All of Grace

The Most Amazing Gift Ever!

2010-09-29T07:48:00.004-05:00

...

How good do you have to be to get to heaven?

The Bible teaches that God is holy and perfect, and as such He requires perfect obedience (Matt 5:48). But, as we all know, "no one is perfect." How then can we ever have a relationship with God or get to heaven?

Well, the Bible tells the story of who God is and what He did to bring people into relationship with Him. Here's how the story unfolds:

I. Creation: The Bible tells us that God created the universe, and He created human beings to be in a loving relationship with Him forever. But, something went terribly wrong:

II. Death: The Bible then tells us how man disobeyed God and decided to make up his own rules for living apart from God. This is basically the meaning of "sin." As a result of sin, death came into the world: "For the wages of sin is death..." (Rom 6:23) This death is seen in two ways:

- Physical Death: there's a saying that "life is short." The Bible agrees and says, "You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." (James 4:14). Life is indeed short. We are all going to physically die one day, and none of us knows for sure when that will happen.

- Spiritual Death: the Bible says that we are "dead in our trespasses and sins…" (Eph 2:1). This means that we are separated from the life of God and relationship with Him.

So, the problem for us is that because of sin, both physical and spiritual death has entered into our existence, and no amount of good works can change this situation. We are all guilty before God, and one day we're all going to be judged for our sins.

If that were the end of the story, we would have no hope! But that's not the end of the story! We now see what God did to bring us into relationship with Himself!

III. New Life: The greatest "good news" that has ever been given to mankind is that Jesus Christ did everything that was needed to bring us into relationship with God!

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He came as our substitute: He took our place. He obeyed God's law perfectly, died on the cross to pay the full penalty for our sins, and then He rose bodily from the grave so that everyone who trusts in Him alone would have a relationship with God that would last forever!

So, getting to heaven and having a relationship with God isn't based on what you do or how good you are. It's based entirely on God's grace and what Jesus Christ alone has done for you! It's a gift! God's Word says: "…the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:23).

How then do you receive this amazing gift? Through saving faith and repentance. Jesus said, "…repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15) In other words, turn from your way of living to God's way of living (repentance), and place all of your trust in Jesus Christ alone to save you (saving faith). The Bible says, "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works…" (Eph 2:8,9)

Would you like to receive the most amazing gift ever; God's free gift of eternal life? You can do that right now! Here is a suggested prayer:

"Dear God, I believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, and that he died for my sins and rose bodily from the grave. I now place my life in your hands, Jesus. I trust in you alone to save me! I turn from my sins and commit my life to you. Thank you for forgiving me of all of my sins. Amen."

If you prayed that prayer, please let me know! I would love to rejoice with you, and direct you to some helpful resources.

My email address is johnandursula@yahoo.com

Sermon: The Crucifixion of Christ

2010-04-03T21:41:00.011-05:00

The following are excerpts from a sermon I preached at The Voice of the Gospel Mission in Middletown, NY, March 28, 2010:

Text: Matthew 27:31-52

...The life changing reality of our text today is that because Jesus was crucified, we now have access to God by faith alone, and we are called to carry our cross. And we will look at three things today: 1) The Brutality of the Cross, 2) the Humiliation of the Cross, and 3) the Necessity of the Cross. So lets look at our first point today:

I. The Brutality of the Cross

A. Flogging: was so brutal that very often people would in fact die from it. One commentary states: “Scourging was a cruel and barbaric punishment…The whip or scourge itself was an inhumane instrument consisting of a handle with several leather thongs attached, which were weighted on the ends with jagged pieces of bone, metal, and rock. Frequently, the agony of the scourging resulted in death. Victims lost eyes and teeth, were occasionally disemboweled and were almost always horribly disfigured."

B. Crucifixion: the victim was stripped naked and then laid on the cross. Large 7-inch spikes were driven through the hands (in the wrist area) and heels of feet. And the way a person died on the cross was through asphyxiation. Cicero, a Roman historian, described the horror of crucifixion as: “the most cruel and hideous of tortures.” and "the very mention of the cross (should) be far removed not only from a Roman citizen’s body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears."

D. Here's the picture: Jesus, the spotless, perfect, lamb of God, is brutally whipped and has the flesh torn off of His body. Christ was so disfigured from the beating that He took, that the prophet Isaiah, foreseeing what would happen to Christ, says that the Messiah would be "so disfigured he seemed hardly human, and from His appearance, one would scarcely know he was a man." And then He is paraded through the streets of Jerusalem, and taken outside of the city gates, and laid down on a piece of wood, where spikes driven through His hands and feet, and where He would spend the next 7 hours or so in incredible agony and torment.

Why did God choose this method to redeem His people? I think we can see at least three reasons as to why God might have chosen this method over others.

You see, when we look at the cross, we see something of:

1. God's holiness: when we look at the horror of the crucifixion, we get as sense of just what God thinks about sin. God hates sin so much that He would have it crucified.

2. The Love of God: when we look at the cross, we see the depth of the love of God and the extent He was willing to go in order to save us. God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son! So, when we consider the cross, we see both God's holiness and His love.

3. The cross also shows us the horror of sin itself! ...Man was created in the image of God, but when sin entered the equation, that image became marred. Man as he is today in his fallen condition is so disfigured from his original state, that he is barely recognizable in terms of what He was really created to be. And that is part of what our redemption in Christ is all about. In Christ we are renewed, and in a real sense we have our true humanity restored to us, as we are being conformed more and more to the image of Christ, the one who showed us what a human being was supposed to look like.

II. The Humiliation of the Cross

A. Crucifixion was a powerful symbol of humiliation and shame that was reserved for the worst and lowest. Jews viewed it as a sign of being accursed by God.

B. Mockery: The mocking of Jesus actually begins when Jesus is arrested and is taunted and mocked by both the Jewish and Romans authorities. Our text presents us with the constant mockery of Christ:

In v. 34 - wine to drink, mixed with gall. This drink was not meant to comfort Jesus. The fact that the wine was mixed with gall, which is a bitter herb, meant that the wine would have been undrinkable.

v. 36 THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS – Jesus was unjustly charged by the Romans with the false charge of insurrection. And this sign that is placed above Jesus' head on the cross, is meant to mock both Jesus and the Jews. It's as if the Romans were saying to the Jews: there's your king. Of course this king was doing precisely what He had come to do: He had come not to begin an insurrection against the oppressive tyranny of the human government that the Jews found themselves under; but to overthrow the oppressive spiritual forces and rulers and cosmic powers over this present darkness, and to deliver us from the tyranny and slavery of sin and death.

vv. 38 - 45 - everyone, those who passed by, religious leaders, and even the robbers who were crucified with Jesus, mocked Jesus.

...Jesus' humiliation didn't begin here. We need to understand what theologians refer to as the two estates of Christ. By this they mean that there two patterns that marked Jesus' life and ministry that are seen in Scripture. The first characteristic is what we refer to simply as humiliation, which begins with His incarnation and spans His entire earhtly life. The second is what we refer to as exaltation, which begins with Jesus' resurrection.

The apostle Paul describes Jesus' state of humiliation this way in Phil 3:5-7: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Think of it: The eternal Son of God, who dwelled in a state of perfect blessedness with the Father and the Spirit from all eternity, and who created all things, voluntary stoops down out of the glory of Heaven into this sin ravaged and fallen world. And He takes on all of the limitations of human flesh, and enters into the fullness of human experience, all without sin:

He who gives food to the sparrow, knows what it's like to experience hunger.

He who created the springs of water that quenches our thirst, knows what it's like to thirst.

He who owns the cattle on a thousand hills, knows what it's like to own nothing except the clothes on His back.

He who dwelled in the splendor of Heaven, knows what it's like to dwell in poverty and not have a place to lay His head.

He who lays down His life for His friends, knows what it's like to be abandoned by all of His friends.

He who is Faithful, knows what it's like to be betrayed with a kiss.

He who is the Truth, knows what it's like to have someone bear false testimony against Him.

He who is our Advocate, knows what it's like to have people shout "crucify Him, crucify Him!"

He who is all-powerful, knows what it's like to be weak. He who is life, knows what it's like to suffer death.

He who is the Blessed one, knows what it's like to be cursed.

So we see that His entire life and ministry here on earth was marked by humiliation, which finds its climax here at the cross, where the One who clothes the lilies of the field, is Himself stripped naked, and is nailed to a tree that He created, by creatures that He had made in His image. The ones who are putting Him to death, are in fact the ones that He is dying for.

In summing up the humiliation of Christ, the Scriptures use one simple word that captures the full scope of what Christ did, and that word is "suffering." And the reason this is so important for us to understand is because our lives are to follow the same basic pattern as that of our Lord. As the Master had His two estates of humiliation and exaltation, so shall we.

But what does this mean for us? Listen again to what the apostle Paul said in Phil 3:5-9: "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ…" You see, we are so quick to get to the part of that passage that talks about what Jesus did that we completely overlook how that passage begins: it begins with a command to us, that this is what is supposed to shape our thinking and our lives. And what did Jesus do? He made himself nothing! He humbled Himself. He took the form of a servant. He died the most humiliating of deaths.

So we see that are called to the same pattern of life which culminates in the death of the cross...Our lives are to be stamped by everything that is represented by the cross: humiliation, self-denial, and death, and that death is where we are dying daily to our ourselves. Dying to our selfishness and pride, dying to our anger, and dying to always have to assert our rights. Dying to retaliation.

But you see, the modern church today, especially in America, simply doesn't understand this. Why does the church lack spiritual power? Because it is unwilling to die. It is unwilling to suffer. It is unwilling to bear the cross. The idea that many American Christians have is that once you get saved, the Christian life is about you experiencing what amounts to the American dream; it's about you experiencing, "your best life now," and that best life now is never described in terms of suffering and cross-bearing, but always in terms of the same exact things that the world runs after: health, wealth, comfort, power, prestige, and popularity.

So what we have then is that much of the church today looks to the same things as the world does to define itself and to measure whether or not it is walking in the power Spirit. In other words, it looks to the exact opposite things that the Lord God has called it to, and then has the audacity to call it "spiritual" and to call it "Spirit filled!"

