplane isn’t very effective either. While I wanted to believe that an articulate argument or a heartfelt plea would suffice, I couldn’t help but conclude that something more was necessary.”

I can help but stop here and say that what he says next is so true, yet never taken serious. The problem is that people say Amen! when they should be saying Ouch!

He goes on to say,”In fact, I came to a very simple and yet profound conclusion. The thing that would draw this generation to Christ and His Church would be is His people were actually committed to Christ, and if the Church actually functioned how God intended it to.”

He has hit the nail on the head. Here in lies the problem. 1.(This means myself included) The very persons reading this blog are probably the ones say Amen! May I say that YOU are the very person that this article is talking about. The Church in America is in a definite need of repentance. We need to get back to our first love. The few of us in this country that feel we are doing what we need to and the Lord will be pleased with our contributions to His kingdom are the very one’s who need to repent! It starts with us. If the Church sees our examples, then maybe, just maybe, we can take back our country. Even if we don’t, the worst case scenario is that we will have a greater reward in heaven.
What will it take? Well, first may I say when the world is surveyed and asked what there problem is with Christians today and the number one answer is hypocrisy, you know there is a problem. When the world knows what is required for Godliness and the Church can’t seem to grasp it, you should know this is a huge problem! I understand the excuse and justification of the fact that we are all hypocrites, but, the world should notice a change in us. If the world can’t tell you apart from them, I would question your very salvation. Look back on the last year. Are you still doing what you were last year as far as your dealing with and conquering sin? What about the last five, ten or even twenty years? No real change? Be honest with yourself. When someone preaches or teaches on a subject that deals with your sin, do you recognize it as a warning from God or do you justify your sin with a list of excuses? If you haven’t truly seen fruit, I would honestly question myself. If these questions are answered in the negative, again I would seek God in repentance.

For those of you that think you squeaked through these questions with an affirmative answer, well I have a challenge to you. I ask you to take the Bible test of your Godliness. Start with reading my blog on suffering for His name. Then, be sincere and honest when reading Scriptures like 1 Timothy 3:12 which declares,”Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.’ All that live GODLY WILL SUFFER! Question yourself and your faithfulness to Christ! If you think you are truly living Godly than a good test is to see if you are suffering persecution. It’s the same when you read the Beatitudes. Matthew 5:10 says:”Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” A real test of your faith is persecution. Jesus’ phrase in the beatitude, “for righteousness’ sake,” calls upon us to examine ourselves honestly before God both before and after we are opposed. In I Peter 4:12-16, Peter, like Jesus, perceives persecution as inevitable and therefore a Christian should expect it. Since a disciple is not above His Master, a follower can hardly expect to escape some form of what the Master received. Persecution is aggressive and injurious behavior carried out in a hostile, antagonistic spirit, normally by a group, but occasionally by one individual toward another. Jesus, the epitome of righteousness, is also the focal point of persecution. Are you following in the Master’s footsteps? This takes a heart that is truly prepared to surrender all to Christ and to trust Him in all things. In today’s self-centered, self-seeking, what’s in it for me culture, this is a hard pill to swallow. If you have a burden to see the Church restored, then it is through suffering. Think about it. What was the largest factor in the growth of the Church during the time of the Apostles? Persecution. Can you picture it if we took these Scriptures serious? Can you just imagine what could happen? How powerful!

So, I plead with you and encourage you to prepare your heart and mind to complete submission to Christ. I just want to say, do it for your King. He died for you, are you willing to die for Him? Does this mean you are going to die for the faith? No. Can you expect suffering? You better believe it! Are you suffering for Him today?

The Withering Flower – The Fad of TULIP Theology 8

Now, with all of that said, let me restate the three main points:

1. My God loves everybody, equally at all times, the god of 5 point Calvinism does not. Therefore we serve a different God. Some will say that God loves everyone, He just loves the elect more. That is favoritism and God plainly says that He is not a respecter of persons so this contradicts Scripture. The Bible says God is Love not that God is different types of love. Also, let me ask this. If your child doesn’t do the dishes, do you love him any less? What if he steals something? What if he blatantly disobeys you? Let’s take it to the extreme and say what if he kills someone? Would you love him any less or any different? Of course not this is your CHILD! How much more than do you God loves all men no matter what they have done!?! His love is unconditional. According to 5 point Calvinism, you are more benevolent than God because you love all men and want to see them saved and He does not! AGAIN FOR CLARITY THAT IS NOT THE GOD I SERVE! So therefore 5 point Calvinists are Idolaters. They have created a god to suite their theology.

