12/31/14

From Jim McGuiggan... The Faith That Saves


The Faith That Saves

1. The faith that saves in Jesus Christ must have in it at least three elements. There must be knowledge of the gospel truths; there must be an intellectual acceptance of those truths. That is, we must be able to say, "These things are true!" And there must be a personal and willing commitment of oneself to the person of the Jesus Christ of the gospel.

2. It's that third component that needs careful attention. The first two may exist in the same person and that person may still be outside of Christ, not reconciled to God. Having been raised in a Christian home a person may be able to recite the profound basics of the gospel and may believe they are accurate but for many reasons have no wish to benefit from that gospel truth.

3. Nevertheless, though these two are not enough to bring us into saving union with Christ they must exist. We can't commit ourselves in faith to him of whom we haven't heard (Romans 10:13) nor can we trust ourselves to Christ if we deny the truth of what's preached about him. Presuming we have heard and do assent to the truths of the gospel we're still not in Christ until we willingly commit ourselves to him by faith. Faith means more than gladly confessing the truth of what we've heard.
So what is saving faith?

4. It is a personal human response. (It is not God's response to himself.)
It is a personal confession of utter, limitless need.
It is a personal confession that God alone is the model of moral and spiritual life; that he alone is the fount of holiness and the ultimate model in whose image we are to live.
It is the personal submission of the will (in light of Jesus Christ) to live in the likeness of God as reflected in Jesus Christ.
It is the fruit of the Spirit of God at work in us.

5. It is all this and more but it is at least that. This means we shouldn't reduce it to a humble confession that God alone can save us. That is true beyond exaggeration but saving faith is more than that confession. It is more than that because God's eternal purpose is infinitely wider than rescuing us from sin. The larger purpose is eternal life with him in holy love and joy. This is the purpose behind his purpose to redeem us from sin. Redeeming us from sin serves the grander and wider purpose of eternal life!

6. This means that faith is related to eternal life. Faith (in Jesus Christ) does not bring us life because faith has some inherent quality in itself. There is no life-bringing or life-creating power in faith itself. Saving faith links us to the one who alone has life-giving power and the grace to bestow it on the undeserving. Still, faith is inextricably linked to eternal life. What it's linked to that should lead us to look closely at the ethical element in faith. "Life with God" is more than mere human existence which itself comes from God and is sustained by God.

7. Beyond mere existence and life that is common to all God's creatures (see Acts 17:25) there is life with God that is life lived in God's favour. That life includes forgiveness of sins and all the other blessings that come to us and will come to us in Jesus Christ. That life is found only in and through Jesus Christ, only in and through the Jesus Christ who reconciled us to God. (We might well call this "life to the full"--John 10:10.)

8. It is that life that faith lays hold of. That life cannot exist apart from Christ and apart from faith in Jesus Christ. But life that is life in favour with God is shaped by the nature and character of the holy Father. Because he is who and what he is the life that he gives can only reflect him; can only reflect the quality and essence of his own life. It cannot be that light would dwell with darkness and it cannot be that I freely and cheerfully choose to hold God in contempt and at the same time share his life. If we share his life we must embrace his character and so embrace the "kind" of life that he has and gives. This is why the Christ insists that to "know" him and the one true God is "life" (John 17:3).

9. Life is relational! It isn't a legal status conferred on us but the experience of a dynamic relationship with the holy Father in and through Jesus Christ. That restored relationship (with all it entails) is what we call "reconciliation" and it is grounded in what God has done in Jesus Christ at the cross. That is what faith secures for us: the blessing of reconciliation that comes through the redeeming work of Christ.

10. Without faith we can't have relationship or life. Why is that? Is faith an arbitrary condition God laid on us if we want his favour? Might he just as easily have made financial success the path to reconciliation and life? No, the nature of "faith" is determined by the nature of God and who we are before him. Faith is gladly accepting the truth of the message and gladly embracing the demands of the character of God implicit in the message.

11. Faith is both intellectual and ethical. Faith is trust, of course, but it isn't a trust without moral and ethical content. By his life and death Christ comes saying we have offended the infinitely holy Father and that we must be realigned to him if we are to have life. It is faith that lays hold on that life. Christ not only creates that faith, he gives it its nature because it is the Christ himself that faith embraces. The heart and mind and will that embraces Jesus Christ in trust is a heart that is like God's. The believing heart echoes the Lord's, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." When the sinner by grace has such a heart he and God have been reconciled.

