Does God raise the dead today?

In recent days, Bethel church in Redding, Ca. has come under some well deserved scrutiny. It stems from parents who lost their two year old daughter this last Saturday, December 14, 2019 out of the blue. She stopped breathing, and after calling 9-1-1, the paramedics administering CPR at their home, and revival attempts at the hospital failed, they called the sweet little two year old deceased. Now, before I go any further, let me beg of you to pray for this family. They are (rightfully) grieving, yet placing their trust in God raising her from the dead. They need our prayers, especially with it being this close to Christmas.

 

This brings me to the question in the title, “Does God raise the dead today?” I can find no biblical mandate that in today’s time He still does this. Yes, He raised the dead in the times in which the Bible was written. Yes, His Apostles raised the dead as well. But can we do that which they did? I have to say no. Why you may ask? The Apostles were given the ability to do many things we just cannot do today. They healed the sick by laying hands on them(this was immediate healing, by the way), not the laying on of hands that is being practiced in today’s churches. They even raised the dead, cast out evil spirits, Paul prayed over some cloths and ppl were healed by touching them[Acts 19:11-12]. He raised Euthychus from the dead[Acts 20:9-12]. Peter brought Dorcas back to life[Acts 9:36-43]. Ananias even laid hands on Saul of Tarsus and he recovered his sight[Acts 9:17-19]. Clearly, many, many miracles such as these have been recorded to show us the power, and mercy of God.

 

But why must ppl insist on these being applicable today? What evidence is there of things like this happening today? I have been in many services where someone has asked to be prayed over by way of laying on of hands. I have heard of countless others doing the same. Yet, I see no fruit coming from them. I don’t know the times someone who was seriously ill has been prayed over, only to die later. Let’s examine the passage in James 5:

 

13 Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. 

 

Notice how James worded that. It gives affirmative words such as “will restore the one who is sick”, “The Lord will raise him up”, and also “if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him”. I’ve witnessed none of these happening in the meetings I’ve been in where the laying on of hands was used. And I am talking about someone who was alive at the time, not someone deceased. This sweet little girl has been in a morgue for six days now. They prayed, sang, praised God, yet she is still there. I would be elated if she came back to life. No one rejoices in seeing a child die. Well, no one with a conscience that is.

 

Bill Johson, Bethel’s pastor, has a false view of God, and this automatically leads to a false view of man. He believes that the Christ did not do miracles as God, but as a man. And by doing these miracles as a man, He has modeled this for us. That what He did, we could do as well. This is blatant heresy. The Christ is man, I am not denying that. But He is also fully God. He was always God, but His deity was enclosed in flesh. But that does not mean, in any way, that the miracles He performed were as a man and not God. Here is a quote from him: “He performed miracles, wonders & signs, as a man in right relationship to God, not as God. If He performed miracles because He was God, then they would be unattainable for us. But if he did them as a man, I am responsible to pursue His lifestyle.” This is from “When Heaven Invades Earth”.

 

What if if she isn’t raised again? Then what? Do they (foolishly) blame God? Do they chalk it up to not having enough faith? I watched a video yesterday where Brothers Costi Hinn and Jon Benzinger carefully addressed this. Brother Jon said that if God is holding the healing until they get enough faith, then that makes God cruel(paraphrased that). It’s like God is making them jump through hoops just to activate the healing. And if they don’t conjure up enough faith, enough prayers, then God will not grant their request.

 

So, in closing, I just do not see a biblical mandate for us to do that which Bethel Church is doing. When the last Apostle died, the Apostolic age ceased. We just do not possess those gifts they had.

 

Here’s the link to that podcast from Redeemer church in Arizona.

 

 

 

A book review: “Before the Throne: Reflections on God’s holiness” by Allen S. Nelson IV

 

 

There is an old saying, “words matter”. In regards to this excellent book written by Allen S. Nelson IV, those words ring true. The way we feel about someone or something is reflected by the words we use to describe them. If we love them, we will say things that reflect our love towards them. If we don’t love them, our words will also reflect our dislike towards them. We are commanded to love even our enemies, even those who use us, and even pray for them(Matthew 5:44). Yet, we don’t have to respect them. I have a true love for everyone I know, and even had a love for the likes of Hussein, Bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, yet I don’t respect them. I hate to see anyone die lost, but these men appear to have died in their sins, living despicable lives, where they tortured, raped, killed many people. I may love them, but I most assuredly don’t respect them. So the words we say about someone matter, as they express how we feel about them.