2. My God died for ALL men, the god of 5 point Calvinism did not. This would also mean that we serve a different Christ. This is a different Cross and a Different Christ.

3. Although we may preach the same Gospel with the same style, the 5 point Calvinist does not truly believe it. They actually lie while evangelizing! God actually puts you in that situation by commanding us to go unto all the world and preach the Gospel. Let me show you why and how.

Do You Sin While Evangelizing?

Do you sin while evangelizing? Well, if you are a Calvinist, than you do. Let me show you why and how.

Is lying a sin? Well, it is the 9th commandment. (Ex. 20:16) This means that you have transgressed the law. Sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) Do you agree with this?

4 points-

1.Limited Atonement states that Christ only died for the elect, correct?
2.Unconditional Election states that God predetermined who He wants to go to heaven, correct?
3.Total Depravity is the fact that men are so dead in their sin, they cannot make a choice to receive the Gospel, so God has to do it for us, correct?
4.God only loves the elect, correct?

Next, what is the Gospel? I think 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 gives us probably the most clear answer to this. Would you agree?

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

So the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, correct?

Now, here is the dilemma. When you are witnessing to someone, do you give them the Gospel? If you use the Law then the Gospel, when you finish with the Law, and they realize that they have sinned against God, you then give them the Gospel, correct? You say something to the effect, “Do you know what Christ did for you so that you do not have to be condemned? He loves you so much that He died on the cross, in your place for your sins.” OUCH! There are two lies right here.

Lie #1- If they are not one of the elect, than Jesus didn’t die for their sins. So why are you lying to them?

Lie #2- How can you tell them that God loves them when in fact, if they are not one of the elect, He doesn’t? Shame on you!

Normal response- “Yea, but we don’t know who the elect are!”

There are two points to this.

Point #1- Is God a liar? If you believe in Limited Atonement, God is commanding that you lie to those who are not elect. Go, ye, into all the world and preach the Gospel, to every creature. (Mark 16:15)

Point #2- Just because you don’t know who the elect is doesn’t mean that it’s okay to lie to them.

Now, as you are finishing up, you normally ask something like this, “You realize you are going to hell, doesn’t that concern you? All you have to do is repent, turn from your sin and place your faith and trust in Christ and you will be saved!” OUCH! There are two lies in this one!

Lie #3 – You are giving them a choice when they don’t have one because they are totally depraved. You know that they are only going to choose sin and evil and yet you pretend that they have a choice. Shame on you, again!

Lie #4 – How can you tell them that all they have to do is place their faith in Christ and repent to be saved, when in fact, they have to be one of the elect. If they are not one of the elect, you are leaving them with the impression that if they repent and place their faith in Christ, they will be saved.

Then, when they reject the Gospel people always say (at least the Calvinists I’ve gone out with), “Don’t worry about it. They rejected God, not you!”

If they rejected God than that means that they had a choice. They willingly rejected, which means they could have willingly accepted also. To say that you can only turn right when the options are to turn left or right is very deceitful and flat out wrong.

Hermeneutics 101 – Interpreting Prophecy

Interpreting Prophecy

I. Introductory matters concerning prophecy

A. Definition The term prophecy comes from two Greek words meaning “to speak for or before.” Thus, prophecy is the speaking and writing of events before they occurred (Zuck, p. 227).

B. Prophecies are from God Since prophecies involve the foretelling of unseen events, they cannot be result of human ingenuity—they must find their origin in God. “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

C. Number of prophecies A significant amount of the Bible is predictive prophecy. It has been estimated that of the Bible’s 31,124 verses, 8,352 (27 percent) were predictive at the time they were first spoken or written (J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 13).