...But the point is that we see the pattern: when we are brought to saving faith in Christ, we are said to be raised with Christ. And the same power by which Jesus was raised from the dead is now at work in us. But, that power is at work in us to bring us to the cross. It brings us to the pattern of humiliation, where we deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow the Master. It brings us down to the place of humility and weakness, and poverty of spirit, because it there where the power of God is made manifest...

III. The Necessity of the Crucifixion:

A. Look at v. 46: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me:" Why does Jesus say these words? Well, what we discover is that Jesus is directly quoting Ps. 22:1, and when we read through that Psalm, which was written about 900 years before Christ was even born, we see many descriptions of what would happen at the cross...

All of this teaches us that the crucifixion of Christ was not a divine afterthought! The crucifixion of the second person of the Trinity was something that was conceived of in the mind of God before time even began. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and as the apostle Peter says Jesus was "…delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."

And so now we see Jesus, enduring that which was ordained from the foundation of the world, quoting the words that were written with Him in mind 900 years before He was born, as He cries out: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!" And with these words we see the ultimate point of despair for Jesus. Jesus, the eternal Son of God became a man so that He could be our substitute and bear our sins. And what is it that our sins deserved? It is the full wrath of God. It is being cut off from the blessedness of His presence to experience the fullness of His wrath for sin...

...And it's not that the Father turned His back while Jesus on the cross. It was that the Father turned to Jesus in the fullness of His wrath against sin, when He took our sin upon Himself, so that what Jesus experienced on the cross was in essence, Hell. He is literally cut off by God. He is actually forsaken, cursed and forced to endure outer darkness, which as we note in our text that darkness had actually fallen over the land even though it was the middle of the day! This is the true horror of the cross! It is the curse. It being forsaken by God. This is agony that Jesus didn't want to experience for even one second, but which those who do not turn to Christ will be forced to endure for eternity.

...So, it was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross in order to bear the curse of God for our sins. But, we also discover that it was necessary in order of us to have access to God.

B. Look at v. 51 Read verse 51: (Heb 9): Here we are told that the curtain in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The curtain marked the entrance into the Most Holy Place. The Most Holy Place symbolized the fact that no one could approach God. And only the High Priest could enter the Most Holy Place once a year, and only with blood, in order to make atonement for sins. But you see, this all foreshadowed what Christ do. The earthly was only a copy of the heavenly, which Christ Himself, after having made atonement for ours, entered, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

And at that moment, the curtain to the earthly temple is torn, which speaks to the fact that now we have direct access into the Most Holy Place—into the very throne room of Grace, because of the blood of Christ, which was shed once and for all.

Conclusion:

We have seen the brutality of the cross, the humiliation of the cross, and the necessity of the cross. And we have discovered that because of His work on the cross, we have access now to God by faith, and our lives are to be patterned after the pattern of Christ's.

We are called to the suffering of Cross bearing, which looks a denial ourselves, and putting sin to death. It looks like forgiveness, and love. The problem though is that frankly, we are too infatuated by the comforts of the world, and far too often we chase the things that the world chases after.

People in the church today want Rolls Royce faith, when they should be asking for cross-bearing faith. People want a faith that gets them want they want, when they should be asking for a faith that sacrifices for the cause of the Gospel.

Let us today look fully and squarely at the cross of Christ. Let us not lose sight of the horror of it, and all that Christ endured to set us free from the power of sin and death. And let us not forget that the cross is not the end of the story. Jesus is risen! And He has been highly exalted, and at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.

Let us endeavor this day to live a cross-stamped life, recognizing that the power that raised Christ from the dead is at work in us, not to enable us to run after what the world does, but to enable to die to ourselves, so that the life of Christ might be manifested in us.

Amen.

A Brief Gospel Presentation With Texts

2009-07-13T15:06:00.006-05:00

By John Orlando

The Bible teaches that the Triune God of the Bible (Matt 28:19) created man in His image (Gen 1:27), and held out to man the promise of everlasting communion with God upon the condition of personal, perpetual, and perfect obedience to His Law (Gen 2:9, 17; Rom 10:5).

Our first parents, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God (Gen 3:6,7), and as a result sin and death entered the world and everyone that has been born after Adam and Eve has inherited both the guilt of that first sin (Rom 5:12, 19), as well as a corrupt sin nature (Gen 6:5; Rom 3:10-19; Eph 2:1-3). Man is thus a sinner both by nature (Psalm 51:5) and by his own personal sins that he commits in thought, word, and deed (Matt 15:19, James 1:14-15).

All people are thus separated and alienated from God (Gen 3:8, Col 1:21) and stand condemned before God because of their sin (Rom 5:18). The Scriptures proclaim, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).

God though in His mercy (Rom 9:15-16) sent His Son, Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), to save sinners by being their substitute (Gal 3:13). Jesus obeyed God’s Law perfectly where we never could (Rom 8:7; Gal 2:16; Gal 4:4), died on the cross to pay the full penalty for sins (1 Pet 2:24), and rose bodily from the grave to secure a place in Heaven as an absolutely free gift for all who turn from their sins and trust and rest in Christ alone by His grace alone (Rom 4:25; Rom 6:23; Acts 20:21; Eph 2:8-9).

When a person, by God's grace and Spirit alone (Rom 2:29; Titus 3:5-7), trusts in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, God pardons that person of all of their sins, past, present, and future (Col 1:13-14; Psalm 103:12; John 6:47), and He declares them as righteous forever because of the the perfect righteousness and full satisfaction of Christ which is imputed to them (Rom. 4:6-8; 5:17-19).

A person then who turns from their sins and trusts in Jesus Christ alone for salvation can know for certain that they will go to Heaven when they die (1 John 5:13) because of the perfect life and death of the risen and ascended Christ, who ever lives to make intercession for His people (Heb 7:25).

Calvinism and Arminianism: An "in-house" debate?

2009-06-15T18:36:00.002-05:00

In 2006, Drs. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Tom Ascol of The Founders were all set to debate Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner on the issue of Calvinism. But for various reasons, the debate never took place. You can read what I wrote about the situation here: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/nodebate.

I was reminded of this because I recently saw Ergun Caner being interviewed on a Christian television station. During the interview, one question that was put to him was something along the lines of whether or not the devil existed, or how it is that we know that the devil is real. In giving his answer, Dr. Caner began to speak about "forced love," and the fact that forced love is not real love. In other words, the reason there is a devil is because in order for love to be real, it cannot be forced. Thus, Lucifer became the devil because God could not force Lucifer to love him.

I found this kind of argumentation interesting (not to mentioned flawed for various reasons). The reason I found it interesting is because this is the same kind of "logic" that Caner employs when he objects to Calvinism. He thinks that when God raises spiritually dead sinners and graciously gives them ability to freely love Christ, that this is "forced love."

Never mind that Calvinism is careful to clearly maintain the will of man is never forced or coerced by God, and that when God converts a sinner, He does so by freeing him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good (see the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 9, which, ironically enough, is entitled "Of Free Will").

Anyway, I was reminded of the debate that never took place 3 years ago, and just how important the issues that were to be under debate really are. In the article I wrote before the debate was cancelled: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/baptistscalvinism, I commented on the importance of the issues. I wanted to provide this quote of mine from that article because I just think it really helps put the issues in perspective:

"The matters being discussed are central to Biblical Christianity. Some people refer to this as an in house debate, but I prefer to call it an "in community" debate. We are in the same community, in that we are united in Christ, believing that salvation is by faith alone in the finished work of Christ. But if we’re honest, these are two completely different houses built upon two totally different foundations. One house is built on the sure foundation of an omnipotent and absolutely sovereign, Triune and perfect God who brings about all of His perfect will without fail, and the blood of a perfect Savior who never fails to save those given to Him by the Father, and the mighty regenerating power and grace of the Holy Spirit of God, who never fails to bring those chosen from before the foundation of the world to saving faith by first removing their stony hearts and giving them hearts of flesh. The other house is built on the sand of human autonomy and vain human philosophy that ultimately places man as the captain of his own ship, and God as the innocent bystander who nervously paces the halls of heaven in hopes that someone…anyone, might “select” Him. One house can rightly say that salvation is by grace alone, because it is a grace that is truly amazing in that it secures, and bestows, all that is necessary for salvation, to include the ability to savingly believe the Gospel and repent from sin. The other house can only say that salvation is by grace, but that grace doesn’t secure or bestow anything except an “opportunity” for the person, in the power of his own flesh, to muster up the moral ability to comply with the command to repent and believe the Gospel."

Soli Deo Gloria,

John

What is the Gospel?

2009-06-11T08:55:00.003-05:00

As Christians, the word "Gospel" is used so frequently that sometimes we actually aren't quite sure what is meant by it. As a matter of fact, what I have discovered is that very often many of us really aren’t quite sure just what the Gospel is, and just why it is such good news.

I'm sure that if you were to ask Christians today to define the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the sad fact is that many of us would really have no idea of what to say. This should greatly concern us for many reasons, especially because as we read through the pages of Scripture, we discover that the all-consuming focus and passion of the God-breathed Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation is the glory of God as most significantly revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is with this in mind that I would like to direct readers to a brief article entitled What is the Gospel? It is written by Pastor Steve Steve Froehlich of New Life Presbyterian Church in Ithaca, NY. This article contains one of the most clear, concise, and edifying statements of the Gospel and its benefits that I have seen.

If you are a believer, I trust you will find the article to be very edifying, and possibly even educational. If you are not a believer and are considering Christianity, I think that the article will serve to really give you a great idea of what Christians mean when they say "Gospel," and why it is so important for you to consider.

Happy reading,

John

Christian Music

2009-04-21T08:38:00.003-05:00

The "worship wars" have seemed to settle down a bit, as I have not heard much static about contemporary music, lyrical shallowness, etc. So, since there seems to be relative peace on the matter, I thought I'd stir the pot! (just kidding).

Actually, as one who has led worship, been on "worship teams," and loves music, I thought that I would highlight three ministries that I think are "must haves" either for personal edification, or, in some cases, for use in the worship services of those that have a contemporary worship style.