12. Having that heart, making that confession and commitment is what the scriptures mean by faith. So faith gains reconciliation with God because the heart of faith is the heart of God. Reconciliation is relational and thoroughly ethical and there is no reconciliation with God unless we are personally realigned and re-identified with God.

"This Is the Law and the Prophets" by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=526

"This Is the Law and the Prophets"

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Most people who are familiar with the Bible would agree that Matthew chapters 5-7, often referred to as the Sermon on the Mount, contain some of the most memorable sayings in the world. Jesus’ list of beatitudes (5:3-12), His instruction to “do to others what you would have them do to you” (7:12, NIV), and His parable of the wise man and the foolish man (7:24-27) often are recalled even by those who rarely (if ever) read the Bible. When people implement these principles and rules that Jesus taught nearly 2,000 years ago, individuals grow stronger, families become more united, and society becomes a better place in which to live.
Sadly, however, the most famous “sermon” in the world also has become one of the most misunderstood and most abused sermons ever delivered. “Judge not, that you be not judged” (7:1) is quoted to “prove” that we never can judge anyone at anytime (cf. John 7:24). The narrow and difficult way to heaven that few will find often is discounted by the idea that nearly everyone will have eternal life (7:13-14). And millions of people have changed Jesus’ statement, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven” (7:21), to “Just accept Jesus into your heart and you will be saved.”
Another misconception of the Sermon on the Mount revolves around some of the contrasts Jesus made. Six times in Matthew 5 it is recorded that Jesus contrasted what “was said” to what “I say.” Many believe that Jesus was contrasting the old law of Moses (what “was said”) with the new law of Christ (what “I say”). Whereas Jesus taught that it was wrong to be angry with a brother without a cause (5:22-26), many contend that the old law taught only murder as being wrong and not the emotions (such as anger) that lead to murder (5:21). Supposedly the law of Christ went a step further than the Law of Moses. According to this line of thinking, the old law taught individuals to take personal retribution on those who wronged them (5:38) and to hate their enemies (5:43), while the new law taught to resist retaliation (5:39-42) and to love your enemies (5:44). In contrasting the Law of Moses and the righteousness of the kingdom that Jesus would require, the point frequently is made that the old law was concerned only with the actions of man, whereas the new law is concerned about the heart of man.
The first problem with this line of thinking is that Jesus never said He was contrasting His teachings with the old law. Instead, Jesus made statements such as: (1) “you have heard that it was said to those of old” (5:21,27); (2) “furthermore it has been said” (5:31); (3) “again you have heard that it was said to those of old” (5:33); and (4) “you have heard that it was said” (5:38,43). If Jesus were referring to what Moses had commanded in the old law itself, likely a different wording would have been used. For example, at other times, when Jesus definitely was referring to what the law actually said, He made such statements as “it is written” (Matthew 4:4,7,10) and “Moses commanded” (Matthew 8:4). [Notice that these phrases occur in the chapters immediately before and after the Sermon on the Mount.] Instead of using phrases like these to show that He was referring to the Law of Moses, Jesus repeatedly spoke about what “was said.” He never mentioned who said it, only that it had been said.
Another dilemma that arises when one teaches that Jesus merely was contrasting the old law with the new law is that Jesus referred to some statements that simply are not to be found in the Old Testament. For instance, in Matthew 5:21 He said, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.” The phrase “and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment” is found nowhere in the Old Testament. Likewise, when Jesus stated, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’ ” He could not have been quoting from the old law because the old law never said to “hate your enemy.”
So what was Jesus doing if He was not contrasting the old law with the new law? The answer to this question is found in the immediate context of this passage where Jesus stated: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill…. I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17,20). The comparisons Jesus made throughout the rest of the chapter were between the traditional/oral interpretation and application of the Law of Moses (not the revealed written Law of Moses) and the righteousness of the kingdom that Jesus would require of His disciples (under the new law). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expounded the real meaning of the original law as it was intended. He applied it correctly, and “the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29). The scribes and Pharisees had failed in their attempts to explain the law correctly, whereas Jesus explained and applied its real meaning and exposed the error of the “learned.” This point is illustrated perfectly by one of Jesus’ statements recorded in chapter 7: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the prophets” (v.12, emp. added). Jesus was not instituting a new commandment; rather He was explaining that doing “to others what you would have them do to you” is a summary expression of all that the Old Testament required (Barnes).
Although many people in the religious world teach that in His oft’-quoted sermon Jesus simply was contrasting the old law with the new law, the context indicates that Jesus actually was reacting, not to the law itself, but to the way the law had been misinterpreted and abused. The Old Testament did not encourage or allow a person to be angry with his brother without a cause or to covet another’s wife (cf. Proverbs 6:18; Exodus 20:17), but, sadly, many of the Jews had interpreted the law in such a way. In His masterful explanation of the law, Jesus exposed the error of the scribes and Pharisees and preached the righteousness demanded of those who wish to enter the kingdom of heaven. Even though we no longer are under the old law today (Hebrews 8:7-13; Colossians 2:14; etc.), what a blessing it is read it (cf. Romans 15:4) and to learn from the Master’s perfect interpretation of it. Like Ezra and others from long ago, Jesus “gave the sense [of the law], and helped them to understand the reading” (cf. Nehemiah 8:8).