D. Range of prophetic subjects

1. Gentile nations

2. Nation Israel

3. Individual people

4. Messiah

5. Planet Earth

6. The Tribulation

7. The Millennium

8. The Eternal State

9. Life after death

E. Prophecy ranges Some Bible prophecies predicted events that were soon fulfilled (near prophecies). Other prophecies predicted events that took dozens, hundreds or even thousands of years to be fulfilled (far prophecies). Some prophecies still await a future fulfillment.

1. Near prophecies

a. Ex. Jeremiah’s prophecy of the 70-year captivity (Jer. 25:11).

b. Ex. Daniel’s prophecy that Belshazzar’s kingdom would be taken over by the Medes and Persians (Dan. 5:25-30).

c. Ex. Elijah’s prediction of drought (1 Kings 17:1).

d. Ex. Jesus’ prediction that He would be crucified and raised from the dead (Matt. 16:21).

2. Far prophecies

a. Ex. Daniel’s prediction of four consecutive world powers (Dan. 2 and 7).

b. Ex. Daniel’s prediction concerning timing of Messiah’s death (Dan. 9:26).

c. Ex. Micah’s prediction of Messiah’s birth being in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).

d. Ex. Tribulation and Second Coming (Matthew 24 and 25).

e. Ex. Millennial Kingdom and eternal state (Rev. 20-22).

II. Principles for interpreting prophecy

A. Take words of prophecy in their normal, grammatical sense “Nowhere does Scripture indicate that when we come to prophetic portions of Scripture we should ignore the normal sense of the words and overlook the meanings of words and sentences. The norms of grammatical interpretation should be applied to prophetic as well as to non-prophetic literature” (Zuck, p. 241-42).

1. Ex. Isaiah 65 “Fulfillment should be seen in accord with the words of the prediction. In speaking of the Millennium, Isaiah wrote that many people will live well beyond 100 years of age (Isa. 65:20). There is no reason to take this in any sense other than its normal, grammatical meaning. The following verse (v. 21) states, ‘They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.’ Again no hint is given in this passage that the building of houses is to be taken figuratively.” Of course figurative language and symbolic language is used extensively in prophetic passages, but this does not mean that all prophecy is figurative or symbolic. We should begin with the assumption that the words are to be taken in their normal sense unless a figure of speech or symbol is indicated. Deeper and mystical senses should not be sought” (Ibid. p. 242).

2. Ex. Revelation 20 There is no reason not to take the six references to “a thousand years” in Revelation 20 to be anything other than a literal thousand years.

B. Recognize the place of unconditional covenants “While it is true that some prophecies are conditioned on the response of the persons addressed, other prophecies are unconditional. When God made His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15, He alone contracted the obligation, passing between the pieces of the animals He had cut in two (vv. 12-20). No condition was attached to the Lord’s words that He would give Abraham’s descendants that land. Reaffirmations of this Abrahamic Covenant indicate that it was ‘an everlasting covenant’ in which ‘the whole land of Canaan’ would be theirs ‘as an everlasting possession’ (17:7-8). Also note the references to the everlasting nature of the covenant in verses 13, 19; 26:2-4; 28:13-15; 1 Chronicles 16:16-17; Psalm 105:9-10. Therefore since Israel has not yet possessed the land to the boundaries specified in Genesis 15:18-21, we should take the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant pertaining to Israel’s land as being unconditional and yet future” (Zuck, p. 242).

1. Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3)

2. Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-17)

3. New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

C. Recognize the place of figurative and symbolic language “The heavy symbolic content of much of prophetic literature makes interpreting prophecy difficult. It also has caused many Bible students to assume that because some things in prophecy are symbolic, everything in prophetic passages is to be taken symbolically. This, however, is an error. If we follow the basic hermeneutical principle of normal, grammatical interpretation, then we should understand prophetic literature, as well as other forms of biblical literature, in their normal, ordinary-literal sense, unless there is reason for taking the material figuratively or symbolically. For example no reason exists for not taking literally the reference to silence in heaven ‘for about half an hour’ (Rev. 8:1), nor there any reason for not taking literally the references to ‘hail and fire mixed with blood’ (v. 7). And when John wrote in that same verse that ‘a third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up,’ again there is nothing in the immediate context to indicate that those words should not be taken in their ordinary sense. However, in verse 8 of that same chapter we read that ‘something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea.’ The wording suggests that John was not referring to a literal mountain” (Zuck, pp. 243-44).