Getting to this book review and off my soapbox now. The reason why I said all that was to use it as a springboard into this review. Our view of God is reflected by the words we use when we speak of Him. The true atheist won’t say anything loving about Him, as they, in their blindness and unrepentant heart, fail to even acknowledge His existence. The lost person, one who believes in His existence, but won’t bow the knee, repent towards Him in their heart, may speak lovingly of Him, but won’t give Him the love due Him, the love He rightly deserves. They acknowledge Him, but don’t love Him. The Christ said to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength(Mark 12:30), and to also keep His commands if you love Him(John 14:15). So, the lost can not truly say they love Him, but do acknowledge His existence. Sadly, if they die in that condition, they will reside eternally in the lake of fire with the atheists. If you ask people today what does the word “holy” means, you’d probably get a myriad of answers. They don’t truly know what it means when we speak of God’s holiness. Holy means “exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness; having a divine quality, set apart, pure, morally blameless, set apart.” I took those definitions from different sites, but they all express the same thing; God being Wholly Other.

 

Matt Slick, from http://www.carm.org describes “Wholly Other” this way: “The term ‘wholly other’ is used in Christian theology to describe the difference between God and everything else.  God, the Christian God, is completely different than all other things that exist.  God can be described by essential properties such as holiness, immutability, etc.  But we have to ask how we, as finite creatures, can relate to the infinite God.  It is difficult when he is ‘wholly other’ than we are.  It means that we must relate to him by his self-revelation in the person of Christ Jesus, and through the Bible.”

 

Only God can be described this way. Only He is all this but more than we could ever say with our words. Words truly fail to say all that God is. Us telling the lost about God’s holiness is insufficient. But words are all we have to express who He is. We have 66 books in the Bible, and this is what God has chosen to give us to reveal about Himself to us. Yet, He is much, much more than this. No library could contain all the books written to tell us all He is.

 

Brother Nelson, in his book, “Before the Throne: Reflections on God’s Holiness”, does a splendid job of telling us about God’s holiness, His Wholly Otherness. Yet I’d venture to guess he’d be the first to tell you there was much he left out, much he could’ve said if words were available to express it. Yet, our vocabulary is insufficient to express His holiness. He uses Isaiah 6:1-7 and Revelation 4:5-11 as the backbone of this book. He expresses things that helped me to better understand these two passages that have caused me trouble grasping what the writer was conveying to their audience.

 

Brother Allen’s book has 12 chapters that look at God’s holiness as being undoubtable, unspeakable, untamable, unblemishable, unmatchable, unquestionable, uncontainable, unchangeable, unapproachable, uncompromising, unborable, and unquenchable. Each of these he has dedicated a chapter to expound upon them. I could go through each of these but it would make this blog post way too long for many to want to read it, I’m afraid. But he meticulously goes through each and uses Isaiah 6:1-7 and Revelation 4:5-11(other other relevant verses) to express his thought concerning each of the twelve ways God’s holiness is expressed. It is because God is holy we can trust Him in all things. It is through His holiness we can see Him for who He is…holy, just, good, separate from sinners.

I want to focus on two places for this review, as I don’t want to give away too much of the book(wanting to leave you hungry so you will buy this book, as I HIGHLY recommend it). On pg 113 he wrote, “The godless culture of our age wages war against the holiness of God today and nobody is on the sidelines. Nobody is on the sidelines. We are all active participants.” No truer words have ever been written. We are either with or against God. There is no one in the middle, no one is ambivalent towards God. Our words will reflect which side we are on; against or with God. People try to straddle the fence, meaning, they don’t want to serve Him, yet they don’t want to die lost. They think their good deeds build up merit with God. They believe if they do just enough good works that they tip the scale to the “good side” of the scale, they can gain entrance into heaven. This shows their true lack of understanding God’s holiness, His Other Whollyness. In His holiness, He can’t even look upon sin(Habakkuk 1:13), so no amount of good works gains favor with Him, as His holiness keeps Him separate from sin and sinners. That was why the Christ had to come and live, die, resurrect, and ascend to the Father. There was no other way we could gain entrance into God and His holiness. No amount of good deeds could do this. Only the active obedience of the Christ could do this for us. Soli deo Gloria!

 

Then on pg 118, Brother Allen wrote, “To behold the glory of God is to see, in a sense, His holiness—His Wholly Other-ness, His God-ness—on display.” So, to see Him is to see Him for who He is: holy, glorious, separate from sinners, highly exalted, only One worthy of being praised and worshiped. Even Isaiah saw himself for who he really was, “one of unclean lips”. If he was like that, and yet, he saw God highly exalted, what does that say about us? What are we like before Him? Unless we are in Christ, we are separated from God and His holiness, His Wholly Otherness.

So, in closing, please let me urge you to buy this book. It’s worth every penny you will spend on it. I thank you for reading this book review.

Willis Fletcher, Jr.

Dr. John MacArthur has NEVER denied the necessity of the Christ’s blood

 

I was in a very spirited debate with a couple ladies on Twitter who said Dr. John MacArthur has denied the necessity of the blood in saving sinners. That could not be further from the truth. I will provide a link to http://www.gty.org where he clarifies what he said. This was from January 1, 1987. How this got started again, Faith Baptist Church(not sure where this church is located) made a documentary called “Calvinism: A Doctrine of Demons”. This brought this to the forefront again and I want to address this here, and post it on Twitter for those ladies, and others, to read. With that, let’s delve into this.