Contemporary Christian music is sometimes lacking in real “depth” for lack of a better word. But, that problem is being addressed head-on by a number of really great ministries. What I offer below is a rather eclectic mix. No doubt there will be some that will love the list, and others who will find something critical to say about both the content and the form of the music (evidently, only those forms that were created by White European males in the 16-18th centuries really have the divine stamp of approval!):

1. Lampmode: http://www.lampmode.com/. This ministry produces Christian hip-hop music. Christian hip-hop, like other forms of contemporary Christian music, has sometimes suffered from lyrical weakness and repetitiveness. However, Lampmode is far different. The lyrics are saturated with the Gospel and a variety of theological concepts (as a matter of fact, they refer to it as “lyrical theology”). One of the founders of the ministry used to work with me when I worked in Philadelphia. His name is Shai Linne (his blog is here: http://lyricaltheology.blogspot.com/). Shai's stuff is amazing, and he is such a humble servant for the Lord. He has three cd’s out. I have the first 2: Solus Christus, and Atonement (http://www.merchline.com/lampmode/) . Well worth every penny if you decide to check it out.

2. Indelible Grace: http://www.igracemusic.com/. They have basically gone back to the rich classic hymns (particularly those found in the Trinity Hymnal: http://www.opc.org/hymnal.html), and have reworked them to contemporary music. All of the cd’s they offer are good, though some are better than others (Matthew Smith is a must though).

3. Sovereign Grace Ministries: This is their main site: http://sovereigngraceministries.org/
And this is the site that deals solely with their music: http://sovereigngracemusic.org/. They are writing new music that is lyrically substantive. Their stuff tends to be quite upbeat.

Anyway, for you music lovers out there, I thought you might find these very edifying for you personally. And, if you are leading worship, these might present some options for you that will really get the Gospel into almost every song.

By His Grace; For His Glory,

John

Senator Obama's Speech...and History

2008-09-10T10:28:00.000-05:00

John Orlando

Disclaimer: As I have indicated in other posts, for various reasons I am not a Barack Obama supporter. However, I certainly try to offer analysis of candidates as fairly as possible, and that is my goal here.

The spectacle itself was amazing. The speech was held at Denver's Invesco Field, and the last I heard there were over 80,000 people in attendance! 80,000! To hear a politician give a speech! Of course, Barack Obama is not the usual politician giving the usual speech. This is a politician like no other in our history in that he is the first Black man in our country to receive the nomination for President of the United States of his Party (the Democratic Party).

The event, and the speech, were not like any other political event or speech in our country's history for precisely those reasons. We who abhor racism, and especially those that may be intimately familiar with the plight of African Americans in this country since this country's inception (and even prior to that), can with one unified voice stand up and proudly say: FINALLY!!!

Much has been said about the 18 million cracks that were put into the glass ceiling of discrimination against women. To be sure, women have had a difficult path in this country, and even today they still have to fight to get equal pay for equal work which is a complete travesty of justice. There is indeed at times a palpable hostility toward women of power (especially Black women!), and as evidenced in both Hillary Clinton's and Sarah Palin's cases, there is a real sexism that exists, especially among those, ironically enough, in the liberal media. All of the probing, the line and tone of questioning, and just the sheer hostility and little digs, barbs, and wisecracks were and are both shocking and disgraceful. There is a clear double-standard between a male candidate and a female candidate which the campaigns of Hillary and Sarah have clearly demonstrated, and I for one am praying that the glass ceiling is indeed finally smashed to smithereens, not only for women running for political office, but in other secular career paths.

As high and as hard that glass ceiling is though, I personally believe that the highest and hardest glass ceiling of all is not discrimination against women; it has been and is the racism that exists against all minorities, but especially African Americans. No other group in this country has endured more discrimination, both overt and covert, and no other group of people has suffered more or overcome more obstacles than the African American. Period. I have said to friends and family on more than one occasion that it is truly miraculous to see how far African Americans have come in the short span of 140 years since slavery, and in the even shorter span of the mere 44 years since the signing of the Civil Rights Bill.

When one considers just how high and hard that glass ceiling was and is for African Americans, it absolutely defies logic that African Americans would be as successful as they are in this day and age. Though "free," the government (local, state, and federal), the system, and the populace was for the most part stacked against them, and militantly so in many cases. Yet, we can look at the many successes of African Americans going all the way back to the days of slavery—great Americans who refused to quit and refused to be broken; great Americans who stood up and fought for a country that despised them and denied them their humanity, dignity, and rights—great Americans who made a way out of no way and forged ahead to make a better life for themselves with a bedrock faith in the sovereign God of the universe, knowing that just as His eye is indeed on the sparrow, so His eye is on them despite the circumstances.

With apologies to other Black politicians who have run for President such as Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and Al Sharpton, though no one would say it when they ran, the reality was that none of those candidates, ideology aside, didn't have a snowballs chance in the Mojave desert of winning, and the real reason—the sole reason—was because they were Black. Not only was America not ready for a Black President, it couldn't even conceive of one. The only possible exception may have been Colin Powell had he chosen to run. Obama and Powell are cut out of a similar mold in that they have the ability to transcend race.

Again though, I do not believe the country could even conceive of a Black President. It could though perfectly conceive of a White woman becoming President. After all, the world's stage has seen other women who ascended to the highest offices in their country, such as Margaret Thatcher in England, and in our own country, Geraldine Ferraro, who made history in her own right and was selected as the Vice Presidential candidate to run with Walter Mondale in 1984. Also, let's not forget this election cycle with Hillary candidacy. The candidacy itself was really no surprise, and going all the back the her days as First Lady, we could all conceive and knew that she would one day run for President. There's no doubt in my mind that she would have been the nominee had it not been for the meteoric (and historic) rise of Barack Obama.

Here are some more things to consider in terms of just how historic, unlikely, and amazing Barack Obama's candidacy is. Here is a man who, if he had been born a mere 146 years earlier would have been born into slavery (despite having a White parent). Here is a man who would have been forced to sit at the back of the bus and would not have been permitted to drink at "White Only" water fountains or use "White Only" restrooms a mere 50 years or so ago, and here is a man who would almost certainly never even be in the position he is in were it not for the landmark Civil Rights Bill of 1964 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (a mere 44 years ago).

The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama's candidacy, whether you agree or disagree with his politics and policies, was and is much needed in our country. While it in no way signals the end to racism, whether personal or systemic, it nevertheless says that our country, despite the naysayers, has made tremendous progress on the issue of race.

So there Barack Obama was, standing before a throng of 80,000 exuberant and enthusiastic supporters—Black, White, Red, Brown, Yellow; male and female, young and old—there he was making history and delivering the speech of his life. The speech though was not only the speech of his life, where all of his hopes and dreams could either be realized or dashed depending on how it went. Though there have been many successes, both individual and corporate as people, Barack Obama rightly or wrongly has become the clearest symbol and incarnation of the success of the Civil Rights era. Every African American, whether they agree with Mr. Obama's politics or not, had a stake in his speech, because in a real sense he was representing all African Americans because for really the first time in our history African Americans could really believe that they could become anything they wanted to…even President of the United States of America. The words, "We Shall Overcome!" could be replaced, in a significant way at least, with the words, "We HAVE Overcome!" Make no mistake though; Barack Obama's candidacy has not and will not erase the pain of the past. There will always be scars. But his candidacy has been a welcome and soothing ointment that has helped bringing significant healing to the scar.

As for the speech itself, it was typical Obama in that while I disagreed with much of what he said, I was impressed with his delivery, charm, and eloquence. I felt that the speech fell a little more flat than usual (this may be because it was purposely devoid of the poetic flare that marks most of his speeches), but objectively speaking, he accomplished precisely what he wanted to accomplish with the speech (which was to outline more policy), and I for one am proud as an American that he had the chance to give it. After all, it was history in the making—for the first time in our nation's history, a Black man accepted the nomination for President of the United States of a major political Party. I won't be voting for Senator Obama for various reasons (you can read elsewhere in the blog), but I want to congratulate the Senator from Illinois, and thank him and his family for having the courage to run for the highest office in the land.

The Pit Bull of Evangelicalism is at it Again

2008-02-09T17:25:00.000-05:00

The self-proclaimed "Pitbull of Evanglicalism," "Dr." Ergun Caner is at it again, albeit it a bit more mildly, with his anti-Calvinistic "barking." Dr. Tom Ascol, of the Founders Ministry, has posted an article on his blog detailing the most recent comments by "Dr." Caner. I posted twice in response. Here is one of the responses:

From John Orlando:

pastor jim said: "While there will always be theological differences among us based on our hermeneutical variancies, we should still recognize ourselves primarily as people of the "Book”--the inerrant, infallible Book. That is the only bridge that is truly worth building."

I appreciate pastor jims comments. But if I may, I'd like to add to them a bit because I think it strikes to the heart of the issue, namely, what does the text say.

First, I think all sides do view themselves as people of the book. Lord knows Mr. Caner does; after all, he is a "biblicist!" :-) The problem, obviously, is that the conclusions reached in terms of what that infallible and inerrant Word actually says are so radically different. Hence, building a bridge where we are people of the book will only work when all parties (and I do mean all without excpetion :-)) are more concerned with "what sayeth the Lord" then they are with their own traditions and philosophical presuppositions through which they funnel the infallible and inerrant text through (which serves far too often as the hermeneutical method that is being employed).

As far as I have been able to discern, with a few exceptions, only one side has consistently been willing to open the text and interact with the other side in a respectful dialogue/debate concerning what the text actually teaches. Mr. Caner, when given the opportunity, backed out. Not only that, but James White even offered to go to Liberty with his Greek NT and discuss these things with the self-proclaimed "Pitbull" of Evangelicalism, yet, for all of his bark, the silence to that offer was deafening. To date, all Mr. Caner has in fact done is bark. When challenged, he "bites" with ad hominen attacks and provacative rhetoric instead of offering a reasoned response from the Sacred Text.

Anyway, this is why I believe, with all due respect to my non-Calvinistic brethren, that as others have said, the strength of Reformed theology is its exegesis and exposition of the text.

I am not trying to be dramatic or callous when I say that I have yet been able to find a non-Reformed response that deals sufficiently with all of the Scriptural data, and interacts sufficiently with Reformed exegesis of the texts in question (I recognize some might disagree with that assessment; people can see for themselves).