D. Interpret numbers literally in prophetic literature  “What about numbers in prophetic literature? One writer suggests ‘in a book where almost all the numbers seem to have symbolic value (7 seals, trumpets, bowls, etc.; 144,000 Israelites; 42 months/1260 days/ 3 _ years) should not 1,000 years indicate a long period of time rather than a number of calendar years?’ But are all the numbers he mentions to be taken as symbols? Do they not have meaning as ordinary, literal numbers? If 7, 42, 1,260 are not to be taken literally, then what about the reference to the 2 witnesses in 11:3? And if 1,000 means simply a large number, then what the reference to 7,000 people in verse 13? On what basis do we say that 7,000 does not mean a literal 7,000? And if 1,000 is a large indefinite number, do the references to 4 angels (7:1) and 7 angels (8:6) mean simply small numbers? If these numbers in the Book of Revelation have no normal, literal numerical value, then what has happened to the principle of normal, grammatical interpretation? How can we say that 144,000 is a symbolic number, when 7:5-8 refers specifically to 12,000 from each of 12 tribes in Israel?” (Zuck, pp. 244-45).

E. View prophecy as focusing primarily on the Messiah and the establishing of His reign “His first coming was for the purpose of establishing His reign on the earth, but the nation Israel rejected Him (John 1:11) so He said the kingdom would be taken from them and given to a future generation (Matt. 21:43). . . . Scripture makes it clear that Jesus will return to establish His reign on the earth” (Zuck, pp. 245-46).

F. Recognize the principle of “Foreshortening”  “Looking ahead, the prophets often envisioned the two advents of Christ as two mountain peaks, with a valley in between. They could see the peaks but not the valleys. From our perspective, however, as we look back we see the time gap between the First and Second Advents. Often the Old Testament blends the two comings of Christ in one passage” (Zuck, p. 246).

1. Isaiah 61:1-2 “The Lord read from this chapter in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:16-21), and stopped in the middle of verse 2 with the words ‘to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ He did not add the words ‘and the day of vengeance of our God,’ obviously a reference to the Lord’s return when He will take vengeance on His enemies” (Ibid.)

2. Isaiah 9:6-7 “The first part of verse 6 refers to Jesus’ birth, but the middle part of verse 6 along with verse 7 point to His second advent by speaking of the government being on His shoulders and His reigning on David’s throne” (Ibid, pp. 246-47).

3. Zechariah 9:9-10 Matthew 21:5 quotes Zechariah 9:9 referring to the Messiah’s humble entrance into Jerusalem, but Matthew does not quote verse 10 which refers to Christ destroying His enemies and setting up His kingdom. Thus, Zechariah 9:9 was fulfilled when Christ entered Jerusalem, but Zechariah 9:10 awaits a future fulfillment.

G. Look for God’s built-in interpretations Sometimes the images given in prophetic literature are explained within the text.

1. Ex. Dan 2 Head of gold = Nebuchadnezzar (“You are the head of gold.”)

2. Ex. Revelation Seven stars are the angels of the churches (1:20). The seven lampstands are the seven churches of Asia Minor (1:20). The bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints (5:8).

Hermeneutics 101 – PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING PROPHECY

PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING PROPHECY

1. Follow the normal hermeneutic of historical-grammatical-rhetorical interpretation. The historical element means that the cultural background and circumstances of the prophets are considered. The grammatical element means:

(a) that words are taken in their normal sense unless it is evident that a figure of speech or symbol is used, and

(b) that words are considered in the light of their immediate and broad context. The rhetorical element considers the special features of apocalyptic and prophetic genres and considers the place of figurative and symbolic language.

2. Compare parallel passages, and fit all prophetic passages together in a unified whole. An understanding of the Book of Revelation, for example, is aided by an understanding of the Book of Daniel.

3. Recognize the principle of “foreshortening” or perspective, in which events separated by many years are seen together (e.g., Isaiah 9:6-8; 61:1-2).