 

“For some strange reason people have accused me of denying the blood of Christ, which is not so. I affirm that a literal Jesus Christ who was man in every respect, one hundred percent man yet God incarnate, died on the cross, shed His literal blood as a sacrifice for sin. And I believe that, and I believe that it was that sacrificial death of Christ on the cross that atoned for the sins of man, and those who believe appropriate that atonement and receive eternal life through His death and resurrection, and that’s historic Christian theology.“

 

Now, show me where he’s denied the blood here. He mentioned the necessity of the blood, along with His death and resurrection. A gospel that denies the blood is no gospel at all, yea, is another gospel. Yet, he has not denied it here.

 

“But in recent months, I have noticed that there is an encroaching heresy on the blood, that there are people who say that the blood of Jesus was not human, it was divine. One pastor said to me, “He had the blood of God.” I said, “What is the blood of God?” He said, “Divine blood.” I said, “God is a spirit, that was the blood of Christ, that was the blood of a man, He was one hundred percent man.” It’s heretical to call the blood of Jesus Christ the blood of God, and it demonstrates a failure to understand what theologians have called the hypostatic union, that is the God-man union in Christ.

There are others who say that there’s something magical in the blood, there’s something in the blood itself that washes sin away, when the Scripture teaches it was the death of Christ that atoned for sin, and He shed His literal blood in sacrificial evidence of the pouring out of His life for sin. But there was nothing magic about that blood itself that could wash sin. And so, this heresy has begun to develop, strangely enough.“

Again, show me where Dr. MacArthur has denied the necessity of the blood of the Christ. What he was addressing were the heresies springing up that had the blood having some sort of mystical properties, some sort of magical power. The blood that flowed through His veins was no different than yours or mine. No one who came into contact with that blood, if He had gotten cut, had their sins atoned for. The Roman soldier who pierced His side and caused blood and water to gush out, that blood would not have saved him if it came into contact with him. The shedding of blood goes way deeper than that my dear reader. It was not the mere bleeding that saves people. Bear with me here a minute. Bleeding alone doesn’t save. Look at the Old Testament sacrifices. The animals sacrificed not only bled, but died. It was the bleeding coinciding with its death that brought the atonement. If the animal bled but did not die, there would have been no atonement. If it had died and there was no bleeding, there would have been no atonement. It took BOTH the bleeding AND the death of that animal to bring atonement. It’s the same way with the Christ’s atonement on the cross. It took the bleeding and death to bring atonement.

 

Blood also refers to someone’s life. Dr. MacArthur said this Judah, you remember, in Genesis 37 said to his brothers about Joseph, quote: “What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?” Well, they didn’t mean collect his blood and hide it in the ground, they meant conceal his death, conceal the violent, murderous death. See, here he is giving proper context to blood. They would be concealing his blood, but hiding his body, the life they took, not his literal blood.

 

When the Christ said, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,“ [Mark 14:24] was that literally blood He gave them to drink? No. That’s RCC teaching, not mainstream Christian teaching. He was saying that He was shedding His blood, giving His life. The Greek word for shedding is αἱματεκχυσία which means   shedding, an effusion. An effusion means the escape of a fluid from anatomical vessels by rupture or exudation. This means He shed His blood and gave His life in the process of shedding His blood.

 

You remember the words of Jesus – pardon me, the words of Judas about Jesus? He said, “I have betrayed innocent” – what? – “blood.” And what he meant by that is, “I have brought Jesus without cause near violent death.” And the Jews said let His what be on our heads? His blood, the responsibility for His violent death.

Again, another clear example of where blood was synonymous with life. When God told Cain “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground,”[Genesis 4:10] was Abel’s blood literally crying out? I see this along the lines of those who were slain, under the altar saying “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”[Revelation 6:10] They we’re talking about the lives they lost lives for the word of God. Their blood here was referring to their lives.

The New Testament says, for example, “He gave His blood.” The New Testament also says, “He gave His soul.” The New Testament says, “He gave His life,” and the New Testament says, “He gave Himself.” It all means the very same thing.

Here it is again. Dr. MacArthur is showing that the word blood did not only mean a red liquid filled with red blood cells, white blood cells, serum, &c., but also referred to His giving of His life. If bleeding was the only necessity, then His death was not necessary. All He would have had to have done was cut Himself and let the blood gush forth. But dear reader, it was the giving of His life, while shedding His blood, that saves us.

