How much do you read the Bible?

Probably the most commonly talked about spiritual discipline in the Church is Bible reading. Every Christian realizes that they should be reading the Bible every day and, in my experience, most Christians don't believe they are reading the Bible enough, even if they are reading every day. So, what should be done about it?
For starters, we have to connect the idea that Bible reading should be done, to the results promised in the word of God. Why should we read the Bible? Let's take a look.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Psalm 1:1, 2
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.

So we see that the word of God is useful for training in righteousness and enables us to be complete, that it sanctifies us when we read it and that it is a blessing when we delight in it. Many other scriptures could be offered, but they all pretty much fall in the categories presented in the above verses. I think most people reading this are on board so far. They see the need to read the Bible and read it more. They see the truth in the verses presented about how the word can shape our life. How do we turn that knowledge into action so that we can actually reap the benefits of consistently reading God's word?
I think the answer is screen time. This used to be just TV time, but now with the advances in technology and the pervasiveness of the use of Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and other social media as well as just plain old surfing the Internet, researchers call this screen time. When considering the time we spend in front of screens, there is ample time to read more of the Bible daily. Tape recorded versions of the Bible have proven that you can read through the Bible in 71 hours, so strap in and get busy. Just kidding. That is a stark number though; what does it mean? "The average person in the United States watches that much television [71 hours] in less than two weeks." (Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life by Donald S. Whitney, page 29) That is about 5 hours a day for two weeks on average. The book I am quoting from was written in 1991. How much has that increased since then? The Nielsen report from the 4th quarter of 2014 reports that electronic media time per day for the average US citizen was 11 hours. When you remove the radio time, that's about 8 hours a day in front of screens. (2) That would be 112 hours in two weeks. You could read the Bible 1.5 times through in that period.
Now, I am not suggesting that anyone give up TV (and their entire life!) to sit around and read the Bible cover to cover every two weeks. But, if we crunch some of these numbers we can turn this into useful data. Let's start big.

1. If, instead of 8 hours screen time, you spent the 8 hours reading the Bible, what would you end up with? You could read through the Bible every 9 days. That would be 40 times through in 1 year.

2. How about 7 hours reading the Bible? Completed every 10 days. 36 times per year.

3. 6 hours? Every 12 days. 30 times per year.

4. 5 hours? Every 14 days. 26 times per year.

5. 4 hours? Every 18 days. 20 times per year.

6. 3 hours? Every 24 days. 15 times per year.

7. 2 hours? Every 36 days. 11 times per year.

8. 1 hour? Every 71 days. 5 times per year.

Most of these numbers seem pretty ridiculous. I doubt many people could truly read for 4-8 hours a day. But, I bet there are some people that could read for 2-3 hours and I would guarantee that almost everyone in the Church could read for 1 hour a day. How would you like to read through the Bible 5 times per year? How do you think that would change you over the course of a year if you were constantly allowing God's word to wash over you intellectually and spiritually day in and day out like the ebb and flow of the ocean tides? I dare say you would be a radically different person that looked and thought more like Jesus Christ. If you are a disciple of the Lord, don't you want that?
I want to finish by offering you more practical information. Below is a list of times for reading each book of the Bible. These are averages, so you may be a little faster or slower, but it will give you a general idea. This can help you to plan your reading time. For instance, it takes 3.5 hours to read Genesis. There are 50 chapters in the book. You could split that into 4, hour-long sessions (4 days). That means you should read 13, 13, 12, and 12 chapters on those days. Using numbers like this may seem to take all the emotional spontaneity out of reading the Bible, but, it allows you to stay on track and be disciplined in your spiritual life which the apostle Paul compares to running a race in order to win. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.  Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.  So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.  But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Just as Paul says he does not run aimlessly, neither do professional runners. They plan their training and race strategy and they execute it to the best of their ability. You can do the same with reading the Bible if you will commit to a disciplined life of daily Bible intake.

Book	Time		Book	Time
Genesis	3.5h		Matthew	2.5h
Exodus	3h		Mark	1.5h
Leviticus	2h		Luke	1.5h
Numbers	3h		John	2h
Deuteronomy	2.5h		Acts	2.25h
Joshua	1.75h		Romans	1h
Judges	1.75h		1 Corinthians	1h
Ruth	15m		2 Corinthians	40m
1-2 Samuel	4h		Galatians	20m
1-2 Kings	4.25h		Ephesians	20m
1-2 Chronicles	4.5h		Philippians	14m
Ezra	40m		Colossians	13m
Nehemiah	1h		1 Thessalonians	12m
Esther	30m		2 Thessalonians	7m
Job	1.75h		1 Timothy	16m
Psalms	5h		2 Timothy	11m
Proverbs	1.75h		Titus	7m
Ecclesiastes	30m		Philemon	3m
Song of Songs	20m		Hebrews	45m
Isaiah	3.75h		James	16m
Jeremiah	4h		1 Peter	16m
Lamentations	20m		2 Peter	10m
Ezekiel	3.75h		1 John	16m
Daniel	1.25h		2 John	2m
Hosea	30m		3 John	2m
Joel	12m		Jude	4m
Amos	25m		Revelation	1.25h
Obadiah	4m
Jonah	8m
Micah	20m
Nahum	8m
Habakkuk	9m
Zephaniah	10m
Haggai	7m
Zechariah	40m
Malachi	11m

Thursday is Link Around the Internet Day

People know that I read a lot and they ask me what I am reading sometimes. Many times I read things and think; "I should really share this with people, it would be beneficial." So, henceforth on Thursdays, I am going to link around the internet to things that I have read throughout the week that I think you might get some useful information from. I will give the topic of the link only. You will have to click and do some reading if you want the full info.

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily endorse everything I will post here. It is up to you to read and evaluate the information and arguments. However, I will let you know if I post something I explicitly disagree with so you can have your radar up if you choose to read it.

1. On Biblical sexuality

2. On disease in the new world

3. On the virgin birth

4. On not voting

5. On love separated by civil war 

The Bible is an Idol

"The Bible is an idol, Jesus Christ is the real word. You don't need the Bible." I have read this objection from some fringe Christian groups who declare that the "word", when used in the Bible, isn't actually referring to the Bible but to the Gospel as the apostles delivered it. While technically correct, the idea, ironically turned into an idol by these groups constantly badgering other Christians on the Internet, does not capture the nuance of the organic growth of what came to be the Biblical text as we have it today. If we simply follow out the chain of events logically to our time, we can see that what was called the word in the Bible, the Gospel, came to be the Bible itself over time. This didn't happen because of any church councils or ideological crusades among a certain school of thought within Christendom, it just happened because everyone recognized what words were authoritative.
Jesus Christ, in his incarnation, was the full revelation of God. He is the real, living "word". Colossians 1:19 says: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell..." When he was here, he spent most of his time talking and teaching people about the Kingdom of God. Eventually, when the time drew near, he told his disciples the ultimate reason he was on Earth; to die for mankind so we could be reconciled to the Father. After his resurrection, he spent 40 days appearing to the apostles and teaching them, I assume more fully, about the Kingdom of God and then he ascended to heaven (Acts 1:3-11). This is the original "word" that is spoken of most often in the New Testament (see Romans 10:17). When Jesus was gone, what happened to it? He left it with the apostles, with a promise that the Holy Spirit would bring it to their remembrance (John 14:26) and a command to tell everyone (Matthew 28:18-20).
The apostles did just that. In the process they turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). What were they telling people? The word that Jesus had told them. They were sharing the Gospel with anyone and everyone who would listen. As the Gospel expanded, they taught the disciple community in Jerusalem, the Samaritans, Jews and Gentiles in Syrian Antioch, Galatia, Phrygia, Asia, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome. At first, as they evangelized, they did this in person. As they planted churches, they also wrote letters with more instruction about God's kingdom that was recognized as being more than just human writing. One example would be 2 Peter 3:15-16:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Notice how Peter referred to Paul's writings; as scripture. Other examples would be 1 Thess. 2:9-13; Gal. 1:11, 12; and 1 Cor. 14:36, 37. This was recognized all over the Christian world, so these letters, and the Gospels/Acts being written at the same time, were copied, preserved, disseminated, and very widely read by the entire Church (with a big "C"!). So, Christ, the original word, taught the word to the apostles, who taught the word to the disciple community in the 1st century by mouth and letter. What happened when the apostles died off? As you have probably already figured out, the Church was already copying, preserving, disseminating, and reading the "word" in the form of letters and Gospels/Acts.
When we look just past the time of the apostles, circa 100 AD, we see that the early church fathers clearly distinguished between their words and the apostles preserved words in the copied letters, Gospels, and Acts. For example, here is Ignatius from about 110 AD:

