7/28/14

From Mark Copeland... The Way Which They Call A Sect (Acts 24:14) 

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                The Way Which They Call A Sect (24:14)

INTRODUCTION

1. We live in a religiously divided world...
   a. There are various world religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, 
      Hinduism, Buddhism)
   b. Each of those religions have many divisions within themselves
   c. Among so-called "Christianity" there are more than 38,000
      denominations

2. New Testament Christians are opposed to denominationalism...
   a. Because Jesus prayed for unity among believers - Jn 17:20-23
   b. Because Paul condemned religious division - 1Co 1:10-13

[Yet despite efforts to be simply Christians, non-denominational in any
sense of the word, the world in which we live wants to define and
categorize every group of Christians as a denomination.  

When we disdain denominationalism and yet are viewed as a denomination,
what can we do?  Perhaps we can learn from how the apostle Paul handled
a similar situation in his day...]

I. THE WAY WHICH THEY CALL A SECT

   A. THE SECT OF THE NAZARENES...
      1. Paul was accused of being "a ringleader of the sect of the
         Nazarenes" - Ac 24:5
      2. In the beginning, many Gentiles and Jews considered Christians a
         sect of Judaism
      3. They were called "Nazarenes" by enemies because they followed 
         Jesus of Nazareth
      4. It was not a label the Christians used to describe themselves
      5. They considered themselves the promised fulfillment of Judaism,
         not another branch of it

   B. DESIGNATIONS OF THE CHURCH...
      1. Collectively, followers of Jesus Christ were called by various
         terms
         a. The church of Christ, the church of God - Ro 16:16; 1Co 1:2
         b. The body of Christ, the kingdom of Christ - Ep 1:22,23; Col 1:13
         c. The temple of God, the bride of Christ - 1Co 3:16; Re 19:7-8
         -- Note that not one of these terms was used as some exclusive,
            official name   
      2. In the early days of the church, they were also known as people
         of "The Way"
         a. Saul of Tarsus persecuted those of "the Way" - Ac 9:2; 22:4
         b. Others spoke evil of "the Way" - Ac 19:9
         c. At Ephesus there was a riot about "the Way" - Ac 19:23
         d. Paul confessed to worship God according to "the Way" - Ac 24:14
         e. Felix the governor gained accurate knowledge about "the Way"
            - Ac 24:22
         -- Likely called "The Way" because they followed Jesus as the 
            Way - Jn 14:6

   C. PAUL'S RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE...
      1. It is interesting how Paul responded to being called a "sect" 
         - Ac 24:5
      2. He acknowledged that what his accusers called a sect was how he
         worshiped God - Ac 24:14
      3. Yet he did not feel it necessary to explain to those with a
         sectarian mindset how he was not a member of a sect
      4. Instead, he used the opportunity to confess his faith in the
         Scriptures and hope in God concerning the resurrection - Ac 24:14-16
      5. In other words, he focused his response on the gospel of Christ,
         rather than on their misconceptions about Christians being a 
         sect of Judaism

[Perhaps Paul's response can offer guidance on how Christians who are
non-denominational can respond to those who want to label us as a 
denomination...]     

II. THE WAY WHICH THEY CALL A DENOMINATION

   A. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST TODAY...
      1. There are thousand of churches of Christ around the world -
         Ro 16:16
      2. They are made up of disciples of Jesus, and are simply 
         Christians - Ac 11:26
      3. The congregations are autonomous and independent of one another
         - Ac 20:28; 1Pe 5:1-2
      4. They abide in the apostles' doctrine, using the New Testament as
         their guide in matters of worship, work, and organization - Ac 2:42
      5. Their goal is to abide in the doctrine of Christ, the faith once
         for all delivered to the saints - 2Jn 1:9; Jude 1:3
      6. Yet many in denominational churches view such churches as simply
         another denomination; e.g., the "Church of Christ" denomination
      7. This concerns many Christians, who do not want to be viewed as
         another denomination