This is why when the offer goes out to build that bridge as people of the Word, where we seek to submit to its teachings regardless of how it sets with us, really at the end of the day that is almost impossible for one very simple reason: philosophical presuppositions, traditions, and human pride do not die easily.

So, when confronted with the *absolute* sovereignty of God and the radical depravity of man, the unconditional nature of God's choosing sinners to be saved, necessity and invincibility of God's sovereign grace, the perfection of an actual (not merely a potential) atonement, and then the preserving work of a gracious God who will (not might) complete that good work that He began us, man finds no room for his self-reliance. He finds no room for his self-glory. He finds no room for boasting within himself. He finds, in essence, his sovereigny and autonomy completely demolished, and, being the sinners that we are, we really hate that.

By His Grace and For His Glory,

John O

Triablogue: Libertarian fatalism

2008-02-07T11:50:00.000-05:00

Triablogue: Libertarian fatalism

This is a great response from Steve Hays at Triablogue to the charge that Calvinism is "fatalistic." The author actually demonstrates that it is the non-Calvinisitic, Libertarian view of man and his will that is in fact fatalistic.

O Self-Reliance

2008-01-27T17:51:00.000-05:00

By

John Orlando

In class I took, we were tasked to preach a sermon to ourselves wherein we addressed what we thought were our own self-besetting sin. I chose the sin of self-reliance to preach against:

O Self-Reliance! Look at you! Because of you, I say that God is sovereign. I say that I am utterly helpless without God. I am quick to quote the Lord’s words, “without Me you can do nothing…” (John 15:5). Yet I, through your subtle whisperings I go about my day as if everything depended upon my own strength, intellect, and abilities. On account of your deceitful ways, I have no problem saying those things are God-given, yet I am far to quick to act, far to slow to pray and when I do pray, it is not energized with the sense of urgency, or even real belief that I really can do nothing apart from Christ.

So look at that, O Self-Reliance! Through your craftiness, I can tell others about faith in Christ, but I myself have none, because my faith is ultimately grounded in myself. I can point others to Christ, but I point myself to myself. Through your arrogant proddings, I secretly believe that whatever success I enjoy is due largely to my ingenuity, and when the applause of men comes my way, I say in false humility, “thank you friend; but you know, to God alone be all of the glory!” Yeah, right. Who are you fooling, O Self-Reliance? Trust me; God is neither fooled, nor is He impressed.

O Self-Reliance! You obscure so much and cause me to miss so much of what the Gospel is! Why did Jesus lived and died? Was it merely to secure a place in Heaven for me? As grand a thing as that is, and much as I know that He did do that, there is so much more that Jesus has won and holds out for me in His Gospel. But even if that were all, what does that teach me? Does it not demonstrate that I, O Self-Reliance, am utterly helpless in and of myself in the most significant of all ways; namely, to be in a right relationship with my Creator?

Yet, how is it that I forget so quickly that the reason I am utterly helpless to be in a right relationship with God is directly due to the radical corruption of my heart, wherein you reside O Self-Reliance? O-Self Reliance, you devious trickster! You would have me forget that the whole essence of who I am--my mind, body, emotions, and will--has been devastated to the core by sin.

That's right, O-Self- Reliance! The Bible is manifestly clear! My heart; the essence of who I am as a person, is “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it…” (Jer 17:9). The imaginations of my heart are only evil continually (Gen 8:21). And you can't beguile me into thinking that this was something that I grew into because of my environment, or because of the work of Satan. No my friend…I was “brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me…” (Ps 51:5). Wickedness has defined my existence from the very moment that I was conceived, O Self-Reliance! The very nanosecond I was conceived, I was a God-hater; and, as much as you hate it, O Self-Reliance, I remain utterly dependent upon God for every beat of my heart, and every breath that I breathe.

That’s right, O Self-Reliance! As a result of sin, both that which I was born into, and that which I constantly commit in word, thought and deed, I was the sworn enemy God, cut off from His blessed presence, a child of wrath that was only storing up for myself more of God’s wrath for the day of judgment. I was indeed without Christ, having no hope and without God in the world (Eph 2:12). But God Himself solved my dilemma by securing and providing a great way of salvation: justification by grace alone through faith alone, in and because of the finished work of Christ alone, and now I can experience a personal relationship with the King of kings and Lord of lords for all eternity.

And notice, O Self-Reliance; this is what God alone has accomplished, and it comes to me solely by God’s grace through faith in what Christ alone has done. In order to gain right standing with God, God did all of the work, and promises eternal life to all those who simply trust in Jesus Christ alone!

That's right O Self-Reliance! God did not ask me to climb Mount Everest! God did not say that I had to give a billion dollars to my favorite charity! God did not require me to make a religious pilgrimage to Mecca. God did not require me to fast, or to go to church every Sunday, or to pray 2 hours a day, or to read one chapter of the Bible every day. God did not require me to give just 1 cent per year to the church. Nope.

Of course, God does require something far more difficult, and impossible, than any of those things, or a billion other things you could conjure up with your fertile imagination. That's right O Self-Reliance! God has required something infinitely more difficult; God has required perfect obedience to His Law in word, thought, and deed...He has required the impossible! And, seeing the impossiblity of that, God sent His Son, the infinite God-Man, to do what I could never do, and to pay the penalty that I could never pay. That's right, O Self-Reliance! Where I was, and am, unable to obey God perfectly in word, thought, and deed, Jesus, my substitute, has obeyed perfectly on my behalf, and His perfect obedience has now been credited to my account! And the sentence of Divine Justice that was due to me was poured out on Him who knew no sin! Now what, O Self-Reliance! You would point me to any number of ridiculous things to try to gain heaven. But now, on the basis of the perfect and finished work of Jesus Christ alone, God simply says to me, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” (Acts 16:31).

Of course, something even as seemingly simple as that I was totally unable to do! O Self-Reliance! You stupid fool! You would make me forget that sin had so wrapped its darkness over my soul, that not only was I alienated from God, but, I even lacked the ability to exercise saving faith! But thankfully, O Self-Reliance, by God’s grace I was brought to spiritual life, and God gave me the gift of faith and enabled me to renounce myself so that I could place all of my trust in the works and merits of Christ alone to get me to Heaven.

But O Self-Reliance, how resilient you are! In light of all of these things, you rear your faithless head, and shout your Godless mantras into my soul that would have me live my life trusting and resting in and upon my own strength. And when I allow you to reign in my heart, I am far removed from my Lord and Savior. I am trusting in myself, and not in Christ. I am not taking hold of the fact that God has indeed forever declared me righteous by clothing in the righteousness of Christ. I have moved away from the only thing that can give me victory in my daily life in my battles with the world, the flesh, and the devil.

As I alluded to, Christ did not live and die for me just to ensure my safe passage to Heaven. That is just a part of the story! The life and death of Christ were intended to do more than that! Christ lived and died for me so that when He brought me to Himself, He would begin to conform me to His image on a daily basis. And you see, O Self-Reliance, that happens the same way as when God first saved me. It happens by grace alone, through faith alone, in and because of the finished work of Christ alone. God, through the Gospel, has justified me. And now God, through the Gospel alone, is going to put you to death in the process of my sanctification.

That’s right, O Self-Reliance! The Gospel isn’t only for unbelievers, but it is for believers as well! By God’s grace and power I am taking the Gospel off of the shelf, because ultimately it alone is the power of God unto salvation…all of salvation, to include my sanctification.

I am to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and the only means by which I can do that is in the context of the Gospel, not by trying to pull myself up by my bootstraps, which is your vain philosophy, O Self-Reliance! Away with that bondage! It is for freedom that Christ has set me free…free from guilt, free from shame, free from the yoke of trying to earn His favor, free from you, O Self-Reliance!

I am taking hold of that glorious Gospel of the Living Christ, and setting my eyes upon it everyday, and preaching it to myself everyday!

Christ is the only solid rock upon which I can ever stand. I am going to fix my eyes fully on Jesus, the author and the finisher of my faith. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly trust in Jesus’ Name! Amen.

By God's Grace and For His Glory,

John Orlando

Predestination, Election, and Free Will

2008-01-07T16:41:00.000-05:00

I recently interacted with a young man named Ryan who has been studying the topics of Predestination, Election, and the will of man.

What follows is my response to his concerns/questions.

This first link below is Ryan's email to me. I then responded to his email in piece meal fashion.

Due to the length of my response, I have provided each of those piece meal responses separately below for more of a bite-size effect, and arranged them according to topic.

May the Lord bless your study, and please feel free to email me with questions/comments/concerns: johnandursula@comcast.net

1. Ryan's first email - Here Ryan outlines his specific concerns/questions.

2. What is Predestination? - Ryan says his background is Nazarene, and that predestination came to his mind while reading Romans. I attempt to provide some background on what the term predestination refers to, and also some initial historical information and definition of the term "conservative Evangelical."

3. Historical Background - Ryan says, "I recall in your correspondence to our email that you said you were a predestinationalist and I had some questions... " I make some introductory comments about that, and then I provide some historical information on the Reformation, as well as some information on Augustine, and the Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. I do this to provide some background on the discussion in church history.

4. What is Free Will? - Ryan says, "Having been a full blown free will believer, my world has been rattled to say the least." I respond by explaining the need for folks to provide clear definitions concerning such things as "free will," and then I provide information on the different views on the will of man such as Libertarian Free Will, and Compatiblism.

5. What is Election? - Ryan says, "Personal studies have led me more to believe we are chosen." I respond by presenting the various views concerning the doctrine of election (conditional, unconditional, and corporate), and then give some reasons why I hold to unconditional election. There are also some more comments about free will and man's bondage to sin.

6. Is God To Blame? Ryan says, "Predestination sounds like it places a little too much blame on God." I talk about foreordination and human responsibility and how God is not the author of sin.

7. Election and the Great Commission - Ryan says, "I believe we (Christians) are chosen by God before He created the world and at any point in time, a nonbeliever can become a believer (thus Christ gave the great commission)." I talk about the nature of election, the fact that even the elect are born as believers and need the Gospel preached to them, and how God has ordained the end as well as the means to the end.