I do not order you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am even until now, a slave. (To the Romans 4:3)

By 170-180 AD, the Muratorian fragment counts 22 of 27 New Testament books as canon; leaving out only Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and 3 John. By 250 AD, Origen lists every book we would call the New Testament in his Homilies on Joshua 7.1. This list is debated, but admirably defended by Michael J. Kruger here and by Edmon L. Gallagher here.
This history shows us that the Bible grew out of the authority of Jesus Christ (God!) himself. The apostles preached his word being commanded by him to do such; the disciples treasured the apostles teachings because they had immediately recognizable authority from Jesus via the witness of the Holy Spirit. These writings were preserved and organically came to be the standard of practice for Christian life by the second to third century AD. This is well before the official canonical list was "approved" in 393 AD. So to say that the word that Jesus taught back then is the standard and the word that we have today in the Bible is an idol, is extremely misleading. To say that we don't need the Bible is to ignore the providential organizing of the written word into the canon by God himself. Finally, Christ's authority followed his words all the way into the modern translations of the Bible. It is from Jesus' authority that we can have confidence in the Bible as "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

What do you believe?

Belief can be a tricky thing. As humans, we are very good at rationalizing away something we know to be wrong and believe it anyway. One of the hallmarks of a faulty belief system is that it fails tests of internal consistency. This means you hold two beliefs that when put side by side can't both be right. A survey was done by Ligonier Ministries and Lifeway Research this year concerning the beliefs of evangelicals. Most of the statements deal directly with weighty theological issues. The obvious concern when looking at the data is that self-identified evangelicals don't believe foundational tenets of the Christian faith. But, when thinking about the statements and responses a little more deeply, there appear cracks in the internal consistency of people's beliefs. I think this would be a great way to test yourself. So, rather than give you a summary, I am going to reproduce the statements in this post and then link to the website with the breakdown of responses. Write down your own answers and see where you fall. You may answer: agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree strongly, or not sure.

1. God is a perfect being and cannot make a mistake.

2. God knows everything that occurs in the world but does not determine all that happens.

3. God continues to answer specific prayers.

4. God is the author of Scripture.

5. There is one true God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

6. God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

7. God created male and female.

8. Biblical accounts of the physical (bodily) resurrection of Jesus are completely accurate. This event actually occurred.

9. Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.

10. Jesus is truly God and has a divine nature, and Jesus is truly man and has a human nature.

11. The Holy Spirit is a force but is not a personal being.

12. The Holy Spirit gives a spiritual new birth or new life before a person has faith.

13. The Holy Spirit is a divine being but is not equal with God the Father and Jesus.

14. Modern science discredits the claims of Christianity.

15. Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.

16. People have the ability to turn to God on their own initiative.

17. Even the smallest sin deserves eternal damnation.

18. By the good deeds that I do, I partly contribute to earning my place in heaven.

19. The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true.

20. The Bible was written for each person to interpret as he or she chooses.

21. The Bible alone is the written word of God.

22. The Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.

23. A person obtains peace with God by first taking the initiative to seek God and then God responds with grace.

24. An individual must contribute his or her own effort for personal salvation.

25. Salvation always begins with God changing a person so they will turn to Him in faith.

26. Heaven is a place where all people will ultimately be reunited with their loved ones.

27. Hell is an eternal place of judgment where God sends all people who do not personally trust in Jesus Christ.

28. God would be fair to show His wrath against sin.

29. There will be a time when Jesus Christ returns to judge all the people who have lived.

30. Worshiping alone or with one’s family is a valid replacement for regularly attending church.

31. Churches that do not preach from the Bible should not be considered a Christian church.

32. My local church has the authority to withhold the Lord’s Supper from me and exclude me from the fellowship of the church.

33. The church should be silent on issues of politics.

34. There is little value in studying or reciting historical Christian creeds and confessions.

35. God is unconcerned with my day-to-day decisions.

36. God has authority over all people because He created human beings.

37. The Bible has the authority to tell us what we must do.

38. Humans exist to bring God glory and to enjoy Him.

39. Sex outside of traditional marriage is a sin.

40. Abortion is a sin.

41. Gender identity is a matter of choice.

42. God will always reward true faith with material blessings.

43. The Bible’s condemnation of homosexual behavior doesn’t apply today.

44. The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.

45. It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.

46. Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.

47. Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.




Here is the link: http://thestateoftheology.com/. You can use the data explorer at the top right to view each question and you can see data from the 2014 survey to see how the answers changed on the questions that were asked in both years.

Faith in the History of the Church

I have recently finished reading a book about heresy throughout the history of the Church. It is aptly named Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present by Harold O. J. Brown. I am currently reading Evangelism in the Early Church by Michael Green. Both of these are excellent books about the Church in history. One thing they have in common is their assessment of the Church's view of faith during all of its varied phases: its birth in the Apostolic era, the subapostolic era of the great apologists, the ecumenical council era dealing with Christology, and so on. Their assessment is very pertinent to the state of the Church in America in our time.
The American Church tends to be split into distinct camps where one camp does not interact with the other. One camp is interested in the intellectual aspects of the faith: serious study of the Bible, seminary education is held in high esteem, apologetics are a mainstay of evangelistic efforts. Another camp is interested in the spiritual aspects of the faith: Holy Spirit led everything, emotion driven worship and devotion, experience is the hallmark of evangelistic efforts. The issue with these camps is that they are both right. They just ignore the opposite end of the spectrum to their detriment.
There needs to be a blending of these two aspects for the Church to be healthy and engaging in evangelism effectively. The intellectual church needs to open their heart to the influence of the Holy Spirit (in full measure, I am not saying they are not led by the Holy Spirit now) and remember that we are a new creation in Christ; including our emotions (2 Cor. 5:17). The spiritual church needs to open their mind to the influence of sound scholarship and Biblical interpretation principles and realize that virtually every New Testament epistle was written to correct false or misguided teaching and doctrine that had found its way into local congregations. I once heard a great quote from Ravi Zacharias: "Spirituality must always be objectively bounded by the limitations of truth." Ravi was addressing people who say they are spiritual, but not religious, but I think we could tweak this for the spiritual church. Emotions must always be objectively bounded by the limitations of truth. Of course, that objective truth is the Word of God.
I say all that to now return to the two books I referenced above. The assessment of faith that both of these authors offer is this: faith is a twofold action of belief. It is both intellectual assent and active personal trust. Its object is Jesus Christ. We must trust the person and work of Jesus Christ in order to be saved, not just pieces of information about him. While we all believed when we were saved, this is also an ongoing process that God uses to prepare us for the glory to come. Sanctification, among other things, is this process of communing in prayer with God, serving Him by serving others, and so on. This is the active personal trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior that makes up part of the equation that equals faith. However, the other side of the equation has an equally important and logically primary role in this active trust. Intellectual assent to propositions about Jesus Christ serve to inform our active trust. An easy way to look at this is to ask the 5 W's and 1 H of journalism with regard to Jesus.

1. Who was Jesus Christ?
2. What is the significance of Jesus Christ?
3. When did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?
4. Why did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?
5. Where did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?
6. How did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?