You know, I can make a claim, although it’s not biblical, that the Christ’s death reconciled us to God, so the resurrection isn’t necessary. It says His death reconciled us, and to be reconciled means we are no longer His enemies, but friends. Don’t you believe it? Don’t you believe your bible? It right there in Romans 5:10. Yet, it says at the end of that verse we are saved by His life. I can take a portion of scripture and twist it so bad it’s a horrible teaching. Many other places tell us we are saved by His life. That’s what has happened with Dr. MacArthur’s quote that got twisted by some people. All anyone has to do is go back through his FOURTY years in the ministry and find out he has NEVER denied the necessity of the blood of the Christ. But it’s easier to take one statement out of context to ruin someone’s ministry. I know, I almost did that to Dr. MacArthur once. I hurt a dear friend and Brother and he corrected me on it. He showed me I can’t take one quote from him(which I was uncertain of the meaning, but wrote about it anyways…yeah I know, DUMB) and extrapolate it from his ministry of fourty years. Neither should those who say Dr. MacArthur denies the blood extrapolate that twisted quote from his forty years of ministry.

 

Here is the link to that article that has a message where he goes through several previous sermons preaching in the necessity of the blood.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-44/the-blood-of-christ

Here’s a link to a Radio Free Geneva hosted by Dr. James White, who further expounds on Dr. MacArthur’s belief on this topic. Start at 12:00——>~30:00 to listen to it.

 

An exegesis of Romans 9

 

 

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,[vss 1-3]

Here we see a plea from Paul much like Moses’ was in Exodus 32. It shows the love he had for his fellow Israelites. Notice though, he said he ‘could’ wish this, but he knew that was not possible. Yet, it shows he did love them, even if they wanted to kill him for his Christian beliefs.

who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.[vss 4-5]

Here, Paul picks back up on the thought from chapter 3 where he wrote, Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.[vss 1-2] The Jews were the only ones God had entrusted with His word. Only they had been adopted(though there were a smattering of Gentiles who became proselyte Jews such as Ruth and Rahab for instance), only they had been given the Law, only they had a high priest who interceded for them before God, only they had been given a temple where God would come in and fill it with His presence. The other Gentile ppl such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Syrians, Philistines, Jebusites, Moabites, &c., were never given a sacrificial system to atone for their sins, neither were they given a high priest to intercede for them before God. They were justly left to themselves. And by this happening, we can see they committed idolatry by worshipping other gods. And it was through these ppl, the Christ came in the flesh, namely through Judah, the Son Jacob.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOURDESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.[vss 6-8]

Here we see where Paul tells us who the true Jews are. At the time the Christ came in the flesh, they thought being born of the lineage of Abraham, whom they considered their father, was all that was needed. Paul back in Romans 2:28,29 tells us who the true Jews are, For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. The true Jews are both believing Jews and Gentiles who have undergone the circumcision of their hearts, not the circumcision of their foreskins, that took place on the eight day after their birth. This was foretold of in Ezekiel 36. Paul tells us the Godly line goes through Isaac and his descendants. Every blessing that God promised Abraham back in Genesis 12 we have today. Paul even speaks of this in Galatians 3 where he wrote Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. [vss 6-9] Every believer has the same promises God gave Abraham in Genesis 12, and are of the very same faith. This encompasses both believing Jews and Gentiles.

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”[vss 10-13]

Again, Paul is showing us the Godly line and how it flows. The promises came from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not Abraham, Ishmael, and Esau. Before Jacob and Esau had done ANYTHING, whether it be good or bad, we see God’s sovereign choice in full display in vs 11. God choosing His elect ppl was not based on anything within them; it wasn’t because they were less wicked, had hearts not quite as hard as those He justly left in their already condemned state, but He chose them based upon Himself. There was nothing in me or any other saved person that was missing in the non-elect. There was nothing in His elect that attracted God’s favor. There was nothing in Noah and the other seven that was missing in the rest God justly destroyed in the flood. We are told that Noah found favor in God’s sight. This favor is grace, which is unmerited favor. God even tells the Jews in Deuteronomy 7:7-8 why He chose them, “The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” There was nothing special in them that made God choose them. There was nothing special in Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and so on, that those He justly left in their already condemned state had missing.

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.[vss 14-16]

Notice how Paul writes “there is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” right after he wrote “Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated.” By God choosing some for salvation proves this is not injustice whatsoever. This is grace, this is love, this is mercy in full display. But many scoff at this as if it’s not fair. What would be fair would be for God to consign us all to burn in hell forever. That’s fair. Being fair is getting what we deserve. Yet, many scoff at this and call God unfair, unloving, if He does this. Well, dear reader, Paul is saying under the Spirit’s inspiration, God does do this. As Dr. James White said, “For grace to be grace, it must be free. If God must offer grace, then it’s no longer grace, but an obligation.” God will have compassion and mercy on those He chooses to do this to. It’s not of them, but of Him who has mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.[vss 17-18]

Another display of God’s sovereign choice over His creation. God took a fallen creature, raised him up to display His power in Him. God did him no injustice in doing this. He was already a fallen son in Adam, and He did bless him in that he did live a lavish lifestyle. God could have made him a poor man in Egypt, but rather, raised him up to become Pharaoh. Much like He did for Esau. Esau was blessed with wealth and was given a nation, namely, the Edomites. God didn’t have to do this for either of them, but gave them really good earthly lives to live. When the time came for Moses to go to him to demand God’s ppl be set free, God told Moses He would harden Pharaoh’s heart. Why? Because He was going to destroy them, as He was about to wipe them off the earth. And remember, “He hardens whom He desires.”