   B. DESIGNATIONS OF THE CHURCH TODAY...
      1. As indicated above there, there are various terms, not one
         exclusive name
      2. The expression "Church of God" is scriptural, but not expedient
         a. Sadly, more than 200 denominations use the term "Church of 
            God"
         b. Churches that use this expression are more than likely
            denominational
      3. The expression "Church of Christ" has long been both scriptural
         and expedient
         a. It is often used by denominations to refer to the universal
            church
         b. Churches that use this expression are more than likely
            non-denominational
      4. But more and more, "Church of Christ" is used in a 
         denominational sense
         a. Certainly by those who are in a denomination themselves
         b. But also by churches of Christ who have adopted a 
            denominational mindset
      5. Thus today, many if not most say the "Church of Christ" is
         another denomination
  
   C. OUR RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE...
      1. Some suggest churches use other designations to avoid being
         misunderstood
         a. E.g., having the church sign say "Christians Meet Here"
         b. E.g., identifying ourselves simply as "The Church" (cf. The
            Church at Birmingham)
      2. Not that such would be unscriptural, but is it expedient?
         a. Like the sign of the fish in the first century, the term
            "Church of Christ" is still a more likely way to find New 
            Testament churches
         b. How long before people viewed us the "Christians Meet Here"
             denomination, or "The Church" denomination?
         c. In a world with a denominational mind-set, it is virtually 
            impossible not to be called or thought of as a denomination
      3. Why not consider the response of Paul in our text? - Ac 24:14
         a. He did not consider it necessary to explain how he was not a
            member of a sect
         b. Instead, he used the opportunity to proclaim his faith and 
            hope in God
         c. In fact, do we ever find Paul or others preaching about the 
            church in Acts?
         d. Instead, they proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ and the 
            proper response
         e. Once people obeyed the gospel, they received instructions as
            to what they were now as members of the body of Christ (i.e.,
            the church) - cf. Mt 28:20
         f. It is in the epistles that Christians learned about the
            identity, the work, the worship, and the organization of the
            church

CONCLUSION

1. Living in a world filled with people with a denominational mindset...
   a. We need not worry so much about them viewing us another 
      denomination
   b. Changing names (scriptural or otherwise) is not likely to make
      much difference

2. Our concern should be proclaiming the gospel of Christ and the kingdom
   of God...
   a. Calling people to respond to the gospel by submitting to the rule 
      of God in their lives
   b. Following up with apostolic teaching on the nature and design of 
      the Lord's church
   c. Making sure we understand that what others may call a denomination
      is truly the fulfillment of what Jesus meant when He said "I will 
      build My Church" - Mt 16:18

To paraphrase (actually, rephrase) the apostle Paul...

"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a
denomination, so I serve Jesus Christ, believing all things which are
written in the Old and New Testaments."

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

From Gary... A little madness in the morning...


http://www.957kjr.com/onair/luciana-bosio-45943/they-called-them-crazy-but-then-they-started-playing-12603429/


Not since Victor Borge have I seen such showmanship (showwomanship; is that a word ?)!!!  And with mostly classical music, no less!!!  So, my morning was brightened by some comedy, some talent and some surprise.  Then I thought of Solomon and how his indulgences (in excess) ruined his relationship with God. How is foreign wives enticed him away from the God of Heaven. And then there are these verses...

Ecclesiastes 2:1-2 NASB
(1)  I said to myself, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure. So enjoy yourself." And behold, it too was futility.
(2)  I said of laughter, "It is madness," and of pleasure, "What does it accomplish?"
Take some time and view the link above, I did (twice)!!!  But, remember that pleasure is only one aspect of life and not its end; that is reserved for the Almighty!!!  And perhaps sometime you might just want to investigate the work of Victor Borge-- just don't laugh too much (because then you may just wonder if Solomon's madness has become yours)!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xby6HFW7c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lH1xwtJCbI

7/27/14

From Jim McGuiggan... JESUS AND ROBINSON CRUSOE


JESUS AND ROBINSON CRUSOE

Henry Ford is quoted as saying that history is just one damn thing after another. Ignoring the details of the history associated with it, Samuel Beckett, came up with a play called Breath that lasted about 28 seconds. There's a dimly lit stage littered with scattered rubbish, there's a faint brief cry and breath inhaled, the very dim light begins to increase enough to make out what’s on stage but it's never bright, then another [identical] faint cry and breath being exhaled and light dims again into complete darkness. 