If we answer these real quickly in the way the early church did, we can get an orthodox picture of Jesus Christ. This is the picture that we should be assenting to intellectually.

1. Jesus is Lord or He is the Son of God. (both of these mean Jesus is God; Acts 2:36; 9:20)
2. He died for your sins and was raised from the dead, so that you might be reconciled to God through his blood if you believe in faith. (Acts 3:26; 4:12)
3. 1st century AD after John the Baptist's ministry. (Acts 10:37)
4. So we could repent and be forgiven of our sins. (Acts 5:31; 10:43)
5. Judea, Galilee, and Jerusalem. (Acts 10:37)
6. He died on the cross as our passover lamb, thereby giving us a way to be cleansed from sin (1 Cor. 5:7). This transaction (our belief in his sacrifice) is called forensic justification. He took our sins and we took his righteousness. Typically called imputation. (2 Cor. 5:21)

You can see that by answering those simple questions we have a clear picture of Christ's person and work. This gives us a solid foundation on which to stand and place our trust. Without that foundation, something is wrong. If I believe Christ was a good moral teacher who was significant for bringing Indian guru teaching to Israel, is that OK? If I believe that Christ was a prophet that didn't really die on the cross is that OK? If I believe that Christ is not really God, but a spirit child of God, just like I am, is that OK? If I believe that Christ is not actually real, but a myth that I can lean on for moral guidance in my life, is that OK? If I believe that Christ did not literally and historically rise from the dead, but he rose "in my heart" (i.e. it's just a metaphor), is that OK?
I think you get the point. Active personal trust is what we do after intellectual assent to the appropriate, factually correct propositions about Jesus Christ. The knowledge must precede the worship, if you will. This doesn't mean you have to answer the 5 W's and an H the way I did. I did that off the top of my head. You may be able to answer them a lot more simply (or more complicated), but still be correct. The point is that you have to answer them correctly before you can have faith that moves you into the business of active personal trust that is part of the ongoing sanctification process that God is leading us through. Since the American Church seems to split down these intellectual and spiritual lines, each side is missing a key component of what makes for a robust faith. We must strive to walk the line between these two worlds so that our faith is not easily shaken. That means having a sound theological understanding of Christ's person and work as well as a thriving personal relationship with the creator and sustainer of the universe.

Science and the Bible According to Andy Stanley

Much has been said recently about Andy Stanley's sermon series "Who Needs God?", particularly his comments about the Bible in the third installment; "The Bible Tells Me So". His statements about the foundation of faith in Jesus Christ are very confused and take a classical apologetic approach much to far. Classical apologetics will take a presupposition like the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible and, for the sake of argument, lay that aside. But, Andy Stanley seems to be encouraging the jettisoning of that view in everything but name only. There has been some very good analysis of the problems with his position already. I won't comment on them anymore. See the links below, including one that supports Pastor Stanley.

http://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-bible-foundational-to-christianity-engaging-with-andy-stanley/

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/is-christianity-bookish-faith.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-big-bad-wolf.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/inerrancy-and-general-historical.html

http://crossexamined.org/andy-stanley-right-foundation-christianity-defend/  (defends Andy Stanley)

What I would like to address are his comments in the second part; "Gods of the No Testament". The part I will discuss below starts at about 25 minutes in on the message only version.

http://northpointonline.tv/messages/who-needs-god/gods-of-the-no-testament

In the sermon, Andy rightly attacks people's misconceived notions about who God is. The aptly named "somebody-told-me-so god". In other words, someone along the line told a Christian this is who God is, but in reality that's not correct, such as; "bodyguard god". This god stops at nothing to protect you and supply all your needs according to your whim at the moment. Andy gives other examples of gods that are not real and does a fair job of deconstructing them. Where he falls apart, however, is in "anti-science god". His overarching message is that the details of creation do not constitute the foundation of our faith and we shouldn't abandon God over them. For instance, and this is my example, not his; a hyper-literal reading of the Bible would suggest that the Earth is flat. When someone finds out, after being told that the Earth is flat, that we have scientific and photographic evidence that the Earth is round, they shouldn't abandon God. They should rethink their interpretation of scripture by paying attention to poetic or metaphoric language based on the literary genre of the passage they are reading. So, here, I think Pastor Stanley is correct. However, he quickly ventures into dangerous territory.
His opening remarks about "anti-science god" pit "undeniable science vs. unreliable religion". He also says: "When religion and science conflict, at the end of the day, if you are an honest person, science must win. But the message that we get sometimes, the message you grew up with, and perhaps the reason you just walked away from God, is you grew up with a message that said; "Quit thinking and start believing!". This is very confused. Of course, if you were told to quit thinking, then that is wrong. But, does that mean that you just believe science in every instance where it supposedly conflicts with the Bible? Hardly. I'm not suggesting we ignore the advances of science, but Andy is talking about science as if it is an authoritative and infallible body of knowledge that should never be challenged. Really!? If scientific knowledge is monolithic and infallible, why are there so many competing theories on various topics? Let's take cosmology for instance. Which theory of the universes' origin is undeniable? The standard model, oscillating model, chaotic inflationary model, vacuum fluctuation model, quantum gravity model, or the cyclic ekpyrotic model? The standard model is the generally accepted model of universe origins due to its broad defensibility based on observable evidence, although opinion is somewhat splintered. Guess what? This model fits with a plain reading of Genesis 1 on either a young earth or an old earth view.
Andy continues by saying that "God or science is a false alternative". Three cheers for him! I totally agree. But then he puts his foot in his mouth with a terrible example. Christians are hypocrites for using medicinal science to heal our kids and ignoring science in other areas. We take them to the doctor while we pray in the background. This is some major equivocation concerning "science". Medicinal science is not the same as say, theoretical astrophysics. First of all, the use of antibiotics for instance, does not conflict with anything in the Bible. Praying and taking your kid to the doctor is perfectly OK. There is no command in scripture that says we should only pray to God when someone gets sick. This also ignores the fact that ultimately, God's sovereignty and providence rule that situation anyway, no matter what the doctors do. Secondly, as I said before, Andy is equivocating on the term science. He is putting all things considered science into one big lump and clearly they are not the same. He is using an obviously wrongheaded example, the use of doctors and medicine for sick kids, to say that we, as Christians, should accept all science, even when it conflicts with the Bible. That is a false transference that doesn't logically follow.
Just to make sure we're not confused, Andy says: "The moment your theology conflicts with the discoveries of science, you have a theological problem, not a science problem." And a little later: "We're hypocrites. If we lean into science for our health, why would we reject science in any other capacity?" It is no wonder why Andy views the Bible the way he does. He has an "undeniable" body of science that informs his worldview, including how he reads and interprets the Bible. In my understanding of what his sermon means: he isn't suggesting that we see where our reading of scripture might be wrong in light of science (or vice versa) and then see how we can attempt to make them compatible, like the flat Earth example above (if compatibility, broadly speaking, is possible and I'm not saying that it is in all cases); he is suggesting that we always believe in the science and simply abandon scripture that doesn't fit or reinterpret it to make it fit. This is a very misinformed and confused view of the interplay of science and religion. Look here for a short, but informative article about this topic. As believers in Jesus, I think we are called to read two books. The Bible and the book of nature or what theologians have traditionally called natural revelation. We should always be asking the question: are we, as fallen humanity, reading both correctly?
Andy also seems to be missing the fact that the preaching of the Gospel, combined with the drawing of the Father to Christ and the conviction of the Holy Spirit on an unbeliever, are how God has ordained salvation to be effected. As I have taught in my classes at church, apologetic methods are a secondary tool to the Gospel. In the end, I think Andy Stanley wants to knock down as many barriers as possible to faith in Jesus Christ. I think he is muddying the waters by taking his apologetic method too far. These are noble intentions, but noble intentions don't always produce noble results.

