So What is My Eschatology?

In a previous post I asked the question “So What is Your Eschatology?” Well, after presenting my basic view as “I don’t know,” I thought I should take a moment to record what I do see as certain and thus how I do approach the interpretive issues surrounding the debate between covenantal and dispensational theology. Below is my understanding of How Israel and the church fit together.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two parts of Israel:

1. The unbelieving nation that has been rejected and cut off from the special blessings of God.
2. The true Israel or remnant that was always faithful

• There always has been a true Israel in OT times, NT times and beyond.

The Tree

The nation of Israel has been cut off but the remnant was not. The remnant believed Christ. Modern day Messianic Jews constitute a portion of that remnant.

Gentiles who come to faith are grafted in with the remnant. There will come a day when all Jews, both those cut off and the remnant will come under rule of Christ along with all Gentiles. All will be held accountable for their wicked deeds and their faith/repentance or lack thereof.

Only the Church will be saved at the end of all things. The Church consists of the Jewish remnant and those Gentiles who have come to faith. All others will be held accountable for their wickedness without Christ and enter into eternal punishment – the wrath of God which is Hell.

Therefore what can be said of the end of days is there will be a visible return of Christ that will be recognized by the world. There will be a period of judgment against the world as Christ seeks to establish a new creation and there will be a period in which this world will be ruled by Christ. At the end of all things everyone will face judgment, both the living and the dead, and those who have placed their faith in Christ will enter into the fellowship of God in the new heaven and new earth while those who have not placed their faith in Christ will enter into a place of eternal judgment. This eternal judgment is the uninhibited righteous wrath of God which is Hell.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any questions? I only have one: Have you been grafted into that tree?

Living Out the Gospel: Part 7 – How Now Shall We Live?

First I would like to apologize for my hiatus from this blog over the last number of weeks. I have been in Ireland performing a culture study as well as a missions internship for the last month. To read more on this trip go here.

We now come to a very difficult question. It is in answering this question that we teeter on the brink of reentering a legalistic sort of faith. A friend of mine, Jonathan Erdman, with whom I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, raises a very interesting and valuable point in regards to this issue. He in fact plans to write a book about it! At one point in his leak blog post he writes;

Protestant Christianity of all stripes carries [reciprocity] into their idea of grace, albeit in a way that I consider to be somewhat disingenuous: God gives you the "free" gift of salvation.....therefore....you should should be grateful and do __________. Where many Christians differ is in the way they fill in the blank. But there always seems to be a blank. The result of this is that most Christians carry forward some brand of guilt--guilt for not being good enough or making enough "spiritual progress," moral failings, etc.

It is true that in nearly all, if not every, form of religion carries into its theology this idea of reciprocity, or as Erdman refers to it, an “economy of reciprocity.” Yet, even as we discussed before, salvation does come by grace. So what is the catch? Is there a catch? It would seem based on our previous discussions about the gospel, there is a catch; a call to holiness and the way of suffering.

Think carefully. Holiness is what was required of the people under the Law and they failed miserably. Christ comes after some time of living under the Law and does perfectly what man could not – fulfill the whole Law perfectly. The Law served as a teacher, showing man he could not do it (Galatians 3:24 – the Greek word translated guardian is the term for pedagogue). So salvation must come to us as a gift, and thus the term grace, because we cannot earn it.

Yet then we are called to live a certain way in light of that freely given, unmerited gracious gift. Has grace become something other than gracious? No. We talked before about the work of the Spirit in a person’s life which results in a radical change of view regarding sin and thus a change in how people live and respond to sin. We live and strive to be holy because he is holy, not because it is commanded only, but also because our love for him automatically results in our desire to obtain that holiness. This is why John is able to say in I John 3:3 “everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” It is the natural reaction of the one who has been redeemed.

So back to Erdman’s statement. Many churches do say we “should be grateful and do __________.” But indeed this is the wrong emphasis and salvation is no longer truly received by grace through faith alone. Forcing holiness and creating this expectation on people can create a false sense of duty in the Christian life. We should be able to expect to see a life change in people’s lives, but if we have to ask for it or even worse, demand it, then we have indeed lost sight of the grace that brings salvation. It is a difficult position to maintain, but nevertheless does seem to be what Scripture teaches.

HT: Jonathan Erdman

Living out the Gospel: Part 4 – The way of Obedience

It is ironic in my quest to move away from legalism and fundamentalism, that I am returning to a call for obedience embedded in the Gospel message. Usually there are two sides to this question. One is the legalist who while in their words will say salvation comes by faith in Christ’s atoning work alone will then expect people to live by a certain moral standard reminiscent of Pharisaical law. On the other side are those who question all forms of “duty” or commands expecting obedience in the Gospel and the Christian life, saying we are called to live holy but completely divorce it from the initial salvation experience as if regeneration and sanctification are two completely separate issues. These people have no problem agreeing with the legalists regarding regeneration, but take issue with them on issues surrounding sanctification—emphasizing grace. So which is it?