REFERENCE

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

From Mark Copeland... Jesus Predicts His Passion And Resurrection (Mark 10:32-34)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

         Jesus Predicts His Passion And Resurrection (10:32-34)

INTRODUCTION

1. On three separate occasions, Jesus predicted His passion and
   resurrection...
   a. In the region of Caesarea Philippi, He emphasized the necessity
      - Mk 8:31
   b. While traveling through Galilee, He stressed the certainty - Mk 9:31
   c. Now on the road to Jerusalem, He describes it in greater detail
      - Mk 10:32-34

2. If you have ever faced an impending ordeal...
   a. You know the anticipation itself adds to the trial
   b. The anxiety and stress of knowing what it is to come

[As we remember what Jesus did to save us, do not overlook the burden of
knowing in advance what He would suffer, and what helped Him to endure.
So let's look a closer look, beginning with...]

I. THE SETTING

   A. ON THE ROAD TO JERUSALEM...
      1. Making their way from beyond the Jordan via Jericho - Mk 10:1,46
      2. This was Jesus' last trip to Jerusalem

   B. THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WALKED...
      1. Jesus taking the lead - Mk 10:32
      2. The disciples following behind - Mk 10:32 (NLT)
      3. The people further behind - Mk 10:32 (NLT)

   C. THE ATTITUDES AS THEY WALKED...
      1. Jesus with steadfast determination - cf. Lk 9:51
      2. The disciples filled with awe, perhaps by Jesus' determination
         - Mk 10:32 (NLT)
      3. The people overwhelmed with fear, perhaps knowing the danger
         Jesus and His followers faced in Jerusalem - Mk 10:32 (NLT);
         cf. Jn 9:22; 11:8,57

[At some point, Jesus takes the twelve apostles aside and begins to tell
them what will happen to Him...]

II. THE PREDICTION

   A. HE WILL BE BETRAYED...
      1. Betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes - Mk 10:33
      2. Referring to the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the Jews
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 14:41-46

   B. HE WILL BE CONDEMNED...
      1. Condemned to death and delivered to the Gentiles - Mk 10:33
      2. Referring to the Romans, who alone had the authority to put to
         death - cf. Jn 18:31
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 14:55-64

   C. HE WILL BE MOCKED...
      1. Treated with contempt, ridiculed - Mk 10:34
      2. To imitate with mockery and derision
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 15:16-20,29-32

   D. HE WILL BE SCOURGED...
      1. To be whipped, punished severely - Mk 10:34
      2. "Under the Roman method of 'scourging,' the person was stripped
         and tied in a bending posture to a pillar, or stretched on a
         frame. The "scourge" was made of leather thongs, weighted with
         sharp pieces of bone or lead, which tore the flesh of both the
         back and the breast." - Vine
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 15:15

   E. HE WILL BE SPIT ON...
      1. With saliva or phlegm
      2. Done with anger or contempt - Mk 10:34
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 14:65; 15:19

   F. HE WILL BE KILLED...
      1. Death would follow His mockery and torture - Mk 10:34
      2. Jesus knew the manner of death:  crucifixion! - cf. Mt 20:19
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 15:24,37

   G. HE WILL RISE THE THIRD DAY...
      1. Resurrected from the dead - Mk 10:34
      2. Foretold very early in His ministry - cf. Jn 2:19-22
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 16:1-7

CONCLUSION

1. When Jesus predicted His passion and resurrection...
   a. The first time, Peter took Jesus aside and rebuked Him - Mk 8:31-33
   b. The second time, the disciples did not understand and refused to
      ask Him - Mk 9:31-32
   c. The third time, there is no dispute (though they may have still
      been confused)
2. What strikes me about these three predictions...
   a. Is that it reveals that Jesus knew what would happen to Him!
   b. The stress and anxiety from anticipation only added to His
      suffering for us!