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.[vss 19-24]

There is an accuser Paul is speaking about in vs 19, which I believe is not a real person, but to prove his point in God’s sovereign choice over who is saved and who is not. He then rebukes this person much like the Christ did when He had given the parable of the workers in the vineyard(Matthew 20) and those who worked all day grumbled that those who came in and worked only one hour received the same pay, one denarius. He said to those who grumbled, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?”[vs 15] We are His creation, and He has every right to do with us as He pleases. We are not to grumble at His sovereign right to do with His creation as He pleases. This is the thrust of Paul’s argument towards this scoffer. We are the clay and He is the Potter, and He does with us as He pleases, and doesn’t seek to gain our approval.

He then carries on this argument of God’s sovereign choice of salvation and whom He saves and whom He leaves justly condemned. He took the vessels of mercy(the elect) from the very same lump(Adam) the vessels of wrath(non-elect) were in. Again, there was nothing in the vessels of mercy that was missing in the vessels of wrath. That is why salvation is unconditional. If He chose ppl based upon something special in them, then His election is conditional and He is does show favoritism. Yet we know that from Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, this shows He doesn’t do this. And these vessels of mercy are called, being both Jews and Gentiles.

As He says also in Hosea,“I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’ AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.’” “AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ‘YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,’ THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD.” Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE EARTH, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY.” And just as Isaiah foretold, “UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH.” What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”[vss 25-33]

To close this rather lengthy blog post, I will just say that this is showing how the Gentiles are being grafted in. He carries this thought over into Romans 11.

I believe I have stated my case, my exegesis of this great chapter, in the way it is to be properly understood. I will leave the judging of this to you, dear reader.

Is laying on of hands biblical today? James 5:13-15

 

 

I know many churches in my area, and surely in most areas in America, who practice laying on of hands as laid out in James 5:13-15. I am not so sure of this, and here’s the passage, I will use the HCSB.

Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. Is anyone cheerful? He should sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will restore him to health; if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.[James 5:13-15]

Here’s why I am not convinced this is applicable today. It says “The prayer of faith WILL save the sick person, and the Lord WILL restore him to health.” How many services have you been in where someone has been anointed with oil, prayed over, yet died? I couldn’t count the number of these I’ve seen where the person died, even after having this done. We have to take into account that when the book of James was written, it is commonly referred to as the Apolstolic age. Many things that took place at that time, simply do not happen today.

 

In Acts 3, we see a man laying at the gate called Beautiful. He sees the Apostles coming, and was hoping to get some help. Peter tells him to “get up and walk!”[vs 6] and at once his feet and ankles gain strength and he stands up and goes into the temple walking, leaping, and praising God. This healing was instaneous and not like healings we see today. These healings that do happen in today’s world, take place over time. Yet, God does heal some ppl this very day. But I find the evidence of anointing with oil and laying on of hands lacking. Too many are dying after having this done.

 

In Acts 9 we see Dorcas being dead. Peter goes in and raises her up alive. We see Cornelius having a vision and so does Peter in Joppa in Acts 10. We see Paul raising Eutychus in Acts 20 after falling three stories. We see Paul bitten by a snake in Acts 28. All of these events happened at the time the book of James was written. Yet, we see none of these happening today.

Every healing of God is a miracle from Him, and I am not denying it. It’s just that the miracles that took place at the time the New Testament was written, they were instaneous, not taking place over a period of days, weeks, months.

 

Plus, reread this “Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. Is anyone cheerful? He should sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith WILL save the sick person, and the Lord WILL restore him to health; if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”[James 5:13-15]

Also, verse 16 says Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The urgent request of a righteous person is very powerful in its effect. So, if this is applicable today, then, in my opinion, these who are anointed will be saved and healed.

If this was on trial and I was a juror, I’d find the evidence of this being applicable today lacking.

 

But I leave this for you, dear reader, to decide.

The eternal destiny of babies? 2 Samuel 12:23

This is a touchy subject as I attempt to address it. Ppl readily claim and usher babies into the presence of God at the point of death. They quoted David from 2 Samuel 12 where he said But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I’ll go to him, but he will never return to me.” [vs 23] Now, they claim that David is stating when he dies he will go to be with his child who is in the presence of God. However, they are ignoring what he wrote is Psalm 51:5 Indeed, I was guilty [when I] was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me. Then also in Psalm 58:3-5 The wicked go astray from the womb; liars err from birth. They have venom like the venom of a snake, like the deaf cobra that stops up its ears, that does not listen to the sound of the charmers who skillfully weave spells. So, why would David contradict himself by saying what he did in 2 Samuel 12:23 when he wrote what he did in Psalm 51 & 58? 