The answer is both are right and both are wrong. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. But embedded in the call of the Gospel is a call to obedient faithful living. Jesus tells his people to deny themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him (Matt 16:24). Consider also what Paul says;

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. (Col 2:6-7)

It seems there is some connection between faithful living (obedient living) and accepting the Gospel. The two simply go together. LeRoy Eims states:

I have seen people “make decisions,” but when I tried to help them grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I discovered that they were still dead in their trespasses and sins. They had no spiritual life. I have learned the hard way that it is impossible to disciple a person who is spiritually dead.

Paul stated, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Cor. 5:17). IN order to identify a genuine convert, you must see in him a change of attitude toward Jesus Christ and a change of attitude toward sin. (The Lost Art of Disciple Making, 62)

As Eims goes on to explain, the lordship of Christ may not be fully understood right away, but the desire for Christ and against sin can still be evident. Jesus expects obedience. He expects people to live lives that go against the way of sin, that despise sin and any appearance of it. This is a bigger call than simply accepting deliverance from future eternal judgment.

Living out the Gospel: Part 3 - Message of Prosperity

Even in the midst of teaching the basic gospel message similar to what was put forward in the previous post, some people still believe the result of coming to faith should be one of prosperity.

The argument often goes to a passage that is very often taken out of context; Jeremiah 29:11. Even in that passage the promise is given because the people are finding themselves in the midst of exile, living in a foreign land and in the way of suffering.

Another common misconstrued passage is John 10:10. True Jesus said he came to give us abundant life, but we must ask ourselves what he means by these terms. The context of this verse is referring to the sheep and the door. Jesus is the door that brings the sheep into protection. Jesus will lead them to safe pastures, but only under his care, away from “thieves and robbers.” Given Jesus’ mention of salvation in verse 9, we can understand his meaning of life is in reference to eternal life which he often speaks of throughout John’s Gospel. It is true in John’s Gospel that Jesus is giving life both now and in eternity, that the Gospel is about more than a “future salvation”, so understanding this we can know that the abundant life does apply to this one as well. But allow Scripture to interpret itself. Jesus, in the same Gospel, also warns of hard times to come to those who follow him. I heard Mark Lowry once talk on this verse referring to the fact that before Christ life was full of ups and downs. Come to Christ and your life will be even more full, the ups will be greater, but so can the downs.



As we will talk about in the next post, the Gospel is more than a call to a good life or to deliverance from eternal judgment. It is also a call to faithful obedience to Christ in both good and bad times of life.

Living out the Gospel: Part 2 – The Evangelical Message

Evangelical tracts, church websites, evangelistic messages in concerts and other crusade type meetings all focus on the same basic principles. Perhaps the most simplified version of these presentations is the famed 4 Spiritual Laws Gospel tract. As a student in college I was required to memorize these 4 laws and be able to present them to a class. While these may be helpful in creating converts, the question is whether they are useful in creating disciples. However, as important a question this may be, they do provide the doctrinal aspects of the Gospel in a rather succinct manner, which is what we will seek to do in this entry.

The basic Gospel message holds to that title--basic. From a doctrinal standpoint, the message is simple. Rather than start where Campus Crusade and Bill Bright did with the 4 Spiritual Laws, we begin at a much earlier starting point--the Fall.

Man was created innocent in the Garden, having full fellowship with God. In Genesis 3, man chose to disobey the one simple command God gave the first couple, and thus sin entered the world. Because of this we are all born in a fallen state, unable to live the holy lives required to be in God’s presence (Rom 5:18-19).

Because God is Holy and Just, he is required to seek justice against the sin of man. The only way for justice is for God to pour out his wrath on man. Thus all are under God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3; Heb 9:27; 2 Thess. 1:6-8).

But God is also merciful, and so to act in accordance with his mercy and love for his creation, he sent his son to bear God’s wrath in our place at the cross (John 3:16). Accepting Christ’s call to believe and follow him results in our salvation from his wrath (Acts 16:31). Jesus death is the payment of our penalty. God’s justice is satisfied, not by being placed on us but on Christ.

The trouble with this presentation is the opportunity for what many call “easy believism.” What is missing from this message is actually in the message but easily overlooked--the call to follow Christ.

Living out the Gospel: Part 1 - Introduction

What is the Gospel? How do we share it with others? What affect should it have on our lives when we become followers of Christ? What part does the Gospel play in the lives of those who have been Christian for years? These questions have been coming to mind a great deal lately and I have found myself rethinking the common view of the Gospel message in the evangelical church. These next few posts will be an attempt to journey through a process of understanding what the Gospel really is and what we should expect as a result.