28 seconds.

Play ended.

Such is life! Such is history!

So it must feel, so it must look for multiplied millions.

Surprising?

Hardly!

The message of the Hebrew—Christian scriptures includes many stories of brutality, cruelty and heartlessness that beggar description. The world it reveals has a God-denying look and there’s enough in there about God himself that tempts even believers to look away, uneasy and embarrassed.

It isn’t difficult to go to the Bible and history and choose events that we can string together and create a Beckett play or a Ford viewpoint. Something like that sits before us in the book of Ecclesiastes—“Pointless, Pointless, Everything is pointless!” [How did that book ever make it into the canon?]

But neither Ford nor Beckett could live in such a world. In your mind you can visit a world like that but you can’t live there. You can read many pieces from the Hebrew—Christian scriptures and shake your head, perplexed, but you can’t read it as a whole and see it climax in Jesus Christ and dismiss it as another record of scattered rubbish that lies between a breath taken in and another expired—end.

In the Bible you come across events that defy chaos and emptiness; events that defy gloom and pointlessness.

String those events together. Think of the Exodus and the birth of a chosen nation; think of a preacher who made his appearance in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, a preacher who heralded the arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ! String together Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation and look at the existence of millions of his followers down the centuries. String together these and so many other events and realities—realities just as real as the shocking realities, events just as historical as any history we can tell.

Robinson Crusoe lived alone for years, seeing his world in the same solitary way until that day when he saw a single human footprint. It could never be the same for him. A single piece of truth, a solitary event, and an entire world changed. That footprint was enough. He didn’t need to have all the answers to all the questions that flooded into his mind—the central issue was settled beyond dispute. He was not alone!

Just Jesus! 

That’s enough. History changes, existence changes! Ford is wrong! Beckett is wrong!
Praise God!

What Should We Call the Church? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3763

What Should We Call the Church?
by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

A visitor to this Web site recently wrote our offices inquiring about the name that the universal Church should wear. In a day when millions of church-goers are naming themselves after everything from angels to men to religious offices and activities (with many churches apparently feeling like the more bizarre they are, the better), this gentleman’s e-mail was refreshing to read. It was evident that he and those of the church where he worshipped had a desire to be called, not the latest trendy name or whatever denominational name their great-great-great...grandparents wore, but whatever God wants them to be called. What does God want the Church to be known as? If a congregation of the Church is going to put a sign outside of their meeting place, or put their contact information in phone books and on the Internet, or have an official name on the books at the court house, what name should the Church wear?

There is only one place to turn to find out what followers of Jesus Christ should be called: God’s Word (see Butt, 2007). God created man, saved man, and has every right to tell man what to do and how to do it. The teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles and prophets in God’s revealed Word is man’s ultimate authority and the book by which the world will be judged (Matthew 28:18; John 12:48; Colossians 3:17). If the saved want to please God in every area of their lives, including the religious name they wear, God’s Word must be consulted.

It is helpful, first of all, to understand something about the word “church.” The Greek word ekklesia, translated “church” in most English Bibles, was generally understood in the first-century Roman-ruled world simply to mean “assembly”—a gathering of people, whether for a secular or a religious purpose (Danker, et al., 2000, pp. 303-304; Thayer, 1962, pp. 195-196). Three times in Acts 19, Luke used the term ekklesia to describe a disorderly, secular assembly at Ephesus (vss. 32,39,41). The Septuagint translators used the term ekklesia more than 200 years before Christ in their Greek translation of the Old Testament to describe a group of 400,000 Israelite soldiers (Judges 20:2). In short, the word ekklesia was used before and after the time of Christ in reference to any kind of assembly. In the New Testament, however, it most often refers to obedient followers of Jesus Christ—those who have been called “out (Greek ek) of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9, emp. added).