4. Recognize the several themes of both fulfilled and unfulfilled prophecy.

5. Follow consistency in interpreting prophecy.

6. Determine if the predictions are conditional or unconditional.

7. Determine if the predictions are fulfilled or unfulfilled.

The Withering Flower – The Fad of TULIP Theology 7

5. Perseverance of the Saints is another deception. Most people think it is Eternal Security, but, that just isn’t the case. As I stated before, because 5 point Calvinists believe that God shows His irresistible grace to totally depraved people whom He has unconditionally elected before time, Calvinists have no choice but to believe that it is impossible for a genuinely-saved person to forfeit his salvation. This is what the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is all about. True saints will persevere in faith, and if they don’t, they were never truly saved in the first place, according to Calvinists.
Moreover, logic dictates that if people are saved due to God’s unconditional election and irresistible grace, there is no sound reason for Scripture to warn anyone to persevere in faith. Those who are genuinely saved will persevere in faith and cannot do otherwise. Have you always persevered in the faith, unwavering? If you haven’t, you may not be one of the elect. They need no encouragement, because their salvation has been guaranteed since the foundation of the world. Likewise, those who are only phony believers have no reason to be encouraged, because their faith isn’t genuine, and it is certain that they won’t persevere, because their damnation has been guaranteed since the foundation of the world. To encourage such a person is to encourage him to remain deceived a little longer, until he discovers the inevitable—he has been predestined to be damned, and there is no reason for him to attempt to persevere in faith. His faith is bogus. The 5 point Calvinists hope is in their election, not resting in Christ. This is why you will consistently see Calvinists on social networks bragging about all the righteous deeds that they have done. I believe it gives them hope in their election.

That is why it is virtually impossible for a consistent 5 point Calvinist to have absolute certainty of his salvation until his final breath, because he must always live with the fear that his faith may prove to be bogus if he doesn’t persevere in faith until death. That is why these teachers constantly say that you have to look back on your works to make sure you are in the faith. If this is the case then this is works based salvation. John Piper himself says that maintaining our salvation is due to our obedience. He quotes,

“Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.”

This I guess would imply that if you disobey, you were never truly saved. Have any of you disobeyed God?

We are saved forever when we freely place our trust in Christ. The Holy Spirit then seals us unto salvation. Ephesians 1:13 gives us a clear picture of the order of salvation:

“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,”

The Holy Spirit is God’s deposit in us. It is like putting a deposit down on a house. It is rightfully yours until, although you have left it for a period of time. You then come back for it to claim it as yours. This is exactly what God has done by sealing us with the Holy Spirit. He has left us for a short time until He comes back to claims us as His! No matter the wrong we have done and how disobedient we have been, we are still His. Who can pluck us out of His Hand?

In Summary: ONCE WE HAVE FULLY TRUSTED IN CHRIST, HE SEALS US UNTO SALVATION. THERE IS NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO TO LOSE IT! WE HAVE WILLINGLY CONSENTED TO FOLLOW HIM.

I’ve heard it said that true (5 Point) Calvinists are not so diametrically opposed to your doctrine as to be labeled heretics. Well, let’s look at that claim. First, let’s define heresy.

Hersey- A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy;

Now let’s look at what a heretic is.

Heretic- A person under any religion, but particularly the Christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among Christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.

I believe I have shown in this brief presentation enough evidence to show how this theology is heretical in nature. Therefore, if you esteem fellowship over the truth of God, you too are held accountable. It is required that we separate from it. We should make war against it. And whoever believes in it needs to repent of it. You say, “How am I a heretic if I don’t believe it and choose to fellowship with them anyway?” Let me take you through a scenario. First, although you did not pull the trigger, your friend kills someone and you tell no one about it. He later gets caught and brings up your name. What happens to you? Are you charged with the crime? Yes you are. Why? Because you were an accomplice. If you would have warned someone about what had happened you would not have been held accountable. It is the same with heresy. You may sit there and think all is peachy, but, God knows that you are an accomplice and you will be held accountable. Not only are you going to be held accountable for not warning every one of their error but also for esteeming fellowship above the Word and Truth of God Himself!