The journey into this study started at the beginning of my seminary career, but has not been happening in earnest until the last few months. My upbringing took place in a Baptist church that held to a very typical view of the Gospel – that Christ dies for our sins and if we just believe in him and pray to ask for forgiveness, we will receive salvation. That is the extent. That is what was taught. Then afterward came a long but unwritten list of do’s and don’ts, typical of those churches coming out of the fundamentalist movement. Though the church taught salvation was eternally secure, this holiness view made us live in fear of having “not experienced true salvation” when we first accepted Christ. We lived on constant fear of ensuring our assurance and wariness to never backslide.

Then during my years of college I began to seriously question this “legalistic” form of a baptistic faith. I began to understand the role of grace and forgiveness, that it wasn’t about rules and regulations, but simply living to please Christ in everything we do. While I am convinced this set me on the path to where I am today, I still did not see how the Gospel actually was a part of this “post-salvation-experience” life. The Gospel only applied to those in need of salvation and those who are in process of obtaining salvation.

Then came seminary, and the key word of these years in my experience has been “relationship.” The Christian faith is being redefined from first being a religion, to then being a simple world-view or ‘way of life’ to now being about relationship. This created a significant conflict in my mind as I sought to continue in the journey of separating myself from my once legalistic religion. Then added into the discussion of relationship is the word community. I have come to believe both are important, both are results of the call of the Gospel, but they do not constitute the Gospel.

One last thing; influences. I would like to send out some thank-yous because I have not been going through this thought process alone. Many have stimulated thoughts, guided my thinking, and given feedback. Others have directed me toward some great books on the subject which I will list below. Of particular thanks, one goes to Dr. Roger Peugh at Grace Theological Seminary. He has been thinking through these things for years and has stimulated a great deal of my own thinking on the subject. I will not claim that my conclusions and his are the same, only he can answer that. But he has helped direct me toward particular Scriptures and other books along the way. Also, thanks to a fellow blogger, Jonathan Erdman, for also stimulating many thoughts about my faith. Again, I do not agree with everything he says and writes, but he challenges me on a regular basis. Also, thanks to many classmates and small groups I’ve been in whom I have bounced ideas off of and have also received other ideas from. The number of people in this list could be numerous.

Here are the books that have been helpful along the way (and of which I am sure I will be quoting in the following posts): The Lost Art of Disciple Making, The Master Plan of Evangelism, Mentoring for Mission, Love One Another: Becoming the Church Jesus Longs For, and Sacred Marriage.

Regina Spektor "Laughing With" - thoughts?

I was directed to Josh Harris' blog where he posted this and I found even the comments to the blog interesting. The song is not clear as to whether she is speaking against the vain and even blasphemous mentions of God in everyday speech or if she is truly feeling the absence of God in even the hard times. What are your thoughts?



Laughing With Lyrics:

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor

No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one's laughing at God when it's gotten real late and their kid's not back from that party yet

No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shake
No one's laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they're mistaken
No one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say "We've got some bad new, sir,"
No one's laughing at God when there's a famine, fire or flood

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they're about to choke

God can be funny
When told he'll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious
Ha ha
Ha ha

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one's laughing at God when they've lost all they got and they don't know what for

No one laughs at God on the day they realize that the last sight they'll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes
No one's laughing at God when they're saying their goodbyes

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they're about to choke

God can be funny
When told he'll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war

No one's laughing at God in a hospital
No one's laughing at God in a war

No one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor

No one's laughing at God
No one's laughing at God
No one's laughing at God
We're all laughing with God

Laughing With by Regina Spektor from the album Far

Hermeneutical Hypocrisy?

I have been pondering some things lately and in the process I came to a realization but want to get some feedback before I make any final conclusions on this thought. So for all you theologically and philosophically minded people out there, I could use your help.

The topic I am studying is the biblical teaching on divorce, and I was reading an article today from the theological journal Didaskalia, and it provoked some thoughts. If you are curious and have access, the article is titled “Divorce and Remarriage in Church History” and it is by David Smith (Sp 2000, p 59-75).

Here is the thought: in Matthew’s gospel is the primary teaching of Jesus on divorce, and there is the infamous clause that has created significant controversy. Either way, it seems Jesus gives the ok for a particular form of divorce related to some form of sexual immorality (see Matthew 5:31-32). The Greek word there is porneia, which is debatable as to what form of sexual immorality Christ is referring to, but most believe it to be adultery. This does not mean he is condoning divorce, only that he is allowing it in this particular case.