8. How Does God Know the Future? - Ryan says, "However, I believe we choose sin. I think God gives a choices to make however I totally believe He knows what we are going to choose beforehand (foreknowledge). " I refer back to the comments I made about the will of man, and then speak about how it is that God knows the future.

9. Hardening Pharaoh's Heart - Ryan says, I think predestination is God physically doing it Himself or Him promising something. For example, in Exodus, God (Jesus??) in the burning bush promises to harden Pharaoh's heart 5 times and Pharaoh hardening his own heart 5 times." Ryan goes on to make other comments about the return of Christ and how he knows it was God that chose him. I talk about how God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and briefly address Ryan's other comments.

10. Why I'm a Calvinist - Ryan asks, "So, my question is why do you think predestination is the right way?"

11. Do I Leave My Church Over These Issues? - Ryan says, "With my current Pastor and all y friends from this Church, I stand alone. They all believe in free will and that is fine. IT isn't what i like to call a "faith hinderer" of which i have only encountered one ( Dead Sea Scrolls discussing Christ killing animals as a boy)...I realize that I may have to leave my Nazarene Church and my Methodist upbringing over this but that doesn't bother me too much. God will place me where He sees fit." I try to provide a balanced response to these very practical and difficult concerns. I also provide some info on the Dead Sea Scroll issue he raised.

12. Resources - Ryan says, "I am just looking for more Biblical support than what I have managed to find on my own." I provide a number of great resources: books, videos, audio files, articles, etc., for Ryan to check out as he continues to study these things.

I Survived...Summer Hebrew!

2007-09-07T18:33:00.000-05:00

It has been a while since my last post; not that anyone ever reads this anway :-)

The reason is because I have been immersed in Biblical Hebrew all summer at Westminster Seminary in Philadelpia. For those that do not know, summer courses are intensive. I took 2 semesters of Hebrew in the span of about 7 1/2 weeks. In other words, it was 6 months of Hebrew crammed into just under 2 months!

How did it go, you ask? Well, as you can imagine, it was tough! As a matter of fact, there were times when I thought I would never make it. I was stressed. I was worried. I was exhausted.

Now, I served in the United States Air Force for 21 years, but nothing compared to this. It was, without the question, the most challenging thing I have ever done. But you know what? It was one of the most rewarding things I have ever done. Just being able to learn the Biblical languages is a blessing in and of itself. But, to be stretched the way we were, and then to see the faithfulness of God in the midst of that struggle...that was amazing. It was also neat to see the friendships that were forged among the students. It was like we truly went to battle together. We needed each other, and we had to pull each other along.

Our professors were awesome too. The primary teacher, Sam Boyd, is just 27 years old and is in a doctorate program at Chicago Uiniversity. He just went through summer Hebrew at Westminster 4 years ago, and here he was, teaching us. Now, you may be saying, "how can that be?!" Well, because Sam, for lack of a better word, is a true prodigy when it comes to the languages. I often remarked to my wife that it was just neat to see someone that God has so powerfully gifted...genius really...teaching us day in and day out. His teaching assistant, Karyn Traphagen, is just as gifted, and provided resources that she personally created that greatly aided our learning experience (I hope that those aides will be published someday to benefit others throughout the body of Christ). The true hallmark of their teaching though was not that they have prodigious intellects. They most certainly do. Rather, what really struck me most was the humility and grace they exhibited day in and day out. They were Christlike. That is the best compliment that anyone can receive.

And then there are the students. Wow! Truely gifted intellects as well, but down to earth as you can imagine. As I mentioned above, the friendships that were forged in the fiery furnace known as Summer Hebrew are priceless. And those lunchtime conversations! Man, those alone were worth the price of admission :-)

Thankful to Christ,

John

Houdini and the Resurrection of Christ

2007-04-05T10:37:00.000-05:00

By John Orlando

The Yahoo Headline read Houdini Poisoned? Kin Wants Exhumation http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/houdini_exhumation. An excerpt from this yahoo story written on March 27, 2007 states, “Eighty-one years after Houdini died on Halloween 1926, his great-nephew wants to exhume the magician's body to determine if enemies poisoned him for debunking their bogus claims of contact with the dead…His death shocked the entire nation, if not the world. Now, maybe it's time to take a second look," George Hardeen said.”

We are in that time of year when Christians celebrate the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and I found this story about Houdini interesting. The story itself does not say anything about the bodily resurrection of Christ, but the story nevertheless brought some thoughts to mind about the resurrection.

Every year around this time, two things are an absolute certainty: 1) tax day on April 15, and 2) the skeptics from the liberal media, a la Newsweek, Time, etc., will come out with theories (that usually have long been refuted) to try and explain away the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Why? Probably many reasons, but ultimately it is due to the fact that if Christ really is risen from the grave, then that means that His identity would be proved, His message and exclusive claims would be validated, and all other contrary belief systems/religions/philosophies would be disqualified. So, when He says that He is “the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to Father except through Him,” or, when the Scripture says that, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved..." (Acts 4:12), or that “whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him…" (John 3:36), it is no longer a question of whether or not those things are true. If Christ is risen they most certainly are true, and in light of that God now “commands all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30) You see, we can no longer keep Jesus on the shelf along side all of the other possible worldviews. There is only one true worldview, and the Lord of that worldview demands nothing less than our repentance and submission to Him as Lord and Savior. Nor can we keep Him on the shelf of “I’ll deal with Him later” because the call to repentance is not a wishy-washy, take it or leave it “proposition” spoken by an impotent heavenly bystander in the drama of redemption. Rather, it is the divine command issued forth from the Sovereign Lord and King of the universe who does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth (Dan 4:35), and who says that “now is the day of salvation.” (1 Cor 6:2). You see, a command is not something that is given for your consideration. It is given for your immediate compliance, and the Lord will not be mocked. If you wish to tarry, you do so in direct disobedience to the command, and you do so at your own peril.

The question then is no longer “who do you say that Christ is?” He has already demonstrated by “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) that He is the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity who humbled Himself, took on human flesh, and being fully God and fully man obeyed the law of God perfectly, then died on the cross to bear the wrath of God and pay the penalty for sin, and who rose on the third day and now calls us to repentance and submission to His Lordship. So, it is no longer a question of His identity. Rather the question is, “Since Jesus Christ is the risen and exalted Lord of heaven and earth, what will I do in response to the call of the Gospel and His command to repent?”

That to me is the main reason we see skeptics, and those of the false religions, try with all of their intellectual might to overturn the most significant historical fact in human history: the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They realize that the resurrection of Christ lies at the very heart of Christianity; if it is removed, then Christianity crumbles, and as the apostle Paul said, our preaching is empty, our faith is futile, and those of us who have placed our hope in a Jesus that did not rise are the most pitiful of all creatures (1 Cor 15:14-18). They also realize that if Christ did rise from the dead, then theirs is the preaching that is useless and the faith that is futile, because theirs is the position that has been demonstrated to be manifestly false. If Christ is indeed risen, then Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, Atheism, Agnosticism, and every other “ism” or religion that denies the bodily resurrection of Christ is by definition false.

So how does this all relate to story about Houdini being exhumed? Well, for starters, there is a body that can be exhumed in the case of Houdini. His tomb contains his remains. In the case of Jesus though, there is nothing to exhume! You can go to His tomb, but as the angel told the women that went to anoint His dead body, “He is not here; He is risen just as He said…” (Matt 28:6). Of course, that has not stopped various skeptics from nevertheless attempting to produce the body of Jesus, the most recent example coming from the film called the Family Tomb of Jesus, which was produced by Hollywood director James Cameron. These links contain refutations of their false claims made:
Alpha and Omega Ministries:
Pt 1: http://www.aomin.org/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2007-02&amp;catid=21
Pt 2: http://www.aomin.org/index.php?catid=21&blogid=1
John Ankerberg:
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-tomb/the-Jesus-family-tomb.htm
Gary Habermas:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus/losttombof jesus_response.htm

So, the tomb of Jesus is empty, and in light of the insurmountable fallacies of the naturalistic theories, the only valid explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead (see this link for articles: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Jesus-Christ/Resurrection/). There are other points of interest though with this story about Houdini and the resurrection of Christ:

1. Houdini, pictured to the right, was a great magician known for his incredible feats of escape, but there are two things that Houdini, like the rest of humanity could not escape or make disappear: our bondage to sin and our guilt before God both for original and actual sin, and the wages of that sin: death, whether spiritual, physical, and eternal (eternal having to do with being consigned to hell for eternity).

2. The yahoo article mentions that Houdini’s death at the time shocked the entire nation, if not the world. While Houdini’s death may have been shocking when it happened, it nevertheless pales in comparison to the impact that the death of Jesus Christ of Nazareth has had on the world for over 2,000 years. The popular poem One Solitary Life states, “[Twenty-one] long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress. I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.”

3. The suspected culprits in the poisoning of Houdini were the spiritualists that Houdini had personally seen fit to refute. These spiritualists would hold séances and claim to communicate with the dead, and Houdini sought to prove that they were using nothing more than sleight of hand to deceive their audience. Houdini proved his point, and discredited these spiritualists. However, in light of the resurrection of Christ and the fact that there is life after death, I wonder what Houdini, the spiritualists that he discredited, and every human being in history for that matter that has died apart from union with Christ would say if they did communicate with us? I would venture to guess that the only thing they would say, with the utmost urgency, is, “Repent!!! Receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior today!!!” There would be no discussion, no inquiries as to the state of one’s finances or the physical health of loved ones, just the one desperate plea to turn to Christ and escape the wrath of God that is being poured out for sin.

I’m sure there are other things to be said. For me, the story of Houdini’s exhumation coupled with the resurrection of Christ highlights once again two significant truths that we must keep in mind, not just during Easter, but everyday of our lives:

1. Our need everyday to rest in the One who died for us, and rose for our justification.

2. The urgent need to preach the Gospel to every creature. Life is short, eternity is
forever, and Jesus Christ, the risen, sovereign Lord of lords and King of kings commands us to turn from our sins and receive Him as Lord and Savior.