Several times in the New Testament, the term “church” is linked together with the Greek term theos (God), and thus one easily can ascertain the fact that the Church to which obedient believers belong is the Church begun and owned by God. Paul wrote “to the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, emp. added), and later commanded the Corinthians to “[g]ive no offense...to the church of God” (1 Corinthians 10:32-33, emp. added). He confessed to the churches of Galatia that he had “persecuted the church of God” before becoming a Christian (Galatians 1:13, emp. added). Paul also wrote to the Christians in Thessalonica, reminding them how they “became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea” (1 Thessalonians 2:14, emp. added), and even boasted of them “among the churches of God” for their endurance through persecution (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4, emp. added). One must not miss the point that the Church of the New Testament is God’s Church. It is of divine origin and established according to Deity’s “eternal purpose” (Ephesians 3:11). Certainly then, the name “church of God” is a biblical name to wear. “Children of God” (John 1:12; Romans 8:16; 1 John 3:1-2) are members of the “church of God.”

The Bible writers also referred to the “church of God” as the body or Church of Christ. Why would God’s Church be called Christ’s Church? Consider the following:
  • Jesus is Deity (John 1:1,3,23; 10:30,33; 20:28; cf. Isaiah 9:6).
  • Jesus said the Church was “His” (Matthew 16:18).
  • Jesus paid for the Church with His own blood (Acts 20:28).
  • Jesus saved the Church from eternal destruction (John 3:16; Acts 4:12; Ephesians 5:23)
  • Jesus is “the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18,24; Ephesians 5:22-23).
  • Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is His bride (Ephesians 5:22-32; Revelation 21:9; cf. Matthew 25:1-13).
  • Jesus is returning to take His faithful Church to a new home (John 14:1-3; Matthew 25:1-13; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
Sincere, open-minded, obedient followers of Jesus Christ (i.e., Christians—Acts 11:26) who read the New Testament wondering what they should call the Church of which they are members, will come to the following conclusion: Though God did not assign one particular title for the Church, there are biblical designations that Christians can wear “by faith” (Romans 10:17), namely “Church of God” and “Church of Christ.” [NOTE: This is not to say that everyone who wears one of these names is a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Sadly, many who wear both of these names dishonor God with unscriptural acts of worship, a variety of false teachings, lukewarm lives, etc.) A faithful follower of Jesus Christ must be committed to assembling with Christians who not only wear a scriptural, non-divisive name, but also who practice authorized, unadulterated, New Testament Christianity (see Miller, 2007).]

Nowhere in the New Testament was the Church called Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Catholic, Guardian Angels’, etc. In fact, the Christians in Corinth were specifically warned about wearing divisive names that bring honor to men and imply that the Church is divided (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; cf. John 17:20-21). Sadly, millions of “Christians” around the world continue to call themselves by names other than those God has authorized in Scripture.

In addition to Scripture’s numerous examples of the Church being called God’s or Christ’s, common sense demands such biblical designations. Consider two examples.
  • If Christ owns the Church, should the Church not wear His name? If a man (we’ll call him Ricky) worked 20 years, saved his money, and bought a house, whose house is it? It is Ricky’s house. If anyone ever put a sign in front of Ricky’s house that said the house was any person’s other than Ricky’s, he would be doing that which is unauthorized and displeasing to Ricky. Only he who owns the house has the right to name it. The Church is “the house of God” (1 Timothy 3:15, emp. added), no one else’s. Christians should call His “house” by no other name.
  • If my wife informed me today that she wanted to wear another man’s name, I would be terribly hurt and “jealous with godly jealousy” (2 Corinthians 11:2-4). Perhaps it wasn’t another man’s name, but simply a name that correlates with something she likes. Say, for example, instead of Jana Lyons, she wanted to be called Jana Homeschooler. Would that bother me? It most certainly would. I love homeschooling, but I am seriously opposed to my wife calling herself by any other name than Lyons. Similarly, if the Church is the bride of Christ, why would any church claiming to be in love with Jesus and married to Him spiritually ever call themselves by another name? God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5) and nothing in Scripture authorizes His Church to call herself anything other than after Him.
When the Jewish Sanhedrin brought Peter and John before them not many days after the Church had been established (Acts 4) and inquired “by what name” they had been teaching, Peter exclaimed:
[B]y the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone. Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:8,10-12, emp. added).
The Bible may not give one official title for the Church, but both reason and revelation demand that Christians put off party names and simply call themselves after the One Who saved them. When Jesus comes back to receive His bride and take her home, she better be wearing His name and no one else’s.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Miller, Dave (2007), What the Bible Says About the Church of Christ, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcoc.pdf.