About the Attributes of God – Part 4

Fourth, God cannot contradict Himself. There are hundred of verses in the Bible that clearly show God changing His mind, actions or inactions. There are many evil and sinful things going on in the world. Do we really want to say God forcibly made people commit these heinous acts? Rape, abortion, murder? Why would we protest something that God causes? Then we would be going against His will since it is His will that abortions happen. Then if we don’t protest, we are going against His will because we are to stand against sin. Then again, what would anything matter if God is going to make it happen anyways? What contradiction. Although they deny it, Calvinistic Predestination makes God the Author of Sin. They say that He is the cause of all things, but not the cause of sin. Uh, am I missing something here? All things excludes sin. Oh, that’s right, all doesn’t always mean all. If that were the case then God would not be in control of all things. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Yea, pull your hair out. That’s why the claim divine mystery and don’t think about the logical conclusions that this slander to God’s character does. This would also mean that we cannot be held accountable for our sins if we have no say or choice in any of our actions. It would be unjust to send a person to Hell for something he did not choose to do. Yes, God is sovereign and He can do whatever He wants. One of the things He has chosen to do, out of His sovereignty, is to provide us a free will. This free will provides us a choice. God does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to be saved. There are no “chosen few.” He is not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance.

Fifth, this belief would make God deceptive and a liar. God commands all men everywhere to repent, but has to grant them the grace to do so. Huh? Exactly. Jesus’ first words out of His mouth when He began His public ministry were, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt 4:17). Did everyone He commanded to repent, repent? You would be a fool to think so.

Why would Christ command everyone to repent if:

1.He knew who the elect where?
2.He knew who He would die for?
3.He knew whom He loved?
4.He knew they didn’t have a choice unless He gave it to them?

This would make Christ either a liar or evil because of His sarcasm. This would also make Him a sinner and His sacrifice for us would be null and void. Therefore, salvation would not be possible.

As we can see, as with all heresies and cults, when you alter the attributes of God you will end up with as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:4, another Jesus, another spirit, and another Gospel. That is why we as believers cannot just sit back and be quite about these subtleties and wiles of the devil, but are commanded by God to be heralders of the truth! It is a cop-out to say that both truths can be held and we can all hold hands and get along. Sorry, but there is one truth. How can there be two? Can Christ be the Christ who died for only the elect and for all men? No. One is a lie and the Scriptures are plain. Read John 3:16.

There are two excuses used when faced with the fact that Calvinism is heresy: 1. This debate will never be reconciled, it has gone on for 500 years. 2. It is a matter on essentials and non-essentials. Let me address these excuses.

First, just because there has been debate over something does not make both things right. Homosexuality has been around for five or six thousand years. It is still debated whether or not it is right or wrong! Truth is still truth and a lie is still a lie no matter how long they have been around!

Second, we do NOT agree on essentials, it is that most are ignorant to what Calvinism teaches.

We believe God loves every single person He created and made it possible for all to believe, though most won’t.

Calvinists believe that God only loves a chosen few, and hates unto Eternal death most of the people He created.

We believe that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for all sin at the cross, making it possible for anyone to call on His name and be saved.

Calvinists believe that Jesus only died for the elect/chosen ones of God, and that the only people who can believe are those whom He decides to regenerate to believe. His blood only covers the sin of the chosen.

We believe that God is Love, and that He does not delight in the death of the wicked.

Calvinists believe that the unregenerate get what they deserve and that it was God’s sovereign choice not to save billions of those He created or make it possible for them to repent and be saved.

We believe that although God certainly is Sovereign, that things happen outside of His will. Abortion grieves the LORD and He is against tit and it is certainly not His will.

Calvinists believe according to the Westminster Confession of Faith that “Whatsoever comes to pass is the will of God”. In other words, mass murders, rapes, every horrible sin that occurs on the earth is ordained by God. It is all His perfect will. Children being molested is something that He ordained to happen according to the Calvinistic beliefs.