Dealing with Disappointment in Others

2007-02-22T09:07:00.000-05:00

By John Orlando

My friend writes: "Our attendance last night at church was way down. And the singing was just terrible. I could not feel the Spirit of the Lord at all. There is just no life in these baptised in vinager christians!! The Choir has ceased to exist as well as the impromptu choir on Sunday mornings. There just is no commitment anymore and no one wants to sing for the Lord!! I can't even find two people in the whole congregation that want to be a part of a praise team and willing to practice once a week. They are all soloists!! Do not attend all services, and sick every other week!! What a mess!~ There was no sincere worship at all. Hopefully the Lord will send me some fresh saints..." END

I thought a good deal about this, and then I sent this response:

My Response:

"Our frustration with others and their seeming lack of response to the glories of the Gospel is born out of a true desire to see people edified, and because we want God to be worshipped for all that He is. How do we keep from allowing this to frustrate us, or worse, to develop bad feelings about those that we’re having the problem with? That is tough, but I think it is helpful for us to keep a couple of things in mind:

1. First, when we get frustrated with others over their sin, I think we need to immediately seek the Lord’s face; but not so that He will “fix” them first (though we will get around to praying for them), but so that He would be gracious to me and that He would cause me to look at Christ and the glories of His Gospel. As I do this, I will quickly realize that if truth be told, no one truly worships God purely and perfectly and in the manner prescribed by God, to include me. Only one person ever offered God perfect worship, and that was our Lord, and the only reason God accepts any of our worship (even when we think we are worshipping aright) is because of the perfect righteousness of Christ that has been imputed to us by His grace alone.

As I go to the Lord in prayer, I am (or at least should be) reminded of how far short of His glory I fall in every conceivable way, whether it is in word, thought, and deed. I realize that I, like my brothers and sisters with whom I am disappointed, are all just beggars in continual and constant need of God’s grace. But as those that have been united to Christ by God’s grace alone, we can rejoice because we know that His grace constantly flows towards us from the Father, in Christ, and through the Spirit. It is here where we need to live and not be moved, because it is here where we will be able to view others through the Gospel.

I can look at others and see where they fall short (hey, we fallen human beings are pro’s at that! :-)), but when I begin to consider God’s grace that has been extended to me, and I consider the depths of sin that still remains in me, I am overwhelmed by His grace, and I am then able to see others with their “shortcomings” through the same grace of the Gospel that has been extended to me. In other words, we need to keep before us the saying that you and I love so much: “I’m just an old sinner, saved by grace.” That is all we will ever be, no matter how much we grow in our sanctification, and the great irony of course is that the more I grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ, the more I am confronted with the ugliness of the sin that still resides in me. And just as I am “just and old sinner, saved by grace,” so are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and all that we are in Christ we are by His grace alone.

2. Having dealt with ourselves first, I think we can move on to prayer for our brothers and sisters. We have been laid bare before God’s holiness and have experienced once again the amazing grace that comes to us in the Gospel. Now we want to pray that God would be so gracious as to do a similar work in the lives of our brothers and sisters. And we appeal to God, not looking down upon them, but out of a supreme love for them, and because we know that the only way any of us will ever desire anything related to God and the Gospel is if God first gives us the desire. We need to pray then that God would give them, and me, a hunger and desire for more and more of Christ, and that He would inflame our hearts and minds with the Gospel, and that Christ and Him crucified would be the thing that we treasure most.

3. Then I would pray and ask God how it is that I could be a conduit of His love and grace…how can I be a display of the love and mercy of God to them? Here I believe that we will be directed to biblical love as most clearly presented in 1 Cor 13; consider especially: “love is patient…it keeps no record of wrongs…”

4. When I then interact with them, I would point them to the glories of Christ as revealed in the Gospel, and then leave the results to God. You see, the thing that will motivate a Christian to service is not a list of do’s and don’ts, rather, it is the Gospel. Our obedience is grounded in, and flows out of the riches of the Gospel that we have experienced. In other words, the more and more we fall in love with Jesus, the more and more that will manifest itself in our lives.

Thus, we want to exhort and edify one another in the Gospel. We love Him because He first loved us, and because of His radical love for us, I am now motivated to live a life committed to Him. As the Christian falls more and more in love Jesus, he or she will want to get involved, not to get anything, but because they have everything in Christ. This is why biblical preaching is so important…we must constantly be putting Christ before God’s people, and exhorting them to rest in Christ.

I can certainly relate to your frustration, but, I think we get a good perspective when we go back to the cross and see ourselves in light of it. If we are thinking properly about the cross, it will always magnify the depravity and sin that is within me, but it will also magnify the glories and greatness of God’s grace toward me and those that may not be “measuring up” to some preconceived standard that I have, which, if I’m honest, I can’t even live up to perfectly. Only God can give the increase, whether we are talking about unbelievers being saved, or believers being revived, and it is only the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation…all of salvation, whether we are talking about our justification, or our sanctification." END

John 3:16 and Calvinism

2007-02-10T14:42:00.000-05:00

By John Orlando

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

What a glorious passage of Scripture! God reveals His love for the world in the most profound way: He sends His Son into this world that is in complete rebellion to Him to pay the penalty for sins so that any person that believes in Him would be delivered from the penalty of death—eternal torment in hell—and experience everlasting life!

I begin this article this way first, because I believe this is what the Bible plainly teaches, and secondly, because in any discussion of Calvinism, it doesn’t take long before John 3:16 is quoted by non-Calvinists as a seeming proof text that refutes Calvinism. I know firsthand, because I did precisely that before I became a Calvinist. For me, it was like common sense—how could anyone be so ignorant as to accept Calvinism in light of arguably the most popular verse in the Bible?

When non-Calvinists quote that beautiful verse, they believe that they have fired the silver bullet that will slay the terrible monster known as “Calvinism,” and that “bullet” is usually used in conjunction with what they perceive to be the other silver bullets of Matt 23:37-39; 1 Tim 2:3-6; and 2 Pet 3:9. It’s as if by quoting that verse (or verses) they have made Calvinists aware of some seemingly obscure passage of Scripture and that we would immediately slap our foreheads proclaiming something like, “Oh, man! Wow! I never knew that verse was in the Bible. I guess what I thought about what the Bible clearly teaches about God’s absolute sovereignty, man’s radical depravity, and the perfection of Christ’s work of atonement is wrong.” As the opening of this article demonstrates though, Calvinists are quite aware of John 3:16…after all, it is indeed the most quoted, if not the most popular verse in all of Scripture.

Secondly, Calvinists do hold John 3:16 to be an incredibly beautiful and hope filled verse, and what is often overlooked is that the text is speaking about the incredible love of God the Father that He demonstrates by sending His Son to redeem hopeless, God-hating, wrath-deserving rebels. I mention this because so often we tend to either forget or marginalize the work of God the Father in our redemption.

Thirdly, we are not trying to redefine words, nor are we trying to run away from John 3:16. What we are doing is trying to understand John 3:16, and for that matter all of Scripture, apart from a preconceived traditional mindset wherein the verse is forced to teach something that it was never meant to teach and that contradicts other passages of Scripture. In other words, how does our understanding of John 3:16 comport with such passages as Daniel 4:34-35; Matthew 11:25, 13:11; Mark 10:10-12; Romans 8:28-34, Romans 9, Romans 11:7-10; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Ephesians 1, 1 Peter 1:20-21, etc (not only that, but also how does it comport with passages within the Gospel of John itself, such as John 1:12-13; John 3:5-8; John 6:37; John 8:47; John 17:2-9?).

There have been some non-Calvinists that have completely lost sight of the need to do precisely what I just mentioned. They look to John 3:16 as the be all and end all, and never consider what John 3:16 is actually saying both in its immediate context and in the broader context of the whole Bible.

One author, George Bryson, whom I have never met but have heard speak in a debate with Dr. James White (http://www.aomin.og/) seems to me to be a fine Christian gentleman. Nevertheless, Mr. Bryson really highlights what I am saying here. A few years ago he wrote a book in opposition to Calvinism called “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting.” On the cover of the book there is a balancing scale with the name of John Calvin on one side, and John 3:16 on the other, with John 3:16 “outweighing” as it were John Calvin (by the way, John Calvin would be the first to say that Scripture “outweighs” him, and he maybe more than any of the Reformers drove people to the text of Scripture!).

Opposing Calvinism is one thing, but to have what can only be described as an outrageous, not to mention over-simplistic approach to these issues is irresponsible and seriously flawed to say the least, not to mention dangerous, because those that are influenced by such argumentation are first of all given the false impression that people become “Calvinists” by blindly and slavishly following John Calvin instead of interacting with Scripture, to include John 3:16, and secondly, they are never forced to deal in a meaningful way with any single text of Scripture, to include, ironically enough, John 3:16. And that doesn’t even take into consideration Mr. Bryson’s many distortions of Calvinism that the reader is subjected to. For those that honestly approach the text though, such argumentation will actually prove to be counterproductive. See for example this testimony from a person who ironically became a Calvinist after reading Mr. Bryson’s book: http://eqdj.wordpress.com/2006/12/23/bryson-and-calvinism-introduction-conclusion/. See also Dr. James White’s most recent critique of an address Mr. Bryson gave to a group of Calvary Chapel pastors in 2003:

http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20061207fta.mp3 http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20061214fta.mp3 http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20061221fta.mp3 http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20070123fta.mp3

Note: I know that non-Calvinists get tired of hearing Calvinists say that they simply do not understand Calvinism, and that they misrepresent Calvinism. Well, unfortunately, the large majority of the critiques of Calvinism over the past few years especially have not only misrepresented Calvinism, but are outright monstrous distortions, and when I read them I can only shake my head in utter disbelief that any person that goes by the name of Christ could be so careless, and even outright malicious, even after they have been told by Calvinists that what they are saying isn’t accurate. I simply do not expect such behavior from professing Christians. So, for you non-Calvinists that are tiring of hearing the charge of misrepresentation, here’s a thought: stop misrepresenting Calvinism, and I promise…we’ll shut up about it. We’d love to have an intellectually honest discussion on the issues with you as brothers and sisters in Christ; is that too much to ask?

As for the picture on the cover of Mr. Bryson’s book, his approach ends up presenting nothing more than a caricature of Calvinism, and worse, it results in a mishandling of the sacred text of Scripture resulting in a faulty view of God, man, and an undermining of key elements that are directly related to the very heart of the Gospel itself. The only thing George Bryson succeeds in proving by putting such an image on the cover of his book (which one would assume he would like for us to take seriously) is that he really does not understand Calvinism, not to mention the incredibly flawed concept of pitting one verse of Scripture over and against other passages of Scripture.