Calling Men to Salvation

One of the major questions that has been argued about for centuries centers around God calling men to himself in order to save them. Does he call everyone? Does he only call the elect? One of the central texts in this debate is Romans 8:29-30:

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Some observations of the text itself are in order first. First, God foreknows people ("those"). Because he foreknows people, he predestined them. Those predestined are the ones called. The calling follows the predestining. Then the called are justified and glorified. Keeping the order of God's work in mind, this raises some issues for two of the major positions on this issue: Arminianism and Molinism. Calvinism already accepts a limited atonement, which means that God only calls the elect. I'll address each of the others in turn.

Arminianism (for a comprehensive look at Arminian theology, see: A Compendium of Christian Theology by William Burt Pope, vol. 2, pg. 335ff)
This system posits that "foreknew" means that God knew beforehand who would choose him and everything else flows from that knowledge. God knew I would pick him, so I was predestined to be like Christ, so he called me, justified me, and glorified me. The problem with this position is that God's foreknowledge in this passage is of "those", i.e. individuals, not decisions. The other issue is with the call. Arminians hold that God calls everyone to salvation. This means that God both wants everyone to be saved and gives everyone that opportunity, even if not everyone accepts the salvation of the Lord and is damned as a result. The issue lies in the text itself based on the order of God's work. If God calls everyone, then he justifies and glorifies everyone. That is universalism (everyone is eventually saved by God's loving will and Christ's atonement) and can't be correct based on other biblical texts (John 3:36 for example). It appears to me that even though Arminians want to affirm a universal call, they cannot. Based on Romans 8:29-30, if God called everyone, everyone would be saved.

Molinism (for a comprehensive look at Molinist theology, see: The Only Wise God by William Lane Craig)
Molinism may not be that well known, but it is gaining some headway among some theologians and Christian philosophers. Molinism posits that God has middle knowledge. This means that God knows what person P would do in circumstance C. If God knows what everyone would do in a given set of circumstances, that gives him the ability to create a world in which he has already taken into account all of his creatures free decisions before he instantiates the world we see now. This is seen as a way to protect the libertarian freedom of humans while also acknowledging the absolute sovereignty of God. So, in the Romans passage, a Molinist would simply say that God's foreknowledge includes middle knowledge and all of humanity's free decisions have been considered. There are two big problems with this philosophy. The first is that we still end up at the same place concerning the call as we did with Arminianism. If God calls everyone, everyone would be saved. Molinists (as far as I know) are not universalists, but, like Arminians, hold that God calls everyone. This means the calling of God can't be for everyone. The second problem is that the Bible does not indicate that God looked at his creatures' free decisions before he created the world. In fact, Ephesians 1:3-14, God chose us "according to the purpose of his will" (v. 5) and "the counsel of his will" (v. 11). That doesn't sound like we had any input when God created the world. It sounds like God, in his divine sovereignty over all things, chose us before he created the world.

The point of this post is to show that all of the major systems of thought concerning the operation of salvation; Arminianism, Molinism, and Calvinism; end up at the same place concerning the calling of men to salvation. That is that God doesn't call everyone. This in itself raise one more issue. Many scriptures indicate that God is calling everyone (such as Acts 2:38-39). It would be silly for Peter to exhort everyone to repent and be baptized if God isn't calling everyone. What gives? In this instance I think that Calvin has it right. There are two calls of God. One, the gospel call, is for everyone. This is simply the preaching of the Gospel to everyone. The second call is called "effective calling". This call is the drawing by the Father of the individual to Christ (John 6:44). Without God's working, no one would come to him, and it is evident in several places (Acts 13:48; 16:14, etc.) that it is God doing the work of salvation in our hearts.

I realize this raises other issues, but I think that's enough for this post. If you hold to any of these systems and want to say that God calls everyone to salvation the same way, you have to explain how that doesn't result in universalism and you have to show that it is in accordance with the clear teaching of scripture. If you can't do those two things, your theory won't work. But, if you can do those two things, I'm open to hearing and discussing your theory.

A New Brand of Evangelicalism

I read a lot of articles and blogs from a variety of viewpoints online. Atheist, Mormon, Catholic; you name it, I'll read it. I like to see what more than just my own group is thinking and teaching about the truth of the reality around us. This also helps me to be aware of buzzwords that certain communities use so I can recognize (at least sometimes, though not all the time) if a writer or speaker identifies with a particular community who is teaching something antithetical to orthodox Christianity. This allows me to beware, though I still try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I thought I would share this article and offer some critique of it. The point of this post isn't to trash these "progressive evangelicals" in a personal way, but to point out that bad thinking about truth, especially with regard to matters of faith, is prevalent and something to be avoided. We should strive to be good critical thinkers. Here a link to the article, though I will quote it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-phipps/progressive-evangelicals_b_11824426.html

Note: everything from the article is in quotation marks. My own comments are not.

"There is a story in three of the four gospels where Jesus stages a protest in the temple during Passover. He releases the animals that were being sold for sacrifice, he overturns the moneychanging tables, and he rebukes the merchants for taking advantage of the poor. The story ends with Jesus shouting, “Tear down this temple, and I’ll rebuild it in three days!"

It seems disingenuous to call Jesus' actions a protest. That has so many connotations in our minds concerning the 60's and the current Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements that to call Jesus' outburst a protest seems to me an attempt at equating him with social justice movements in general. I'll point out that Jesus' mission was of a single purpose, which he addressed right from the get go: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) Christ came to call sinners to repentance and to die for that sin on the cross. Even if we could equate Jesus with social justice causes, which in many cases I don't think you can, that was secondary to his mission. What also strikes me as a mis-characterization is the authors' assertion that Jesus releases the animals. Go read it yourself (Matt 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47); it doesn't say that. It also says nothing of the poor. The money-changers and animal salesmen could have been taking advantage of any socio-economic group, including, but not limited to, the poor. Finally, the author makes things very confusing when he describes the ending of the story. Jesus' quote about the temple is found in John's gospel (2:13-22), but according to this author, this is not the same story because the cleansing of the temple is found in "three of the four gospels". I don't know what to make of this. It's just confusing.

"In John’s gospel, there is a related passage where Jesus explains that “this temple” he was talking about was his own body. He foretells that he will be killed by the Jewish authorities, then rise from the dead three days later. Meaning, everything that formally took place in the temple would soon be available in Jesus himself.

So what happened in the temple? Well, a lot.
- forgiveness of sins through sacrifice

- healing of the sick

- worship

- prayers 

- and most importantly: getting close as one could possibly get to the presence of God."

Again, the author makes things very confusing by saying that the John quote is in "a related passage". It's in the one he quoted from above about tearing down the temple. It's the same story! I don't know what's going on here. I agree with him somewhat about what took place in the temple. The items listed were found in the temple, which would now be found in Jesus. Though, it should be noted that one of Stephen's major points in his speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7) is that God was always working outside of both the temple and the land of Israel even if the Jews didn't or refused to recognize it. Another objection is healing of the sick. This happened other places (for instance: 2 Kings 5 where Elisha heals Naaman by telling him to dip in the Jordan river 7 times). Healing didn't formally take place (whatever that even means) in the temple only.

"The temple was constructed in a series of concentric boxes. At the center of the temple was a room called the “The Inner Court.” This is where the presence of God dwelt. It was the most exclusive room in the ancient Jewish world. Only the high priest had access to this room, and even then only on certain days of the year. The next court was called “The Court Of The Jews.” Only Jewish males had access to this court. Next, was the “The Court Of Women.” Jewish Women, no matter how well they behaved were separated from God by two giant walls. The outer court, where the Jesus staged his protest was called “The Court Of Gentiles.” This is as close as non-Jewish people were allowed to get to the Divine Presence, whether male or female."

The inner court is called the Holy of Holies in the Bible. I'm not sure why the author is renaming it here. The high priest only had access to it one day of the year, not "certain days". Other than that I don't have a problem with this description.