 

Now, let us examine 2 Samuel 12:23. No doubt David loved his son. So much so, he laid in the street, would not eat or clean himself up. No doubt he struggled with God in prayer, begging Him to be merciful to him and his son. It was only after he found out the child had died he got up and cleaned himself up and ate. His fellow companions were fearful of telling him of his child’s death, thinking he might do something drastic. They marveled that he got up and bathed and ate after hearing the horrible news. When you examine David’s words, you can tell he is referring to the grave, not the presence of God. Just like the husband desires to be buried beside his wife and vice versa, like the father and/or mother desiring to be buried beside their child, this was what David meant.

 

When you examine the Bible, you can read it affirming babies being born dead in Adam. Paul wrote in Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.  Adam represented his posterity, the whole human race. When he fell, all mankind fell, being in Adam. Paul also wrote in Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of theglory of God. Everybody was in Adam when he fell. You can see this federal headship teaching in Hebrews 7:9,10 And in a sense Levi himself, who receives tithes, has paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still within his forefather when Melchizedek met him. Babies are born dead in Adam, as his guilt was transferred to them, and are guilty. Romans 6:23a says For the wages of sin is death, so if babies are born sinless, how can they taste death, when the wages of sin is death? They could not die if they are born sinless, yet millions have sadly been aborted, died in infancy, died via a miscarriage, &c. I will also give you For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.[1 Cor. 15:22]

 

Now, let us examine one more place before I close. “Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ “[1 Samuel 15:3] God gives Samuel the words to give to King Saul. God tells Saul through Samuel to completely obliterate the Amelikites. To not leave one of their people alive. He even said to kill infants and children. These ‘innocent’ children ppl call them, God commanded them to be killed by His own ppl. If these babies were viewed as being innocent in God’s sight, then He would be cruel to command the slaughter of innocent blood. In other words, God is commanding them to murder ppl. However, seeing babies are not innocent in His sight, they stand before Him guilty. We know that God will do what is right[Genesis 18:25] so if He commanded the slaughter of children and infants, He did what was right.

 

There is just not enough compelling evidence one way or the other of their eternal destiny. If babies are indeed born innocent, then abortion is the kindest thing a mother could do. They have guaranteed that child’s place with God. However, if they allow them to grow to this mythical ‘age of accountability’, and they die lost…

 

Ppl who hold to this view that babies go to be with God at their death have just advocated abortion as not being the cruelest thing imaginable, but the kindest act of love. In a roundabout way, they make abortion palatable.

 

 

 

The eisegesis series part 6: Romans 8:32

 

He did not even spare his own Son but offered him up for us all. How will he not also with him grant us everything?[Romans 8:32 CSB]

Those who hold to a universal atonement use this verse as ‘proof’ that the Christ died for all mankind, all without exception. But that verse is not saying that, not even remotely close. Again, context is king. As the saying goes, “text without context is pretext”. That whole chapter, Romans 8, has God’s chosen ppl, His sheep, His elect, in focus. Verse 1 starts out by saying Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. So right from the first verse, God’s ppl are those Paul is addressing in this great chapter. Paul then gives an example of those who have their minds set on the flesh and those who have their minds set on the Spirit.[vss 5-9] He then says Now if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then he who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through his Spirit who lives in you.[vss 10,11] So you can see the context of Romans 8 is clearly God’s chosen ppl, His sheep, His elect.

He then gives us the ‘golden chain of redemption’ in vss 28-30 We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified;and those he justified, he also glorified. These ppl in vss 28-30 can NOT be all mankind, because all who He foreknew, He predestined, called, justified(declared righteous before God), and glorified. Seeing that not everyone is saved, all can NOT be glorified. Again, the context is crystal clear as to whom Paul is referring to.

Then the very next verse after vs 32 Paul wrote Who can bring an accusation against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies. There’s those pesky words some ppl hate to see, God’s elect. Also, Paul stated it is God who justifies. How does God justify the lost? By faith. Romans 5:1 states Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. So, where does faith come from that justifies the lost? It can not come from man, seeing not all ppl have faith, as 2 Thessalonians 3:2 says and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil people, for not all have faith. Faith comes from God and does not resonate from man, nor is it innate in fallen man. The lost are devoid of faith, because the very moment someone has faith they are saved. 

Then we can read Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is the one who died, but even more, has been raised; he also is at the right hand of God and intercedes for us.[vs 34] Who are these ‘and intercedes for us’? If you look at the role the OT High Priest played, and that he interceded for God’s ppl, and that the Christ is the High Priest for God’s ppl, the elect, it’s crystal clear the ppl who make up ‘and intercedes for us’, is not mankind indiscriminately, but His sheep, His elect.