But let us consider this in its context. Just before our divorce text, Jesus gives a teaching on lust and adultery. The teaching there is that even lusting after a woman is committing adultery. He is getting at the heart of the law and going beyond the simple letter of the law. Even before that we have the passage on hating a brother is the equivalent of murder, again the heart of the law versus the letter of the law. Put all this together:

If looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and sexual immorality which is typically accepted as being adultery in Matthew 5:32 is grounds for divorce, is it possible to say Jesus was implicating lust as being legitimate grounds for divorce? I titled this blog “Hermeneutical Hypocrisy” because it seems we are forcing a limiter on Christ’s teaching on divorce, ignoring the context. We are forcing our desired understanding into the text?

Again, this is where I am asking for help out there, to see if there is a flaw in the logic. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Grace Be With You

What a nice way to close a letter! Warm fuzzies spread through the body as we close out conversations and letters with the simple phrase (or maybe a slightly more developed form) “grace be with you.” Paul liked to use this, giving some form of it in every one of his letters. But is that all this is? Some trite statement that sounds like a simple, nice way to open and close a letter? I do not believe so.

Consider the nature of Paul’s letters. Typically, his purpose in writing is to address a spiritual or theological issue plaguing the church. The letters usually consist of two parts, the first doctrine, and the second action. We could label them as the first the Orthodoxy section, and the second as the Orthopraxy section The second is always rooted in the first as if to say; “this is what we believe, now here is what we should do as a result of that belief.” Yet, with a careful reading of the orthopraxy, it seems as though his desires of what the church should do is unattainable. These are high and lofty demands!

Rooted throughout his demands though is one thing we can never forget. Paul’s writings are loaded with the centrality of the Gospel. He knows that in everything, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, the Gospel is what gives it power, what makes both possible. Without Christ, doctrine is useless and practice is hopeless. It is this fact, this Gospel, that makes “grace be with you” more than just a trite statement to give the readers warm fuzzies. The grace of Christ is what makes anything Paul writes about possible, without his grace we are powerless to live a life that is pleasing to him.

Think for example; Timothy, a young man is placed in charge of a troubled church and Paul gives him this list of things he wants Timothy to do to make the church become strong again. The charge is immense, almost impossible. But Paul closes out the letter with a very simple statement, three words in the Greek; “grace be with you.” I can hear Timothy now, reading those words; “ahhh.” Timothy may have been overwhelmed, but that simple reminder let him know God is with him, God’s grace is upon him, and because God’s grace is there for him, he can do what he has been charged to do.

So as we face the tasks of life, seeking to live according to the holy will of God, just remember this statement and all its implications:

GRACE BE WITH YOU.

Debating The Bible

A discussion came up tonight between a friend of mine and I after we got out of a class about when is it appropriate to get into a debate about theology and when should we just keep our mouths shut.

It seems as if spiritually young people tend to enjoy debating theology a great deal, especially those who are in the process of learning the finer points of theology. I can remember as I got into Bible college spending many late nights (or should I say early mornings) debating theology with others. My friend mentioned that shortly after he became a Christian, he found himself debating a large number of issues with people, but only found those debates to stir people up into a frenzy of passionate anger. Is this fruitful? My 3:00am debates were typically more subdued, but I think that was only because it was 3:00 in the morning.

Since then, I have found myself feeling less and less inclined to enter into debate. I wonder why this is. Maybe it is theological laxity; the idea that I have ceased to care about the finer points of theology. Or maybe it is wearisome feelings about the idea of debate itself, that I no longer feel I have the energy to enter into debate. Or maybe it is a sign of growth in the maturation process. Personally, I am convinced it is a mixture of all three.

We do need to be cautious. We need to be aware of attacks that come against the Christian faith, because many, if not most, come in very subtle forms. Diligence is required on the part of the shepherd over his flock. We as "professionals in ministry" must remain diligent in equal manner. But we also must approach the defense of the Gospel in a wise and savvy manner. We should not seek to debate theology simply for the purpose of debate (which is what most of those 3am debates were). All that does is create division. Ask this, how often do these debates result in people changing their views. Most of the time it is two or more people willing to press their views while having no interest in what the other person is trying to say. I am convinced that the only time it is appropriate and even necessary to enter into serious theological debate is when foundational theological principles are at stake. These are things that relate directly to the possibility of and even the precise nature of salvation itself. Other things I am willing to discuss with people who have humility in their theology as I seek to have humility in my own, but outside of that is a realm I will no longer enter.

And this is not a new problem. Paul told Titus in 3:9-11 to avoid foolish controversies. I am convinced what Paul was getting at is to avoid those debated issues that are not relevant to the promotion of the Gospel. Notice, if someone attacked the Gospel message, Paul had no problem speaking out. But when it came to lesser issues, Paul avoided them because they were "unprofitable and worthless", only causing "division." I believe this is something those of us particularly living in the academic world of theological studies really need to take to heart. We constantly need to check ourselves and ask what is really important. What must we absolutely stand up for and defend at all costs, and what debates should we leave aside.