"Humankind’s closeness to God in this culture was limited by one’s ethnicity, gender, and religious pedigree. The Gentiles were kept at a distance. They were the original group of people who “were welcome to attend,” but not “welcome to participate fully” in the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion."

While it is true that the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion were not fully open to everyone, it was widely understood in biblical Judaism that God would make a way for the Gentiles to be saved as well. Jews thought that only Jews had to do the temple rites. They would not have expected or required proselytes (converts to Judaism) to do these things. This is a half-truth that the author is asserting.

"What infuriated Jesus, then? Could it have been the walls that were constructed to keep people separated from one another and from God? Is it possible that he was outraged by all of the segregation taking place in the Name of God?"

What infuriated Jesus was the fact that the temple was holy because it was where God's presence dwelt. The answer to the next questions is, "No." I say this because Jesus wasn't concerned with walls at the temple separating people from God. He was worried about our own sin and evil separating us from God. The last question could be answered in the affirmative, but Jesus never said anything about segregation in the temple, so who knows?

"If you are a Christian, questions like these are still as relevant today for the “people of God” as they were back then. How would Jesus feel about the religious practices of Evangelical Christianity today, were he living among us?

- a church system that STILL qualifies people based on socio-economic status, race, political parties, and gender.

- a system that welcomes those who identify as LGBTQ until they decide that they want to baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity

- a system that suppresses the ordination of women and their God given gifts to serve in Christian leadership

- a system that elevates the pulpit to the stature of The Inner Court."

I'll answer each bullet in turn.
-Does the church do this? Socio-economic status and political parties are not taken into account in any church I've ever been in. Race is tricky. Churches in America are self-segregated. Blacks tend to go to church with blacks while whites go with whites. I don't know why this happens, but it isn't because "white churches" have signs that say "blacks not welcome" or vice-versa. It's just a happenstance of the society we live in. Gender is assigned by God, we can't pick our own gender. Feelings don't determine gender. If he is talking about women as pastors, I'll address that below.
-I think there is a typo in the second bullet. I think it should say "a system that DOESN'T welcome"... We should welcome those who identify as LGBTQ, while also speaking the truth in love by telling them that their lifestyle is sinful and it is their own actions that separate them from God. And now, before someone says "Hey, everyone in church is a sinner, even Christians!" (whoops, too late!). Yes, everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is living in open rebellion to God without repenting. That is the issue. Read 1 John 1:5-10. Both those who proclaim to be Christian, yet "walk in darkness", and those who say they never sin are not of God. If they are not of God, they shouldn't be baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity.
-If you ascribe to Christian complementarianism, you think that women and men have complementary roles given straight from God. In this structure, the man is head of the wife, the leader of both the household and the leadership of the Church. Is this suppression of the ordination of women? If you want to say it that way, yes, it is. But, it's straight from the Bible and therefore, from God. He has to make an argument as to why the historic reading and understanding of the Bible is not correct.
-No church I've ever been in has asserted that the pastorate is the only place where God is at and that everyone must hang on every word or teaching that comes from that leadership. This is just an absurd accusation.

"We are proud to call ourselves Progressive Evangelicals because we do not support this kind of system... and we don’t think that God does either. Were Jesus in some of our churches today, he’d likely be turning over communion tables, dashing offering plates into pieces, baptizing the marginalized, and performing ordination ceremonies for women."

It is ironic to me that they don't want the church qualifying people by political party, but then they clearly identify themselves with a political party. Progressives are squarely in the Democratic party. The "system" they don't support is a cariacture of what Evangelical Christianity actually is. I don't know if Jesus would break stuff in churches. He probably would be upset with some of them though, just as he was with some in the book of Revelation (chs. 2-3). If by marginalized, the author means those living in open sin and rebellion to God, then, no, I disagree 100%. As far as women pastors, I don't think that women can be in leadership positions in the Church based on my reading of scripture, so I don't think Jesus would ordain women. Again, he has to make a case for eagalitarianism rather than complain about "suppression" of women. There are good Christians that make that case. I, and many others, respectfully disagree.

"When we take an honest look at the life of Jesus, we begin to see that tearing down walls is more Christlike than building them. If there is anything solid we can plant our flag in, it is in the example that Jesus left behind for us to emulate- making the innermost rooms of God available to all people. If you are human, you are allowed access."

I agree, we should not build walls to keep people out of churches. However, telling people they are sinners and in need of a savior isn't building a wall, it's the truth. God has made himself available and nothing external the church could do could block the access he has granted. It is the individual who has kept themselves out of "the innermost rooms of God" by not repenting and turning away from sin and towards the only way to the Father, Jesus Christ.

"We long to be Christians that are known for this message about Jesus. The word, “evangelical” literally means “good news.” If the message of our faith doesn’t read like good news to people, perhaps we aren’t evangelical at all. Indeed, we may be something else. Selah."

Again, sin is the issue. We can't ignore people's sin. Jesus called everyone to repentance at the start of his ministry. The good news of Christ doesn't seem that important when there is no bad news (our sin) accompanying it. That is what this author doesn't understand.

The Paradoxical Gospel

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is both a simple and a complex message wherein there lies a paradox that gets to the very nature of who we are as human beings. It is simple in that Paul can give it in one sentence: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,  and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:3-5).
A very simple message indeed. But, at the same time it is very complex. The intricacies of justification as a result of the Gospel are manifold in their action. Christ's blood working through the Holy Spirit on people who "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Rom. 10:9) is efficacious for regeneration, adoption, ongoing sanctification, future glorification and redemption, being empowered to witness, and the list could go on. The Gospel message is also very complex when considering the person and work of Christ. This is abundantly evident when looking at Peter's speech on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell. As the Jews in Jerusalem from the Diaspora heard the "mighty works of God" (Acts 2:11) and then mocked the disciples for being filled with "new wine" (Acts 2:13), Peter stood up and declared that "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). While this may seem like a simple statement as Peter wraps up his argument, it is hardly that. He cites Joel 2:28-32 to indicate that the Kingdom of God is at hand based on Joel's prophecy that the last days would be when the Spirit was poured out. He cites Psalm 16:8-11 to show that Jesus is the Messiah and was not bound by death. He cites Psalm 110:1 to show that Jesus is the King the Jews have been awaiting. In verse 36, quoted earlier, he says that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. The word Lord in the Greek is kyrios which is how the Septuagint writers translated adonai from Hebrew to Greek. Adonai is the Hebrew word for lord or master and is what the Hebrews said in place of God's personal name. So what we have is the chain from Yahweh (God's personal name) to adonai (lord in Hebrew) to kyrios (lord in Greek). He also calls him Christ which is the equivalent of Messiah, Christ being from the Greek and Messiah being from the Hebrew and both of them meaning "anointed one". Peter is saying that Jesus is God and that he is the long awaited Messiah of the Jews. This is anything but a simple message.
The other part of the Gospel message concerns us as human beings. We have a nature and it isn't a good one. We need saving but we are infinitely not worthy of being saved. You could say that in a way we are worthless to God. He is anything but pleased with our actions that are contrary to his very nature and stand in open rebellion to him. In fact, Psalm 11:5-6 says: "The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. Let him rain coals on the wicked; fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup." That's right, the Lord's soul hates the wicked. He hates the sinner. Destruction is our portion when we are living in disobedience to a holy God. In the book of Romans Paul quotes Psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3 that says: "as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12). Those are universal statements: none, not one, no one, all, not even one. None of us are following God and all of us are worthless.
Yet, at the same time, we are of inestimable value in God's sight even though we rebel against him. We are made in his image (Gen. 1:26-27) and he is concerned with our every need (Matt. 6:25-32). Even though we are his enemies he has sought us out in order to reconcile us to himself through the blood of our Passover lamb, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:6-11). At the end of the book of Hosea, God shows his love for his people, the Israelites who were under a lesser covenant than the one inaugurated in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. God says in Hosea 14:4-7:
"I will heal their apostasy;
I will love them freely,
for my anger has turned from them.
I will be like the dew to Israel;
he shall blossom like the lily;
he shall take root like the trees of Lebanon;
his shoots shall spread out;
his beauty shall be like the olive,
and his fragrance like Lebanon.
They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow;
they shall flourish like the grain;
they shall blossom like the vine;
their fame shall be like the wine of Lebanon."
What beautiful imagery that God uses to show the Israelites how much he loves them even though they had committed "great whoredom" (Hosea 1:2) by turning from the Lord to useless idols. Like the Israelites in Hosea's day, we stand in the same position. Turning away from God at every moment only to have him shower his mercy on us through Jesus Christ. And that is the paradoxical message of the Gospel. The simple but complex person and work of Jesus Christ and the worthlessness of all human beings that God pursues as though we are worth something that can never be valued and for which he paid the ultimate price on the cross:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:16-17)