I will end this blog post after examining this passage No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.[vss 37-39] In verse 37 Paul wrote ‘we are conquerors through Him who loved us’. Again, us in context, is believers. Then he goes on to write that nothing can separate us(believers, not all mankind indiscriminately) from the love of God that is in the Christ.

So, the ‘all’ in vs 32 are God’s ppl, God’s sheep, God’s elect, who He offered for atonement for their sins.

Eisegesis series part 5: John 1:29

 

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”[John 1:29 CSB]

This verse is used to support universal atonement, but those who use it, haven’t fully grasped all it avers. John proclaimed He takes away the sin of the world. Now, if the word ‘world’ means ‘all whoever lived’, they’re advocating universalism. If ‘world’ means ‘worldwide’, it makes better sense. Here’s what I mean. To take away sins means to expiate them. To expiate means to take/remove one’s guilt from them. If their sins are taken from them, then they’re saved, seeing saved means to be justified, and being justified means to be declared righteous before God. So, if the Christ takes sins from literally everyone, which is what many say ‘world’ means, then everyone whose sins have been taken away are saved. They have had their sins expiated/removed from them.

 

God’s wrath will be poured out on all the lost on the day of judgment. If ‘everybody whoever lived’ have their sins taken from them, then there’s no wrath for God to mete out the day He judges ppl.

In expiation is also propitiation, which means God’s wrath has been satisfied, satiated, appeased. So, those who have their sins taken away, expiated, do not have God’s wrath abiding upon them, seeing they have been expiated, propiated(also means atoned), and have been reconciled to God. Reconciliation means two enemies making peace with each other. None who are reconciled, their sins expiated/taken away, have their sins propitiated(which means it was God who was propitiated as He was the one offended, not man) will die lost.

 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”[John 10:11]

Here we see the Christ giving His life for the sheep. In this, He took their sins upon Himself(expiation), died in their stead(propitiation/which also means atonement), and rose from the dead for them(justification). Then it was also written Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.[Ephesians 5:25] So, the Christ died for His ppl, the elect, the sheep, and in this, He expiated, reconciled and propiated their sins, and they will never die lost.

“An un-Triune Trinity” John 3:16 & John 17:9

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”[John 3:16 CSB]

“I pray for them. I am not praying for the world but for those you have given me, because they are yours.”[John 17:9 CSB]

First off, I want to give you the definition of the trinity. The Trinity means there is one God, one Being. In this Being, there are three distinct Persons, which comprise the Triune Godhead. They are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are in perfect and complete harmony, unity, and agreement. At no time are they opposed to each other. Whatever One wants, all want. Whatever One does not want, all do not want.

The reason why I bring this up is in today’s churches, they preach God being opposed to Himself. In John 3:16, it says “For God loves the world in this way:”. Now, ppl conflate the word ‘world’ to mean ‘everybody whoever existed’. Then in John 17:9, the Christ in His High Priestly Prayer said “I pray for them. I am not praying for the world…” Now, who are the ‘them’ the Christ is praying for? In John 17:2 the Christ says ”since you gave him authority over all flesh, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.” And He also said ”I have revealed your name to the people you gave me from the world. They were yours, you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.”[John 17:6] So we can plainly see the ones the Christ was praying for was not the entire world indiscriminately, but for those the Father had given Him to redeem from the world. Now, why would God love the world…everybody without exception, and the Christ not pray for everybody without exception? This is an un-harmonious Trinity, a disagreeable Trinity, an un-united Trinity. In other words, whoever says God loves everybody whoever lives, is making a rather blasphemous statement, seeing the Christ did not pray for the world.

To stop the confusion, one must realize the word ‘world’ does not mean ‘everybody whoever lived’, but rather, it encompasses the world, but not everybody. Here’s an example. To this day, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and Billy Graham are known all over the world. This does not mean everybody whoever lived has heard of them, but that their fame has been spread worldwide. Here are a few verses to show you what I mean.

We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints because of the hope reserved for you in heaven. You have already heard about this hope in the word of truth, the gospel that has come to you. It is bearing fruit and growing all over the world, just as it has among you since the day you heard it and came to truly appreciate God’s grace.[Colossians 1:3-6] Paul here is telling them that the gospel is growing all over the world. It is bearing fruit all over the world. But it was not bearing fruit in everybody without exception. Remember, the world to them at the time of Paul’s writings meant inhabited earth. They never thought of this with regards to those who were living in modern day Canada, United States, Mexico, the Hawaiian Islands, Figi, Alaska, &c. The gospel was not bearing fruit in these places at the time when Paul wrote Colossians. In C.I. Scofield’s ‘Prophecy made plain’, he wrote that 800,000 ppl had not heard the gospel. He died in 1921, so that book was written somewhere around 1900. Wayne Peterson of the ‘Alliance for the Unreached’ told CBN news “Out of the seven billion people on planet Earth, I think it’s 3.2 billion people, which is about 40 percent of the population, have no opportunity to hear the gospel where they live, in their location.” This was as of April 2018. I will provide the link at the bottom of the page. So it’s obvious the gospel spreading and producing fruit all over the world, Paul was not saying everybody whoever lived was hearing it, but that it was spreading through the inhabited world, which to them was the area surrounding Israel going into other surrounding gentile nations.