Thayer, J.H. (1962), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

From Mark Copeland... Paul's Defence Before Felix (24:1-27) 

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                Paul's Defence Before Felix (24:1-27)

INTRODUCTION

1. Transferred from Jerusalem to Caesarea...
   a. Paul faced Ananias the high priest and elders from the council once
      again
   b. This time, before Felix the Roman governor - Ac 24:1-27

2. Antonius Felix became procurator of Judea in A. D. 52...
   a. He remained in office until A.D. 60, when recalled by Nero - HIBD
   b. Tacitus and Josephus paint Felix as a brutal, incompetent
      politician - ibid.
 
[In our text, we learn Felix had many opportunities to listen to Paul. 
But he failed to make a decision with regard to his case, and with regard
to Paul's message of the gospel.  Let's first note...]

I. THE CHARGES

   A. THE ANTAGONISTS ARRIVE... 
      1. The chief priest and elders arrive - Ac 24:1
      2. Tertullus, an orator, brought along - ibid.

   B. THEY MAKE THEIR CASE...
      1. Tertullus began with great praise to Felix - Ac 24:2-4
      2. Charges were then levied against Paul - Ac 24:5-6
         a. "A plague"
         b. "A creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the 
            world"
         c. "A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes"
         d. "He tried to profane the temple"
      3. Tertullus gave his timeline of events - Ac 24:7-8
         a. The Jews had seized Paul
         b. They wanted to judge him according to their law
         c. The commander took Paul out of their hands "with great
            violence"
         d. He commanded them to appear before Felix to make their
            accusations
      4. The attending Jews agreed with Tertullus' accusations - Ac 24:9

[With the charges made against Paul, he is allowed to speak in his own
defense...]

II. THE DEFENSE

   A. PAUL PERMITTED TO SPEAK...
      1. With a nod, Felix motioned for Paul to speak - Ac 24:10
      2. Paul acknowledged Felix to have judged Israel for many years
         - ibid.
      3. Thus Paul was happy to speak for himself - ibid.

   B. PAUL REVIEWED THE EVENTS...
      1. It had only been twelve days since Paul went to Jerusalem to
         worship - Ac 24:11
      2. They had not found Paul in the temple disputing in the temple 
         - Ac 24:12
      3. Nor had he incited the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the
         city - ibid.
      4. His accusers could not prove the charges brought against him
         - Ac 24:13

   C. PAUL CONFESSED HIS FAITH...
      1. According to the Way, which they call a sect, he worshiped God
         - Ac 24:14
      2. Believing all things written in the Law and the Prophets - ibid.
      3. He had hope in the resurrection of the dead, as did they - Ac 24:15
      4. He strove to have a conscience without offense toward God and 
         men - Ac 24:16

   D. PAUL CONCLUDED HIS DEFENSE...
      1. After many years he came to bring alms and offerings to his
         nation - Ac 24:17
      2. Jews of Asia found him purified in the temple, with no mob or 
         tumult - Ac 24:18
      3. If said Jews had objections against him, they should be before 
         Felix - Ac 24:19
      4. Those present could only bring one charge  - Ac 24:20-21; cf. Ac 23:6
         a. That in the council standing before them he cried out with 
            one statement
         b. "Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by
            you this day."