"How Could I Ever Say Thank You"

I heard a song on Pandora called "How Could I Ever Say Thank You?" by Kathryn Scott. It reminded me of 2 things as I listened to it. The first is a verse from Psalm 116. Verse 12 says; "How can I repay the Lord for all the good he has done for me?" This is a rhetorical question. The answer is very clearly that we cannot repay the Lord for all the good he has done for us. The very next verse (v. 13) says; "I will take the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord." That is our only option; to call on the name of the Lord who has graciously and mercifully extended his hand to the very beings that have so corrupted his wondrous creation all the while reviling the creator who has offered this grace.
The second thing that struck me about this song is a line from the chorus. In it, Kathryn sings; "Love that reaches beyond each defense. Your mercy disarms the most broken of hearts. Such complete and profound faithfulness." What entered my mind the first time I heard this was what the Marine Corps calls tactics, techniques, and procedures or in the lingo of the military, TTP's. What in the world does this have to do with Marine Corps TTP's? Well, setting up a defense is one of the most complex and intricate things a combat leader can direct. Attacking, while also complex, is a bit simpler in that, as Marines, we tend to say; "Where's the enemy? OK, over there. Let's go kill them." There are various ways to set up defenses ranging from simply putting your men in a line facing the enemy and wait for them to come (think trenches in WW1) to a defense in depth (you've probably never seen this in a movie). I'm sure many of you have seen war movies of some sort and so you can think about all the implements that are used to stop the enemy while on defense: concertina wire, landmines, machine guns in overlapping fields of fire, mortars honed in on the fields of wire, etc. You can probably imagine the D-day scenes from Saving Private Ryan and the German defenses on the beach. Very complex. Now, a defense in depth is even more intricate. This calls for, in a basic way, putting a unit out as bait to bring the enemy in to a killing zone where all your firepower is concentrated. This can be done from the fire team level (4 men; smallest unit) to the army level (think General Patton directing units this way in North Africa). Defense in depth is a strategy that is generally used when trying to delay the enemy from adavancing while preparations for a counterattack are made.
All of this is to relate just how complicated military defenses can be. It gave me a visual image that matched the song because I think that we put defenses up in an effort to stave off and delay God in our rebellion. When we were lost, we were at war with God and his enemies as we were on the side of Satan (Rom. 6:15-23). But he never stopped pursuing us. He reached behind every labyrinthine defense we could muster to seek us out even though we were not seeking him (Rom 3:10-11) and as the next line in the song says; he disarmed us. His love overcame our every defense and his mercy that he freely offers disarms us. This is "such complete and profound faithfulness" that only the God of Jesus Christ could offer. No other religion presents a God so completely soldout in his effort to bring us into the Kingdom of God. Not Islam, not Mormonism, not Jehovah's Witnesses, and I could go on. Not one. It is only Yahweh who can proclaim "Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." (Jer 31:3)
Paul makes this explicitly clear in a couple of passages from his letters that I will finish up with. Romans 5:8-10 says: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."
Titus 3:3-7 says: "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,  he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,  whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,  so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Praise be to our great God and savior, through his son Jesus Christ, our Lord!

Shepherds Feeding Themselves

There is an interesting connection between two passages in two very different books of the Bible. Jude 12 and Ezekiel 34:1-10 being those texts. Part of Jude 12 says: "These are...shepherds feeding themselves". This is said by way of analogy concerning the false teachers Jude is writing about. It is in the midst of a string of six analogies Jude uses to discuss what these false teachers are like. Likewise, Ezekiel 34:1-10 speaks of shepherds feeding themselves:

"The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?  You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep.  The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
"Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them."

The passages are related in wording and subject matter, but have a different audience. Jude is addressing Christians with a warning of these false teachers who will do nothing but feed themselves. Ezekiel is prophesying a word from God directed at the shepherds of Israel as a warning of their evil behavior. While these passages are separated by a considerable amount of time from each other and from our time, they carry the same lesson that can help us right now. Ezekiel was written from approximately 595-575 BC. Most of the book is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC as well as the promises God makes to restore Israel. Jerusalem was destroyed because God had become fed up with the idolatry taking place in Israel. The "shepherds of Israel" were not merely participating in the idolatrous practices of the people, they were leading them (Ezekiel chapters 5-16). Jude most likely wrote late in the apostolic era, sometime around 65-80 AD. False teachers had slithered in to a congregation that Jude had apparently taught (Jude 5) and encouraged the disciples to use the grace of God to practice sexual immorality (Jude 4).
What can be said concerning how this relates to our time is this: there were shepherds feeding themselves in Ezekiel's time; 600 years later there were shepherds feeding themselves in Jude's time; chances are there are shepherds feeding themselves in our time (Jesus said there would be tares; Matt. 13:24-30) and these passages give us a clue as to what they act like and how we should deal with them.

1. Feeding the sheep is the shepherd's job. If a leader is feeding himself first, he isn't doing his job. If he isn't caring for the weak, the sick, the injured, or the strayed and lost, he isn't doing his job. If he is leading people astray with false teachings and encouraging sinful lifestyles, he isn't doing his job.
2. Ruling with force and harshness is not the way to lead. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). If a leader doesn't reflect these there is something wrong.
3. In the Ezekiel passage, verse 10, the Lord says: "I will require my sheep at their hand". Shepherds will be held accountable for the guidance they give their flock. This goes both ways: bad shepherds will face a fearful judgment and should be warned when they are not fulfilling their duties, and possibly even shunned and ignored while a body of believers builds themselves up (Jude 19-20), while good shepherds should be honored and given the benefit of the doubt considering the huge responsibility they have in being entrusted with a flock from God.

There are a lot of people putting themselves out there as "shepherds" of God's people in various ways. As an example, go to Lifeway or Family Christian bookstores and check out the enormous number of books being written about just about any topic you can think of concerning the Christian life. They are all trying to be shepherds in some way to the body of Christ. The message of this post is that not all of the people who put themselves forward as leaders should be trusted as sent from God. 1 John 4:1 says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." It is our duty as Christians to test every spirit and see if they are acting in accordance with the guidelines God has shown us in his word.

Why I am Not a Mormon

I grew up Mormon or a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). I have family that is still very involved and devoted to the teaching of the LDS church. The basic story of the LDS church is that the true gospel (the one we have in the Bible) was lost from the earth when the apostles died out and God chose to restore it through Joseph Smith in a series of visions and revelations (that later with even more revelation became the Doctrine and Covenants) and by showing him where the Book of Mormon was buried and then helping him translate it. The Book of Mormon is supposedly another testament of Jesus Christ. Specifically, it is the story of the peoples of the Americas, who are supposedly Israelites, and their eventual descent into corruption when all the good peoples were wiped out. You can read more in detail about their beliefs here.
In 2012 when God began to call me and draw me to his Son I started to investigate the claims made by Christians. In particular, I watched Lee Strobel's documentary of his book The Case for Christ. In it he made a claim that I had never heard: that the Bible generally and the New Testament in particular was reliable beyond any doubt. From there I  read until, on an intellectual level, I was convinced that that claim was true. As I continued to struggle towards salvation and trust in Jesus Christ, I gave Mormon claims the same evaluation that I gave to Christian ones. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that Mormon claims don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Here are some of the things that I found in my studies and why I am not a Mormon (anymore).