We agree on the some of the same vocabulary, but different definitions. It is time for people to wake up and stand against this sickening heresy! Their god is not our God, their gospel is not our Gospel, and their christ is not our Christ! You can’t get any more essential than that! God commands us in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Please, be in much prayer. We all have many friends and family members being swept away by this deceiver, these angels of light. Many of the brethren are in the midst of this deception. Pray hard for them, that God will open their eyes and bring them back to the truth. There are not doubt people saved in both camps, liberal and conservative. As Jude instructs us:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

And remember, as Paul encouraged the Ephesians in chapter 4:1-6, so I would also like to encourage you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There is one Lord and He died for all. There is no other. There is one faith, that is freely placed in Christ Jesus. There is one baptism in all believers by the Holy Ghost. Finally, One God and Father, if His attributes are altered, then He is no longer the One True God and Father, but an idol made in the heads of man. We have to fight for this unity. There is One God, One Christ, One Gospel, and One Truth. We have it. Let’s stand for it!

The Withering Flower – The Fad of TULIP Theology 6

3. Although most of us would agree that Christ shed His blood for us as believers, where we part ways is that He died for ALL men. If Limited Atonement is true than the Bible is wrong when it states in 2 Peter 2:1 that He even bought the false teachers that deny Him. 1 John 2:2 says that not only did Christ die for our sins, but the sins of the whole world! Through the teaching of this doctrine, you create a different Cross and a different Christ than that of Calvary. Repeatedly through the Scriptures it is proclaimed that Christ died for all men and yet the 5 point Calvinist says otherwise. They believe Christ only died for the elect. This means that they believe contrary to the Scriptures. Even John the Baptist knew this truth when he proclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”(John 1:29) To say otherwise is a grave heresy!
In Summary: MY GOD DIED FOR ALL MEN!

4. Although most of us agree that His grace is sufficient, it is also resistible. We see this in Scripture with the rich young ruler. He asks Christ what he must do to be one of His followers. Christ replies by telling him to sell everything and follow Him. What is the response from the young man? He rejects Christ grace!
Moreover, unless God sovereignly changes their wills by a grace that is irresistible, they will never submit to God or repent. Even though people might think they have the choice to repent, they are making a wrong assumption according to the 5 point Calvinist. If they don’t repent, they are actually doing the only thing they can do, because God didn’t grant to them His irresistible grace. If they do repent, they are actually doing what would be impossible for them not to do, because God is sovereignly influencing and changing them by a grace that is irresistible. Thus, they are making no choice at all in the matter of salvation. Rather, God is choosing them and making them into believers. He is changing their wills, because totally depraved people, according to the 5 point Calvinist, would never, and could never, humble themselves or choose to repent.
If this is so, then it is not too strong of a statement to say that 5 point Calvinists believe that God makes people to believe in Christ and be born again against their wills, because they would never and could never have chosen to believe and be born again otherwise. Given the choice, they would have preferred to stay in sin, not repent or believe, and never be born again. Just before God bestowed His “irresistible grace” upon them, had you asked them if they wanted to repent and follow Jesus, they would not have wanted to. But, moments later, God forces them into doing what they would have resisted moments earlier, would never have wanted, and could not have done. Thus, every person whom God causes to be born again, He causes them to be born again against their wills, and that is what 5 point Calvinists believe even if they say they don’t. As Spurgeon said, “they would have refused to come as others do unless God’s grace had sweetly influenced their wills.” God sweetly forces us to believe. That’s about as politically correct as they can put it. That is to the liking of saying that someone sweetly took a precious life. Call it want you want, but, murder is murder and force is force. If you do not want to be saved and then God makes you want to be saved, that means He is forcing you against your will, period! If you stick a gun to a person’s head and say, “You are going to love me!” do you really think that they will love you? Of course not.
In summary: MY GOD IS NOT LIMITED IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY ENOUGH TO NOT CREATE MEN WITH THE ABILITY TO MAKE A CHOICE AND WOULD NEVER FORCE ANYONE TO LOVE HIM AGAINST THEIR WILL!

The Withering Flower – The Fad of TULIP Theology 5

In Summary:

1. Although most of us would agree man is dead in sin, it is not to the point of not understanding the Law and the Gospel. They like to quote here 1 Cor 2:14 that says,

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

The problem with using this verse is that you are ripping it out of it’s context. Look at verse 10. It is talking about the “deep things” of God, not the simple things, such as the Law and the Gospel.