3. How was Jesus able to press on, knowing what was to come...?
   a. The writer to the Hebrews reveals the answer - cf. He 12:2
   b. He encourages us to "consider Him...lest you become weary and
      discouraged" - He 12:3

Yes, let's consider how He died, but also He faced knowing what awaited
Him.  As Erdman wrote...

"Let us pause to gaze on that face and form, the Son of God, going with
unfaltering step toward the Cross! Does it not awaken us to new heroism,
as we follow; does it not awaken new love as we see how voluntary was
His death for us; yet do we not wonder at the meaning and the mystery of
that death?"

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... Truth, disconnect and a prayer


During 2014 I have become an avid lover of Dogs. My own two dogs are with me day and night and there is a bond there that is undeniable!!!  So, I can picture myself saying these words to them; this is true!!!  But, when I turned to the 25th Psalm the words of the graphic were nowhere to be found. Read for yourself.

Psalm 25
 1  To you, Yahweh, do I lift up my soul.
  2 My God, I have trusted in you.
Don’t let me be shamed.
Don’t let my enemies triumph over me.
  3 Yes, no one who waits for you shall be shamed.
They shall be shamed who deal treacherously without cause.

  4 Show me your ways, Yahweh.
Teach me your paths.
  5 Guide me in your truth, and teach me,
For you are the God of my salvation,
I wait for you all day long.
  6 Yahweh, remember your tender mercies and your loving kindness,
for they are from old times.

  7 Don’t remember the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions.
Remember me according to your loving kindness,
for your goodness’ sake, Yahweh.
  8 Good and upright is Yahweh,
therefore he will instruct sinners in the way.
  9 He will guide the humble in justice.
He will teach the humble his way.
  10 All the paths of Yahweh are loving kindness and truth
to such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
  11 For your name’s sake, Yahweh,
pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
  12 What man is he who fears Yahweh?
He shall instruct him in the way that he shall choose.
  13 His soul shall dwell at ease.
His seed shall inherit the land.
  14 The friendship of Yahweh is with those who fear him.
He will show them his covenant.

  15 My eyes are ever on Yahweh,
for he will pluck my feet out of the net.
  16 Turn to me, and have mercy on me,
for I am desolate and afflicted.
  17 The troubles of my heart are enlarged.
Oh bring me out of my distresses.
  18 Consider my affliction and my travail.
Forgive all my sins.
  19 Consider my enemies, for they are many.
They hate me with cruel hatred.
  20 Oh keep my soul, and deliver me.
Let me not be disappointed, for I take refuge in you.
  21 Let integrity and uprightness preserve me,
for I wait for you.
  22 Redeem Israel, God,
out all of his troubles.

So, the Psalm is the Psalmist's entreaty to God and not the-other-way-round.  Could God say the words in the picture? Yes. Did HE say it exactly like this- not to my knowledge.  However, knowing GOD, it surely sounds like something HE would do. Having said these things- Psalm 25 is my prayer as well!!!
 

12/30/14

From Jim McGuiggan... THE CHURCH AND THE "OUTER FRINGE"


THE CHURCH AND THE "OUTER FRINGE"

A reader asked about outreach and how it can be worked at with homosexual people. This is practical and pastoral theology and we need to work out responses to the issues that arise if we are going to take the "go" commission seriously. As long as we reject and conscientiously isolate a segment of society we'll never have to work up a plan of action on how to work with them. And as long as we despise and isolate a segment of society it won’t make any difference what it is we "go" with—it isn’t the gospel of God in Jesus Christ. We can waltz all we want around those funny texts in the gospel but Christ got into trouble with the righteous people because he kept hanging around the notably sinful [Luke 15:1-2].

I think many of us conservative Evangelicals have been wrong in our approach to noted sinners (that is people engaging in notable sins). We've tried to keep them out of jobs and in 'leper' colonies where they won't get among us and contaminate our children or us. We go for isolation rather than insulation. In isolating them we certainly won't get contaminated by them but they certainly won't get saved and transformed by us. It's difficult for these people to believe us when we say "Jesus loves you and so do we" when we treat them as unfit for our social world as a dentist, school-teacher or anything else for that matter. The only dialogue we have with them is via the ballot-box when we work like maniacs to defeat their advocate and his/her policies. At most, we talk to them as political opponents. We certainly don't talk with them about anything else on any other occasion.