1. The claim that the Bible has been changed and corrupted is false. This is a primary claim of the LDS church. Nobody in this debate is disputing that what the apostles and prophets wrote in biblical times is actually from God. What is disputed is whether or not the writings have survived accurately down to this time. Well, they have and I have posted about it here after reading and studying this issue on both sides for a couple of years. The other problem with the Mormon view of the Bible's corruption is that they accept the King James Version as being correctly translated, but the KJV has passages that clearly contradict doctrines that arose later in Mormon development.

2. The Book of Mormon does not hold up to the same investigation that the Bible does. It isn't historically reliable. There are no specific places mentioned that can be identified today. It has many anachronisms that are very hard to explain. For instance, at the end of Jacob 7:27 it says: "Brethren, adieu." This supposedly took place around 544-421 B.C. The French language doesn't start to appear until the 1st century A.D. How did a French word appear in writings from 500 B.C.? The LDS church offers this answer:

"Some have questioned the use of the French word adieu in Jacob 7:27. One author explained:

“The choice of words came through the manner of the language of Joseph Smith, so that we might have understanding. This is why words not known in Book of Mormon times are found in the translated text.

“The word adieu is defined in a dictionary of Joseph Smith’s day as ‘a farewell; an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends’ [meaning that I commend you to God]. (Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828). While the word is of French origin, it had found common usage in early nineteenth century New England” (Edward J. Brandt, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Oct. 1985, 17)."

It was given in Joseph Smith's language in which adieu was common at that time. This leads me to my next point.

3. The language of Jospeh Smith's time was not King James English. The Book of Mormon was "translated" into King James English, but this was not the spoken dialect of western New York state in the mid-1800's. The story of the Book of Mormons' translation is this: Joseph Smith was directed to recover the buried plates and by the use of a seeing stone God gave him the translation word for word. But why would God render it in an English translation that he didn't speak and then insert a French word that Smith used with the lingo of his time? Why didn't God translate the entire Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith's lingo as the LDS church says they did for the word adieu? Numbers 2 and 3 go together and are a small example of the enormous problems with the text of the Book of Mormon.

4. No one actually saw the golden plates that constituted the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith goaded and intimidated people into saying they saw the plates. No one really did. You can read a long article here. 

5. The 11 witnesses at the beginning of the Book of Mormon had problems staying true to the faith. They are split into a group of 3; Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris and a group of 8; Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith. All of these men attested to seeing the plates. The 3 witnesses were all excommunicated from the LDS church, 2 of the 8 witnesses apostatized while another of the 8 witnesses was excommunicated. This is very curious. Having seen what could be considered the lynchpin of the Mormon faith, the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, 6 of the 11 witnesses then left or were forced to leave the LDS church. When you compare this with the apostles of the New Testament who similarly testified to the make or break event in Christianity, the risen Christ, and then died for that claim, never recanting and never being driven out by the body of Christ, the Mormon claim becomes befuddling at best and downright dishonest at worst seeing as how the LDS church keeps the testimony of these witnesses in the front of the Book of Mormon.

6. The Mormon conception of god suffers from a vicious infinite regress that cannot be real due to the fact that it would constitute an actual infinite set. In LDS doctrine, god was once a man who was exalted through a process of learning and improvement. He "created" the universe by forming chaotic matter into what we now see as the space-time universe. This means two things. One: there had to be another god who made it possible for the god of the Bible to become exalted and achieve godhood. Two: There are other universes and planets where the path to exaltation is playing out right now like it is here on earth. The problem with both of these implications is the same. If earth god (EG) had a higher level god (HLG) that enabled him to progress to godhood, then the HLG had to have HLG2 that did the same for him. And HLG2 had to have HLG3. And HLG3 had to have HLG4. And so on. This actual infinite set of gods cannot exist. William Lane Craig has shown very convincingly why actual infinites cannot exist.

7. Finally, the Mormon conception of Jesus Christ is wrong based on the Biblical account which their latter-day prophets have reinterpreted. They see Jesus as an entirely separate being from God the Father. He is a spirit child of Heavenly Father as we all are, including Satan. This means that Satan and Jesus are brothers. The former chose the evil path while the latter chose the righteous one. As I said above, the LDS church accepts the KJV of the Bible as being correctly translated. The problem with this is that the New Testament, whether in the KJV or other modern versions, sees Jesus Christ as something more than just another Son of God or child of God as Mormons say. He is equal in ontological status with the Father and he is above Satan in many ways. He is the unique Son of God in a way that we are not since we are adopted Sons of God (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:4-6). Colossians 1:16 says about Jesus: "For by him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, powers: all things were created by him, and for him". If Jesus created everything, then he created Satan. The Mormon doctrine that God formed the universe means that Jesus formed the universe (according to Colossians) while at the same time he was born as a spirit child of God after the creation of the universe. Jesus could not have created the universe after it was created; that is logically impossible. Also, Jesus is so far above Satan that he doesn't even fight with him. It is Michael the Archangel that disputed about the body of Moses with the devil (Jude 9) and it is Michael who will lead the battle against him in the end of time (Rev. 12:7-9). That doesn't sound like they are equals who merely chose the right and wrong paths.

I could list another bunch of reasons why I am not a Mormon, but I think you get the point. The simple fact of the matter is that Mormonism doesn't hold up to the reality it makes claims about. This means it isn't true and that means it is part of the wide path to destruction that Jesus warned us all about.

Don't be a Perdurantist

Many people take issue, for various reasons, with the claim that the universe had a beginning. Some people believe that the science doesn't support that assertion. Others, I would argue most, who try to find some way around the universe's beginning are trying to avoid there being a personal cause of the universe because that points to the existence of God. William Lane Craig has been the foremost defender and expositor of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which uses the beginning of the universe as a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence, and I have written an extensive post about that argument here if you are unfamiliar with it.
One of the main contentions of opponents of this argument is that of the B-theory of time, also called the static conception of time. The B-theory of time suggests that moments of time are tenseless and exist equally. The "Back to the Future" movies would be a good way to think of this theory. Marty McFly goes back to 1955 in the first movie and the citizens of Hill Valley are going about their business: running into manure trucks and preparing for the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Eventually, he makes it back to 1985 and things are continuing on as if nothing happened. This seems to presuppose a B-theory of time in which every moment of time is equally real. On this view, it would be nonsensical to say that anything begins to exist. If every moment of time is equally real all the time, nothing comes into being, it just is. The implication of this is that the universe doesn't really begin to exist, because the "Big Bang" is always ongoing. If we could travel through time with Doc Brown, we could see the "Big Bang" as it is happening.
The point of this post is not to wrangle with those who argue about the beginning of the universe and thus God's existence, but to present a serious problem to believers who hold to the B-theory of time. Does this mean that I think those Christians who hold to a B-theory cannot believe in God and thus, are not Christians? NO! That is not what I mean. My intention is to convince Christians that hold this view that it is very problematic for one very troubling reason: perdurantism.
In order to understand what perdurantism is, we have to look at what is known as the problem of intrinsic change that the B-theorist encounters. The problem of intrinsic change "is how something can remain self-identical if it has different properties at different times" (1). This basically means how can a person, F. F. Bruce for instance, be F. F. Bruce moment to moment if every moment produces a change in him. A change means an object is taking on or jettisoning properties. B-theorists have posited that people are just 4-dimensional objects (the 4th dimension is time) that appear to us as 3-dimensional objects. So, B-theorists answer that indeed, F. F. Bruce is not the same moment to moment, but simply a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", which philosophers call "hyper-objects" that are extended in both time and space. Since the person we see as F. F. Bruce is but a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", it follows that the F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago is a different part and thus, not identical to the present (to us) F. F. Bruce. In a nutshell, people are not the same self-identifying beings from moment to moment. Philosophers of time who hold this view merely say that objects perdure. So perdurantism is the view that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring’) (2). The following is my summary of 3 reasons why perdurantism is false from William Lane Craig (3) followed by some other comments of my own.