”He was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him.”[John 1:10] Here we see three times ‘world’ is used. ”He was in the world…” This is referring to the Christ during His earthly life. No way can this say that everybody whoever lived was in John’s mind here. He is saying that He was in the world, planet earth, not everybody whoever lived. “and the world was created through Him…” Here is one place that ‘world’ could mean everybody whoever lived, as this is saying all His creation, which John 1:3 says ”All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.“ This is talking about His creating everything we see, not just mankind in general. ”and yet the world did not recognize Him.” So, if the world, meaning everybody whoever lived, did not know Him, then how did He have any believers, any followers, any Disciples and Apostles? It’s ludicrous to say the word ‘world’ means everybody whoever lived. The world in many places refers to the lost. Jesus told His ppl ”If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you.”[John 15:19] Here He says He has chosen them out of it(world). This can’t mean everybody whoever lived, but chose them out of the world, those who are lost. They are no longer part of the world, the lost, and because of that, the world hates them.

I think it’s suffice to say I have proven to you, dear reader, that the word world (rarely means all whoever lived{that portion in John 1:10 is the only place I can think of that means this}) does not mean all whoever lived.

Now again, why would God love the world, all without exception, and the Christ was not praying for those the Father loves? This makes the Godhead opposed to each other. But once you grasp how the word world is used, it all clicks together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The “For God loves the world in this way” is true. But it does not mean He loves everybody without exception. He hates all evildoers.[Psalm 5:5] He also hates arrogant eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood[see Genesis 9:6], a heart that plots wicked things, feet eager to run towards evil, a lying witness who gives false testimony,and one who stirs up trouble among brothers. All of those can be found in Proverbs 6:16-19.

So now we know why the Christ, who was not opposed to His Father’s will, but yea, rather in complete agreement with it, was not praying for the world. He confirmed His agreement with the Father’s will by praying for those who He had been entrusted with. But it was not confined to those who were with Him whilst He was living on earth, but also ”I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in me through their word. May they all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe you sent me.”[John 17:20,21] So His High Priestly prayer was for all of His sheep and not for the goats.

Here’s the link to Wayne Peterson’s statement…http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2018/april/more-than-one-third-of-humanity-will-never-hear-about-jesus-day-to-reach-the-unreached-set-for-may-20

With that, I pray you come out from believing in a fractured Trinity.

“The idolatry of the church sanctuary”: John 4:21-24

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”[John 4:21-24]

I see, or at least I see it this way, that ppl seem to have made an idol out of the church sanctuary. They say members shouldn’t eat in there because it is a place we have set aside for worship. I see this as something that is more practical than biblical. I see it as being wise not to eat in the sanctuary, seeing kids can be rather messy, so by not eating in the sanctuary it keeps the messes down. But to say one should not eat in the sanctuary because it’s a place of worship is a bit much, imo.

The woman at the well said something that stuck out with me. As she was conversing with the Christ she said, “Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” To her, worshiping God was to take place on a mountain. She was a Samaritan, which meant they had both Jewish and Gentile lineage. At many times Israel got into trouble by worshiping in high places(mountains), when they were supposed to not worship there. They had their idols on the mountain, and this idolatry caused the wrath of God to come upon them. Well, she seemed to be a little confused, because she had said “and you people say say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” The Christ then went on to say ”You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” He told her that they were on the mountain worshiping what they do not understand. They were worshiping idols. He was also saying the Jews knew who they were worshiping(the true Jews are those who make up true Israel, {Romans 2:28,29 Romans 9:6-8 & Romans 11:1,2},but that’s another subject), and that now those who worship Him, will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. They will no longer have to go to Jerusalem to worship, but will have the Spirit with, and in them, and can worship Him anywhere and everywhere they go.

I used this passage to support my claim(s). My claim(s) is this…we are now the temple of God(1 Cor. 3:16, 1 Cor. 6:19, 2 Cor. 6:16), no longer is it a temple that men built, that God dwelt in. He no longer dwells in a human erected building(Acts 17:24), but inside His ppl. The church is the ppl, not the building. If the church building burns down, the church does not cease. The church can be in a member’s house, in their yard, in a field, in a cave, &c. Those who lived during the Apostles days(after the Christ’s resurrection and ascension)had church in various places. I have worshiped God in my car and at work, should I no longer eat in my car? If church is at someone’s house, should they no longer eat in the room they have set aside(sanctified) for worship?

 

Edited to add: What I mean is eating in the church sanctuary after service, not during worship service and/or Sunday school.