If Total Depravity is true, Christ is an evil, wicked sinner and all of Christendom fails. If Christ is a sinner, then there is no salvation! Let me explain. The first words off of the lips of Christ at the start of His public ministry was, “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Now consider this (This is according to the beliefs of 5 point Calvinism): Jesus Christ being fully God, knew full well at the time of that proclamation that the men He commanded to repent could not do so unless He (Jesus) gave them the ability to do so. So He is commanding them to do something that is not logically possible for them to do. Was Christ an insincere bully on a power trip? Look, if I told you to fly, knowing full well that it is not a logical possibility, and still hold you accountable because you could not fly is EVIL! It is cruel, sinful and an atrocity! Dave Hunt said it best when he said, “To say that God commands men to do what they cannot do without His grace, then withholds the grace they need and punishes them eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God’s Word, of His mercy and love, and is to libel His character.”

In summary, MY GOD IS NOT EVIL OR A SINNER!

2. Although most of us believe that election is Biblical, it does have its conditions: faith and repentance. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) If He Unconditionally Elects and His will is that none should perish but all come to repentance, than why wouldn’t He just save them all? It is because He can’t. Yes, I said God can’t do certain things. He cannot lie, cheat, deceive, sin, and He cannot contradict His own nature. How would He contradict His nature by saving everyone, God is loving right? Yes, He is loving, in fact He is Love! (1 John 4:8) Although God is loving, He is also Just. You will get the Justice you rightfully deserve. It is the same with God’s Sovereignty. With 5 point Calvinism, this is a doctrine, not an attribute. They make God out to be more Sovereign than His very nature.

When we consider the character of God, we need to remember that God’s attributes are all fully functioning at the same time. None of His attributes are ever diminished or not functioning at full capacity. Therefore since God is loving; He loves completely all of the time. If God is just, He is always just. Since God is holy, He always acts in a manner completely consistent with His holiness. His attributes are working at full capacity and in complete harmony all of the time. The harmony and consistency of God’s attributes creates a dilemma for man, because in his fallen nature man perverts the definition of love. His idea of love might mean favoritism which might cause him to believe that God would wink at sin. Or man might think that God is unfair when judgment is prophesied because man wants God to abandon justice in his case. Man might understand God’s holiness to mean that He accepts all men rather than requiring belief in the truth from all men. Man might think love means ignoring the bad and focusing only on the good so that God would see that our good outweighs the bad in life.

Therefore in trying to make certain doctrines more acceptable, men will often view God in a way where His attributes are out of balance. For instance, the world insists that if God is loving, He should save all men regardless of their sin. In this case His love would be working at 100% but His justice would be operating at say 25%. Or in the case of the teaching that the promises to Israel have now been given to the church, God’s faithfulness would be working at say 50%. Or in the case of Calvinistic election, God’s love is working at say 25% and His justice at 100%. There are many other examples to show how the functioning of the attributes of God might be skewed, but these are given

merely for the sake of illustration. All of God’s attributes fully function in perfect harmony all of the time.

There is no perversion with the character of God. The balanced view of God’s character also helps us to interpret the scriptures correctly. On the other hand, when we see that the attributes of God are out of balance, this indicates the understanding or teaching of a particular doctrine is not quite right.

In examining the character of God, we need to remember that His attributes are all constantly working at 100%. They are never out of balance. At any given moment His justice and His love and His righteousness are all functioning fully in perfect harmony and balance. Never is one attribute at 75% and another at 50%. They are all working at 100% in perfect harmony. In considering 5 point Calvinism, God’s attributes aren’t working in balance at 100% if God has already sentenced men to hell without a possibility of believing the gospel? One asks how righteous, holy, loving and just is that? In this scenario, His love would be working at say 50% while His justice is working at 75%. So ask yourself, “Is it really the character of God to condemn a person without any honest chance to believe in Him?” Put yourself or someone you love in that situation? We cannot explain away the horrific abuse of His character by claiming divine mystery! Again, this IS NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE!

In summary: MY GOD DOES NOT PICK AND CHOOSE BUT RATHER WANTS ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT AND COME TO HIM!