[That statement is the only thing those present could attest.  The 
charges made by Tertullus were based on hearsay and without proof. 
Having heard both sides, Felix made his decision:  to wait...]

III. THE PROCRASTINATION

   A. FELIX ADJOURNED THE PROCEEDINGS...
      1. With a "more accurate knowledge of the Way" - Ac 24:22
      2. Delaying until Lysias the commander came down - ibid.
      3. Paul kept by a centurion, with unlimited visitation and
         provisions by friends - Ac 24:23

   B. FELIX HAD MANY MORE OPPORTUNITIES...
      1. At first with his wife Drusilla (who was Jewish) present - Ac 24:24-25
         a. Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I - HIBD
            1) She had been married to King Aziz of Emesa
            2) With the aid of Atomos, a magician of Cyprus, Felix won 
               her away from her husband
            3) Her son (and possibly she herself) died in when Mt. 
               Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.
         b. They heard Paul "concerning faith in Christ"
         c. Paul reasoned about "righteousness, self-control, and the
            judgment to come"
         d. Felix was afraid, and sent Paul away until "a convenient 
            time"
      2. Then often, over a period of two years - Ac 24:26-27
         a. Felix hoped for a bribe from Paul to release him
         b. Thus he sent for Paul often and conversed with him
         c. Finally, as a favor to the Jews, he left Paul bound when
            succeeded by Festus

CONCLUSION

1. It is sad to consider the character of Felix (both immoral and
   incompetent)

2. He had ample opportunity to learn the truth and obey it, but kept
   putting it off

His procrastination led to his ultimate downfall.  Let us beware lest
we wait for "a convenient time"!
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

From Gary... No more "blame game"

Today, Americans play the blame game. If something goes wrong- its somebody else's fault. If your life is falling apart because drugs or sex or excess spending; its not YOUR FAULT, blame it one someone else. The list of such things is endless and might include such things as promotions at work, losing an athletic event, problems with your children, a messy home, unpaid bills, etc.. But, sooner or later you must come to grips with the consequences of your actions. One of the best examples is the apostle Paul.  The following passages give some insight into what he had to mentally reconcile...

Galatians 1:11-24 NASB
(11)  For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
(12)  For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
(13)  For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it;
(14)  and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.
(15)  But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased
(16)  to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
(17)  nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
(18)  Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
(19)  But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
(20)  (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)
(21)  Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
(22)  I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ;
(23)  but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."
(24)  And they were glorifying God because of me.


How could he have possibly dealt with his actions before becoming a follower of Christ?


Philippians 3:1-14 NASB
(1)  Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.
(2)  Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;
(3)  for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
(4)  although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
(5)  circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
(6)  as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
(7)  But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
(8)  More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
(9)  and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
(10)  that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
(11)  in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
(12)  Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
(13)  Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead,
(14)  I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Have you made mistakes? Get over it! Does the past bother you? Make it right as best you can! Conscience bother you? Give it up to God! Don't want to? Well, soon or later you will have to!!!  Paul looked at his unconverted life and let God use him. He put the past behind him (he forgot what lies behind) and looked forward to being like Jesus and doing HIS WILL. And the result?

1 Timothy 1:15-16 NASB
(15)  It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
(16)  Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

With Jesus, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!  No matter how bad your life has been, Jesus can make it right!!!  Deal with your life, and do it now!!! Not enough for you? Well, turn to Acts, chapter 2:14ff. to see how the people who actually killed JESUS dealt with their condition.

Now, its time to start making better choices- choose wisely!!!


7/26/14

From Jim McGuiggan... The Man of Sin (1)


The Man of Sin (1)

Martha asked about the Man of Sin. The text is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Some Thessalonians were distressed because they had been urged to believe that the day of the Lord had already come (2:2). Half believing it, I suppose they would wonder what had become of their loved ones that had died, the ones Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Christ would bring with him? There was no sign of them.

Paul assures them that the day of the Lord hadn’t come and he reminds them of what he used to teach them while he was with them. And what was that? He taught them that an apostasy would come and that it would be connected with "the man of lawlessness" who would be destroyed by the Lord at his coming (2:3,8). For that to be true the apostasy would have to come first, come to focus in "the man of sin" and then he would be destroyed at the coming of the Lord.