Finally they get voting power and we think of preaching to them (but do we?). We reach out as a kind of damage control. If we make Christians out of them they'll be no threat to our families and way of life. "Did you know about Jesus loving me when you exercised your political clout to keep me out of a job or deprive me of some civil rights? I never heard you before I got some of that and now you come bringing Jesus. Is this because you want to save me or is it to keep me from becoming too powerful and threatening your comfortable little world? You worried that I might get too strong and begin to infect your kids?" We do the same with those movie houses that show hard porn. We (if we do anything) sometimes parade with placards STOP THIS JUNK. We never go to see the owners. If we went and they said their livelihood depended on it we'd tell them they shouldn't make a living polluting society. Suppose they ask us, "If I show only PG or family movies will you work to promote my business, will you come and bring all your friends?" What then? [And what of masses of believers who have a million junk TV channels? Those that watch porn in their homes? D’you think the kids don’t know that?]

If by now my children don't understand that I think all forms of sexual immorality are displeasing to God and ruinous to humanity I need to get to work with my children. It mustn't be done in a fever nor should we speak of such things only in the negative. It's not just what we're running from but what we're running to. It isn't only that we strive to avoid sexual and other infidelity it's that we pursue to embrace holiness. And it isn't just that we embrace a high moral standard, we image Christ and that is more than simple adherence to moral standards—it’s "gospeling". I don't say that we should make our homes a meeting place for all those who are deviant or rebellious. It isn't required for us to go looking for the philanderers and homosexual people and invite them home for tea. The deeper issue, so it seems to me, is not what it would "look like" if we did such things. We all know organizations that specialize in caring for the outer fringe and we know exactly what they mean to accomplish. We all know that the Salvation Army is up to its neck with the drug addicts and so forth and it doesn't "look bad" to us—fact is, we admire them. If we establish ourselves as Christ imaging only those who choose to be our enemies or those who are scruple-bound will find it offensive. Christ knew how bad it "looked" to the righteous when he consorted with notable sinners but he still went on with it. The sinners never thought their sin was being condoned—it was only some of the righteous that thought so. In reaching out for the lost Christ was obviously willing to take the flack and was also willing to live without the fellowship of the righteous if he had to. I don't think we should thoughtlessly put our children in jeopardy. They are not to be made cannon fodder in a war we take on and conduct in lunacy. However we wage the war against the Enemy we should be wise. It’s better than fine for us to risk ourselves to redeem people but it might not be wise to risk our children, though tens of thousands down the years risked their children in mission work. Most didn’t do it without thought or in a cavalier manner. They were prayerful, thoughtful and as husbands and wives they were risk-takers for Christ. I would fully expect that a lot of teaching and prayer and strengthening would need to occur before we put our vulnerable children on the firing line. However we do it we need to prepare them (as well as ourselves) for a particular kind of warfare. There’s nothing wise or loving or brave in throwing our defenseless children into profound moral and spiritual danger; it’s wrong to callously offer our children on the altar of a shoddy and ill-conceived program we generated in a fit of righteous passion.

It makes no sense to me to go cruising the gay bars or the topless dancing joints to invite them home just to ease our outreach conscience or make up for past gospel-hoarding. Let’s have a gay roundup or a "gay outreach week" or a special service for gay visitors at an off-peak hour at the building. Programs can be stupid at worst or too contrived at best. They look fake and would probably, on consideration, feel fake. But I don't suppose we'll be in much danger of doing foolish things like that because we’re not even inclined to invite people home that we "don't like" even if they're as straight as an arrow and upright as a flagpole.

I'm not proposing some approach. I don’t know that I know "a good approach". I think approaches will be worked out in individual lives and churches because they know themselves and their families and their congregations and the interrelations between them all. That being the case, they will know best what will or will not be wise and loving. But I am of the opinion that our holiness has so much of the Pharisee in it. If we were all as strong as Christ there's nowhere we'd be afraid to go. Since that won't happen we shouldn't worry about becoming as strong or as wise or as selfless as he is/was. But it’s of vital importance that we see him as he is, admire him as he is, declare him as he is and follow him as well as God's grace enables us. It’s of critical importance for Christians to "gospel" rather than bludgeon with a political club. It’s perfectly legitimate to vote for someone we think is best for society as a whole but it’s infinitely better that our speech be gospel! To triumph over a bitter heart at the poll booth is democracy but to live and proclaim the good news about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is gospel. Fervent—and maybe even fevered—speech at election time is legitimate but day in, day out gospeling for all people is the image of Christ.