1. Perdurantism's account of intrinsic change is implausible.
Since, on perdurantism, an object is a composition of spatio-temporal parts that make up a "hyper-object" in 4 dimensions, none of these parts are identical. But, if none of the parts are identical as the perdurantist admits, then nothing, including the parts or the "hyper-object" actually undergoes any intrinsic change. It is not correct to say that F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago gained wisdom and now has the property of being wise in our time because "present F. F. Bruce" and "F. F. Bruce from twenty years ago" are entirely different 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the hyper-object "F. F. Bruce". The parts merely have different properties that they neither gain nor lose. Thus, there is no intrinsic change going on, it is an illusion of philosophical theory.

2. Perdurantism flies in the face of the phenomenology of personal consciousness.
We know ourselves to be persons. This concept is known as self-consciousness. Perdurantists view people as spatio-temporal parts of hyper-objects with no self-consciousness. This means that these parts are not actually persons, just parts that do not have any of the properties normally associated with personhood. No intellect, emotions, will, moral responsibility, etc. Some perdurantists say that the 3-dimensional objects really are persons and the corresponding 4-dimensional object is a hyper-person, but this doesn't work either. This would mean that the hyper-person is comprised of a number of individual persons having, for instance, their own memories that are not shared by each individual part. So, it isn't really you having that memory of your wedding, it is a distinct, non-identical 3-dimensional part of the 4-dimensional "hyper-you-person". This seems absurd on many levels. Does anyone really think that they are not the same person second to second and that they are recalling someone else's wedding memory while walking down memory lane?

3. Perdurantism is incompatible with moral responsibility, praise, and blame.
Even if we grant that the 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the 4-dimensional hyper-person are persons as well, there is a problem. Since they are all distinct persons, how can a criminal spend his life in jail considering that even 5 minutes later he is not the same person? He can't be held accountable for the crime of "5 minutes ago criminal". If we back up to the initial perdurantist view that these parts are just that, parts not persons, this is even more absurd than our criminal above. How can a part of a 4-dimensional hyper-object be held responsible for good or bad actions? The answer is they cannot.

The balance of probability lies in favor of saying that perdurantism is false. Now, the B-theorist may try to use the opposite theory concerning the problem of intrinsic change. That of endurantism, which says that objects endure and are the same object moment to moment. But, the B-theorist really has no recourse to use this theory because they hold that one moment of time is equally real to another. This means that there are at least two identical objects that have different properties. This cannot be however, because for objects to be identical, they must have the same properties. The endurantist would appeal to the A-theory of time that sees only the present moment as real. Hence only one object, the person F. F. Bruce to use our earlier example, exists. If you subscribe to the B-theory of time, it looks like you are stuck with perdurantism and thinking that persons are not really persons.
Finally, what is to me the most serious matter regarding perdurantism and the B-theory of time is that of the cross of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If the Christ hanging on the cross is: i) not a person or ii) not the same person who submitted to the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane; how can it be rightly said that he atoned for our sin and reconciled us to God? It doesn't seem to me that this can be said if you hold to perdurantism. Likewise, if the B-theory of time is true, Christ forever hangs on the cross, forever offering payment to the Father for our sins that we are committing forever. "Once for all" just doesn't make any sense on the perdurantism/B-theory of time view. And if you hold to the B-theory of time, then you are stuck with perdurantism. So, don't be a perdurantist!

References
1. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 200.
2. Temporal Parts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 203-6.

The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: General Epistles

Part one, part two, part three. The first three parts; the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters, can be found with the links above. This post, the final one in this series, will cover the general epistles including Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, Jude, and Revelation. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in James, 2 John, or 3 John.

Hebrews
2:4
A big theme through the Gospels and Acts is that God is doing miracles as signs of the new covenant that he was making with the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here, the author of Hebrews explicitly says that that is what God was doing. He also mentions gifts of the HS. The gifts are distributed according to the will of the HS (who is God), so once again, these gifts are not available when we want to use them, but as the HS wills. Also, cessationism/continuationism can be addressed here. The continuationist will say that the Gospel is attested by signs, wonders, and gifts through the power of the HS. He did it then, he will do it now. I would agree with this position. The cessationist will point to verse 3a, "It was declared at first by the Lord...", to indicate that it was only done for the inauguration of the Church until the scriptures were solidified. As I have shown before, this is a stretched interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 that doesn't really seem to work. At the very least it doesn't convince me.

3:7
Another instance of the HS being given credit for the OT text.

6:4
As believers, we share in the HS. I am not going to get into the argument over whether this passage of Hebrews means we can or cannot lose our salvation once we have it. I haven't made my mind up over that issue, though I am inclined to think we could lose it, but only from unbelief.

9:8
This is yet another instance of the HS being credited with writing the OT text. This time however, the author is expositing an underlying inference about the tabernacle structure that he says the HS meant. That is that the first section of the tabernacle must be closed before we can have access to the second section. The first section had the menorah (candle that burned oil), bread of presence, etc. These were all things that pointed to Christ. When he came, they were done away with. That left only the Holy of Holies where God's presence actually dwelt at times in Israel's history. Christ's blood gave us entry into that place and that is why the veil was torn when he died (Mark 15:38).

9:14
Translators are unsure what to make of "the eternal Spirit" that appears in this verse. Some say Holy Spirit, other think it means something about Christ's divine nature. The jury is out, and so am I on what this means!

10:15
One more time. The HS wrote the OT!

10:29
Those who "go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth" (v. 26) outrage the HS.

1 Peter
1:2
The HS sanctifies.

1:11
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.

1:12
The disciples preaching the Gospel do so by the power of the HS.

4:14
Persecution brings a blessing of the HS's presence.

2 Peter
1:21
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.

1 John
3:24
We know that God abides in us by the HS's witness.

4:2
John tells us to test every spirit. This is something that the Church severely lacks. John says that things from the HS confess that Jesus is from God and came in the flesh. This is dealing with the spirit of antichrist, which is about teachings directly contrary to the Word of God. So, in this case, it is about the words, as opposed to 1 Cor. 12:3.

4:6
People from God listen to the apostles teaching, which for us is found in the scriptures. This is how we know it is from the HS and not error.

4:13
Just like 3:24, we know God abides in us by the HS's witness.

5:6-8
The HS testifies of Christ's work because he is truth.

Jude
v. 19-20
Scoffers of prophecy and worldly people are devoid of the HS. This may be people in the church as that is what was going on with the recipient's of Jude's letter. We should ignore them and pray in the HS. This praying in the HS could be one of two things that I covered in the note at Ephesians 6:17-18.

Revelation
1:10
John says he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." This could mean he was worshipping the Lord on Sunday or it could mean he was having a vision on Sunday or it could mean that he was having a vision about the Day of the Lord. Take your pick, it is very difficult to make a convincing case for any of the options.

2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22
The HS is speaking to the churches. Notice that says churches, not church. These letters from Christ are to more believers than just in the cities on the heading.

4:2
Another instance of John being in the Spirit. This seems to help us figure out 1:10 in that clearly, this time he is having a vision, which would eliminate the first option above that John was just having a special moment of communion with God.

14:13
The voice John hears from heaven is the HS.

17:3
John gets carried away in the HS. Much like Ezekiel, scholars argue over whether this means in a vision or that physically John was transported away.

22:17
The HS and us (the Bride)  are both saying, "Come", in regard to Jesus' second advent.

Most of the stuff from the general epistles could fall under the bullets from Paul's letters, so I won't rehash those. Thanks for reading. I sincerely hope that you have learned something from this series.