It’s clear from this that Paul is banking on their realizing that the apostasy hadn’t yet developed and that the "man of lawlessness" had not yet appeared in order to be destroyed by the Lord’s coming.

[All kinds of interesting things develop here and one of them is this: The Thessalonians must not have connected the coming of the Lord with the literal destruction of the earth and heaven. If Paul had taught that when the Lord comes the earth was literally to be burned up, why would he bother to talk of an apostasy and the rest? Why didn’t he just say something like, "How can you believe the Lord has already come when the earth has not been burned up?]

The "man of sin" will be revealed in connection with apostasy, he is presently restrained, but he will be fully revealed when the "restrainer" is removed and the Lord will destroy him at his coming. Those appear to be explicitly affirmed by the text.

I think there are two things we need to keep in mind while wrestling with this section. One is that the rise of the "man of sin" is imminent when Paul writes. I say that because he says, "the secret power of lawlessness is already at work" (2:7) and were it not for some "restrainer" the Man of sin would be out in the open. There’s no suggestion that Paul wrote that on Thursday and that by Sunday of the following week the "man of lawlessness" should be standing in a temple somewhere but some degree of imminence is surely conveyed. Since Paul had already told the Thessalonians who or what "the restrainer" was it’s difficult to see the restrainer as some still future person or structure. Especially since the restrainer was already at work nearly two thousand years ago. I think the commentators sense this imminence element since they identify the restrainer as perhaps Paul, the gospel proclamation to the nations (compare Matthew 24:14), the ordered society created by Rome, the Roman empire and such like.
Assuming the imminence of the lawless one’s appearance generates some tensions for us. One commentator sees the imminence, takes it that this is some specific individual who was to be destroyed at the Lord’s coming and concludes that Paul taught that the Lord was soon to return. He says that the only reason we don’t accept that is because we don’t want Paul to be mistaken about the coming of the Lord. I think the commentator is correct to speak of the lawless one’s imminence, I think he is mistaken in saying that he was some individual and I think he is mistaken to think that what Paul said implied that the Lord was returning very shortly.

The second one is this, Paul doesn’t say that the appearance of the "man of lawlessness" coincides with the time of the Lord’s coming. He says you can be sure that the Lord’s coming is yet future because the apostasy hasn’t taken place and the "Man of sin" has not yet been fully revealed. The most common way of reading this section is something like this. "The Lord hasn’t come yet and the proof of it is that there has been no major apostasy and the Man of Sin has not appeared. You see the Man of Sin is to appear just prior to the return of Christ."

I can see that that makes sensible reading but maybe it isn’t what Paul said. The crucial link is missing. Paul says nothing here that would lead us to think, "The Man of Sin is to appear just prior to the return of Christ."

The Lord hasn’t come yet
The apostasy hasn’t yet occurred
The Man of lawlessness has not yet been (fully) revealed
These two events must occur before Christ returns
Christ will destroy him when he returns.

That looks like a summary of the basic proposals in the text and there’s no mention or indication that the Lawless one’s full manifestation occurs just prior to the coming of the Lord.

What is it that makes us think that the text does suggest this about the Man of Sin’s appearance? I think the primary motivation is that we take the Man of lawlessness as a particular individual. It certainly reads like it’s a particular individual. If it’s a particular person we don’t want him appearing sometime, say in the first century, and living long enough to be around when Christ comes, say in the 21st century. This would mean we have an individual somewhere in our midst who’s about 2,000 years old.

So we don’t want the Man of sin to come on the scene in the first century because we would have to choose between having this very old man or that Paul was wrong about the coming of the Lord. The question of imminence appears to me to be of critical importance. It seems we should choose between:

There is no imminence in the text—neither the coming of Christ nor the rise of the Man of sin is imminent.

There is imminence in the text—the revelation of the Man of sin.

There is imminence in the text—both the revelation of the Man of sin and the coming of the Lord.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)