And by the way, Calvinism is not that difficult to figure out. To digress just briefly here, Calvinism simply declares that God is indeed absolutely sovereign and truly does govern all things, to include the choices of men, man is a wicked sinner, Christ made a perfect, full, sufficient, efficient, and actual substitutionary atonement, and the Holy Spirit never fails to apply that perfect work to a multitude of God-hating rebels that no man can number from every part of the world that the Father gave to the Son before time even began, and that Christ will not lose any of His sheep that He was sent to save.

The reason Calvinism becomes “complicated” is because people are not willing to put aside their preconceived theological notions and their preconceived distorted understanding of Calvinism and deal honestly with the facts. Thus, you get people like Mr. Bryson, and worse, Dave Hunt, who only muddy the waters even further, because they present themselves as the authorities on these things, yet, what they present is a complete mangling of Calvinism.

As I remarked here in my article found here http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/baptistscalvinism, in the advancing of their misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Calvinism, they in effect construct an entirely new theological system, and then argue against it. The problem, of course, is that they call the abomination that they create "Calvinism," and well-meaning people that may not know any better have been completely misled concerning the real issues. No wonder people walk away scratching their heads confused! No wonder people walk away thinking that Calvinists are the worse heretics! Not only that, but as I have said before, if I believed what they say I believe, I would never be a Calvinist!

As for Mr. Bryson’s picture of the balancing scale, it is the name of John Calvin on the other side, not Scripture per se. But that also seriously distorts the issues and gives the impression to those that may not know any better that Calvinists, as mentioned before, blindly and slavishly follow and hang on every word Calvin wrote. Nothing could be further from the truth. Calvinists accept the teachings of Calvin only is so far as his teachings are consistent with the Bible (and Calvin himself would have it no other way!), and it is God’s Word that all Calvinists exalt as the sole infallible rule for faith and practice. Calvin is not the grid that we run Scripture through; rather, Scripture is the grid we run Scripture through. Accord to Calvinism, Calvin and every other teacher is secondary to the text of Holy Writ. This is what Calvin and all of the Reformers teach us.

As for Calvin and the other Reformers, they were relentless in their appeal to the Scriptures, and they meticulously built their case first and foremost upon the sure foundation of the infallible and inerrant bedrock of Scripture with a veritable mountain of Scriptural evidence ushered in to support their teachings, particularly on the core matters of the Reformation, which, by the way, is all that “Calvinism” essentially codifies. The simple fact of the matter is that with each step that we move away from the Doctrines of Grace, we take giant leaps toward Rome (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/AugustusToplady%20RoadToRome.htm).

So, if one is going to put John Calvin (and all of the Reformation for that matter) on the kind of scale that Mr. Bryson has devised, they must put all of the Scriptures that Calvin (as well as the other Reformers) appealed to in making his (their) case, and if one does that, one can be assured that there would be far more than one verse on the scale, and those verses would be dealt with exegetically.

I appreciate brother Bryson’s right to disagree with Calvinists on the issues. I listened to him debate Dr. James White, and found Mr. Bryson to be of a genuinely irenic spirit. I just wish that he would exercise more scholarly responsibility and discernment and refrain from employing such misguided argumentation, and that he would also listen to those Calvinists that have told him that there are many errors in his representation of what Calvinists teach (this seems to be a standard for those that decide to object to Calvinism. For some unknown reason, most simply refuse to deal honestly with the facts, and they seem bent on presenting a distorted view of Calvinism and one straw man argument after another. They should realize that they only thing they succeed in doing by such an approach is demonstrate their incompetence, and in some cases, their absolute lack of integrity, Dave Hunt being the example par excellence). By the way, in that debate between George Bryson and James White, the cross-examination period was particularly telling, as Mr. Bryson was incapable of dealing with any of the texts that Dr. White put before him in a consistent manner that was faithful to the text, especially John 6. You can visit Dr. White’s website for more info at http://www.aomin.org/.

I will now move to John 3:16 and provide what I believe is a correct understanding of the text, not according to Calvinistic tradition, but according to the text itself and other texts that shed light on this passage.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

When we come to any passage of Scripture, we must, among other things, keep in mind the audience that the writer is addressing, the purpose of the writing, the nature of what is being spoken of, and we must interpret passages within their context. This is just as important as we come to John 3:16.

The purpose of John’s Gospel is to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God, and that anyone that believes in Him may have eternal life (John 20:21). John also wishes to show the universal implications of this fact. In other words, John, a Jew, is writing his Gospel to demonstrate that Jesus is not just the Messiah of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles, that is, of the entire world. There is no patch of ground on the earth, and no patch of air in space that does not have Jesus Christ as its supreme Lord and Master.

When we come to John 3:16, it seems to me that the two key words in the passage that cause the greatest confusion are the words “world” and “whoever.”

What is meant by the word “world?”

1. When we compare Scripture with Scripture and other uses of this word, we find some very interesting things. Sometimes it simply refers to the earth itself (2 Sam 22:16). Sometimes it refers to creation in general (Acts 17:24). Sometimes it refers to the ungodly system of thought that opposes God (1 John 2:15-17). Sometimes it is used as hyperbole to describe a very large portion of the earth (Rom 1:8). Sometimes it is used to describe a very large portion of people (John 12:19). There may be more ways in which the word is used, but this is enough to demonstrate that the word world is used in many different ways in the Bible and refers to many different things.

This is absolutely critical to understand, because when people come to the word “world” in John 3:16, they simply assume that it is referring to every single person that ever has or ever will live. So, John 3:16 would in effect say:

“God so loved every single person that ever has or ever will live, that He gave His only begotten Son, that every single person that ever has or ever will live that believes might not perish, but have everlasting life.”

First, I can’t think of any place in Scripture where the word “world” is used to refer to such a concept. But even if there were, we must ask, is this the point that Jesus is making in this statement? I believe that upon examination of this verse in its immediate context, as well as the context of other passages in John and the rest of the Bible, this text is communicating something different.

Now, I know this is a very emotional thing, so, for those that disagree, all I ask is that you fairly consider my comments without dismissing them out of hand. Not only that, you may even be surprised to find that even if we granted such a rendering of John 3:16, it still would not contradict the sovereignty of God in salvation as taught in TUILIP (see my handling of this a bit later). For now though, and once again, we must resist taking our own presupposed meaning or understanding of a word and placing it upon the text without ever letting the document itself inform our understanding of what the word meant to the writer(s).

2. We must ensure that our understanding of the text does not contradict other texts. Particularly as it relates to the writings of the Apostle John, and when we compare Scripture with Scripture, we begin to get an idea of what John means. When we look just at John 3:16, we note that it is stated in a larger context. Look at the verses preceding John 3:16. Jesus has been talking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee no less, and Jesus tells Nicodemus that a man must be born again if he is to see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus is confused and wonders how that is possible—is a person to re-enter his mother’s womb and be born all over again (John 3:4). Jesus is stunned that a teacher of Israel wouldn’t understand so simple and basic a concept, and explains to our inquiring friend Nicodemus, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 3:6). Jesus then goes on to draw an analogy that demonstrates the sovereignty of the act by likening the experience of being born again to the moving of wind. No one knows where the wind is going to blow, and we certainly have no control over where it blows, how hard it blows, etc. The wind is sovereign. We have no control over it. This is how it is for those born of the Spirit. The Spirit of God is sovereign, and He brings to spiritual life to any one He so chooses, and no one, to include the individual that becomes born again, has control over it. This is why we say that the one that is born again is born from above, or “born of the Spirit.” It is heavenly, spiritual, and sovereign, not earthly, fleshly, and within man’s power. Matthew Henry, with reference to Jesus’ use of the analogy of the wind to describe the born again experience notes:

“1. That the Spirit, in regeneration, works arbitrarily, and as a free agent. The wind bloweth where it listeth for us, and does not attend our order, nor is subject to our command. God directs it; it fulfils his word, Ps 148:8. The Spirit dispenses his influences where, and when, on whom, and in what measure and degree, he pleases, dividing to every man severally as he will, 1 Cor 12:11.

2. That he works powerfully, and with evident effects: Thou hearest the sound thereof; though its causes are hidden, its effects are manifest. When the soul is brought to mourn for sin, to groan under the burden of corruption, to breathe after Christ, to cry Abba-Father, then we hear the sound of the Spirit, we find he is at work, as Acts 9:11, Behold he prayeth.

3. That he works mysteriously, and in secret hidden ways: Thou canst not tell whence it comes, nor whither it goes. How it gathers and how it spends its strength is a riddle to us; so the manner and methods of the Spirit's working are a mystery. Which way went the Spirit? 1 Kings 22:24. See Eccl 11:5, and compare it with Ps 139:14.”

This is in perfect accord with what John tells us in John 1:13, where he says that the ones that receive Christ and believe in His name are those “who were born, not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Please don’t miss what is being said there. It does not say that receiving Christ results in one becoming born again. It states that only those that are born of God receive Him. The ones that receive Christ do so not because of the will of their flesh, but because they are born of God…only those that are born of God will receive Christ. That is precisely what Calvinism affirms in the teaching of Irresistible Grace (the “I” of TULIP), and what the non-Calvinistic position denies.

Hence, when we come to John 3:16 we must not lose sight of this, as well as the numerous other texts just in the Gospel of John that inform us that the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63), and that God’s work in redemption is sovereign so that only those that the Father has given to Jesus will come to Him (John 6:37-65; John 10:11-30). Whatever understanding of John 3:16 we have must be consistent with those others truths. When we consider the full context of John 3:16, and the other texts that come after it, both in the Gospel of John and in other places, what we discover is that Scripture never loses sight both of the universal nature of the Gospel (it goes all over the world; to every creature; to people from every nation, tribe and tongue), and the particular application of that Gospel (only the elect will respond savingly to it as they are sovereignly brought to saving faith and repentance). As a matter of fact, that truth is brought out even more when we consider the Greek text of John 3:16, particularly as it relates to the word “whosoever.” I will address that a bit later.

3. Given the facts that we have uncovered, it seems quite clear that when Jesus says that “God so loved the world,” He is speaking in general, not particular terms, about humanity at large. In other words, in an intensely Judeo-centric (Jewish-centered) culture that believed that God’s redemptive purposes extended to the Jews only, Jesus now shatters that idea by saying that God loves the world. In other words, God’s redemptive love doesn’t merely extend to the Jewish nation, but it extends to people from every nation, tribe, and tongue (see Revelation 5:9. John's wording there is what he has in view with the word "world." It is a general term used to describe all people without distinciton, i.e, all people groups...people from every nation, tribe and tongue). It was because of this love for people from every nation, tribe, and tongue that God sent His Son into the world, and any person (whosoever) within every nation, tribe, and tongue that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. Hence we could better paraphrase John 3:16 as "God so loved people from every nation, tribe and tongue, that He sent His only begotten son, so that any person within every nation, tribe and tongue that believes Him might not perish but have everlasting life." Such an understanding is in keeping with the way John has used the word world when referring to people throughout the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, and prevents us from causing John 3:16 to contradict other passages.

Simply put, John 3:16 simply does not deal with details and specifics; rather, it is a broad-brush, general statement that tells us about the scope of God’s redemptive plan and purpose: it is worldwide; and how that redemption is brought to pass: by the giving of the Son; and how that redemption is received: by believing in Christ. This passage in no way contradicts the Bible’s teaching on Divine election and predestination.

What is meant by the word “whosoever”?

First, I have no problem with the word “whosoever,” and as I pointed out, it does no violence whatsoever to the truths contained in the 5 points of Calvinism. Contrary to those that misrepresent Calvinism, either out of ignorance, or just a sheer malicious intent to purposely lie and distort the facts as seen in such people as Ergun and Emir Caner and Dave Hunt (see my article here http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/nodebate), Calvinism unquestionably and unwaveringly affirms the general call of the Gospel that is to go out to every creature.
Be that is it may, as noted above, it should be noted that the word “whosoever” is not found in the Greek text of John 3:16. Instead, as Dr. James Whites points out, the Greek literally translated says, “the one(s) believing in…” In other words, a more literal rendering of John 3:16 is, “For God so loved the world…that the one(s) believing in Him should not perish…” Phrased this way seems, at the very least, to blunt the traditional non-Calvinistic understanding of the passage, because it even more clearly particularizes the text in the mind of the reader, making it more clear (at least in my mind) that Christ was sent into the world specifically for those that would believe (which, regardless of whether one holds to a non-Calvinistic view, or a Calvinistic view, can only be the elect). For a complete take and far more in-depth exegetical analysis of what I just said with reference to John 3:16, I encourage the reader to check out James White’s comments on John 3:16 in his open letter to Dave Hunt. I have lifted that particular portion of the letter and provide it here: http://www/geocities.com/johnandursula/john316white . The full letter can be found here: http://www.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html.

On a side note, I would also point out that regardless of what one believes with regard to the question of Calvinism, how can anyone that affirms the omniscience of God seriously dispute that Christ was sent into the world specifically for those that would believe? Are we really to believe that Christ was sent into the world for those that would not believe, having full knowledge that they would not believe? Just think about it.

Again, I personally have no problem with using the word “whosoever” in John 3:16—it still does not contradict the numerous other passages in the Gospel of John, and the whole Bible for that matter that speak of God’s sovereignty in salvation. My only point is that if one were to be entirely faithful to the Greek text, the word whosoever is not found, and if John 3:16 were translated literally, it would seem to seriously undermine the traditional and superficial non-Calvinistic understanding of the text. You see, when the non-Calvinists reads John 3:16 with the word “whosoever,” they then take that to mean all people without exception have the moral ability to believe in Christ, and that Christ made an atonement for all men without exception. They take that one word “whosoever” and read their traditions into it, and cause it in the end to say something that it was never meant to say. When they do this, they cause John 3:16 to conflict with and/or contradict scores of other Scriptural passages and theological truths. I believe that this could be prevented if the Greek text were literally translated as “the one(s) believing” instead of whosoever believes. But again, if we keep the word “whosoever,” the passage still only references a particular group (whosoever believes), and in no way contradicts Jesus’ teaching in such places as John 6:37, 44, etc.

Granting the Non-Calvinistic Interpretation

Now, let’s do something radical. Suppose I grant to my non-Calvinistic brethren that their interpretation is correct. Let suppose that John 3:16 really could be paraphrased to say:
“God so loved every single person that ever has or ever will live, that He gave His only begotten Son, that every single person that ever has or ever will live that believes in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life.”

What have we proven with such a rendering in that it contradicts the Bible’s clear and explicit teaching on God’s sovereignty of salvation as codified in TULIP? Answer: absolutely nothing! So long as we do not read our traditions into the text, the only thing that such an interpretation proves is that God, in common grace, has a general love for all of mankind without exception, and that He calls all without exception to believe in Christ on the basis of Christ’s work for salvation. Calvinists do not disagree with that! Calvinists affirm that God appeals to all men without exception to turn from their sins and experience eternal life on the basis of the finished work of Christ. This text says nothing about man’s ability to receive the Christ, the nature of grace, and with regard to the atonement, there isn’t even any explicit mention of it—the text says God gave His only begotten Son, but doesn’t say anything with reference to what the Son would do specifically. Obviously there is something sacrificial that is strongly implied, and on the basis of other texts we know that John 3:16 is referring to work of Christ. Be advised however, our tendency is to focus on only one part of that work, the atonement. As wonderful and essential as that is, it is not that Jesus only died for us, it is that He also lived for us. God requires from all of us nothing less than absolute perfect obedience to the law of God in word, thought, and deed, and in light of our utter failure, Jesus, the Second Adam, accomplishes what we never could; the perfect obedience to the law of God in word, thought and deed on our behalf. When we by faith take hold of Christ, we are declared righteous by virtue of having the perfect righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to us.

Given the fact that there is no direct or extended teaching on the atonement in this verse, it would be unwise then to build any doctrine of the atonement on the basis of this verse. The most we could say on the basis of this text is that if anyone is to be saved, it is solely owing to the perfect work of Christ.

Thus, such an understanding of John 3:16 still doesn’t contradict the numerous passages that speak of God’s sovereign election of whosever He determined to choose in Christ before the foundation of the world. It would still be just a general statement about God’s revealed will to every single person that ever has or ever will live; namely, that they turn from their sins and follow Christ. In that sense, the verse is just a bare statement (in the sense that it is not intended to explore the full scope of the redemptive purposes of God) concerning the general call that goes out to all people without exception. Passages such as this (other examples: John 11:25-26, Rom 10:9-10, Rev 21:6, Rev 22:17, etc.) simply affirm that any person may be saved if they believe, and Calvinism has always and emphatically maintained that.

Non-Calvinists wrongly think and assert that Calvinists deny this, but this is simply false; once again, every Calvinist wholeheartedly agrees that any person (whosoever) may be saved if they believe, and that the Gospel is to be preached and salvation offered to every single person on the planet. The Calvinist simply asserts with Scripture that only those that were given to Jesus by the Father will come to Him (John 6:37). Each and every person should be given the opportunity to respond to the Gospel, but only the elect will respond savingly to the free offer (Acts 13:48, “…And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”).

By the way, even the non-Calvinist must acknowledge as much, for even they believe that God infallibly knows who will and who will not receive Christ. Thus, the only ones that will respond savingly to the free offer of the Gospel are those that God infallibly knows will do so. The key difference then between the non-Calvinist and the Calvinist is the reason one person responds, and the other does not. The non-Calvinist points to something good in man (he “cooperated” with God’s grace and it was his “free will” decision that made the difference), while the Calvinist points to something good in God (God’s grace overcomes the sinners willful rejection of Christ, and enables and ensures that the sinner will freely choose Christ).

We do not know the identity of the elect (or, of those that God infallibly knows will believe); that is God’s business. We, along with our non-Calvinist brothers and sisters, simply go and compel the lost—all of the lost—to come to the rivers of living water; every man, woman, boy and girl; and tell them that today is the day of salvation, receive the Lord Jesus Christ now and His free gift of eternal life!

While I think that the interpretation of John 3:16 that I provided has more exegetical warrant than other interpretations I have read, I nevertheless have no problem saying that God so loved each and every one of them (man, woman, boy and girl) that if they believe, they shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Again though, this love is a “common grace” love. The kind of love that God has for unbelievers differs from the kind of love that He has for His people in much the same way that the kind of love that I have for my neighbor differs from the kind of love that I have for my wife. This is important to remember when we approach other passages such as Matt 11:25-30, John 6:37-65, John 8:31-47, John 11:49-52, John 12:37-41, Rom 8:28-34, Rom 9:10-29, 1 Cor 1:26-31, Eph 1:3-6, 2 Thes 2:13, 2 Tim 1:9, etc., etc. Those that object to such a distinction (between God’s common grace love for all without exception and His redemptive love that is reserved for only His sheep) do not allow the same freedom to God that we humans have, namely, the ability to make distinctions in our relationships. Even a careless reading of Scripture reveals that God’s love for His people is of an entirely different nature than the love He has for the unbeliever.

Conclusion

John 3:16 is indeed a tremendous and amazing passage of Scripture; however, it is not all of Scripture (as George Bryson seems to think), and as with all texts, great care must given when rendering an interpretation of this text that does not undermine and/or contradict other passages of the Bible.

Calvinists are not ignoring John 3:16, and they are certainly not trying to “redefine” words or the meaning of John 3:16. We are simply trying to be good students of God’s Word and put our humanistic and traditional “glasses” aside and interpret Scripture with Scripture, and allow the text itself to determine what is meant by a word(s). A great irony here is that while I do believe that the interpretation I have offered is valid and indeed correct, if one still does not agree with it, I believe that I have also demonstrated how even taking the most “liberal” of interpretations of John 3:16 still would not refute TULIP. Thus, if one wishes to argue against Calvinism, they will have to go somewhere other than John 3:16 in trying to make their case, not to mention the fact that they will have to offer a valid interpretation of the enormous body of texts that clearly demonstrate the truth of the Calvinistic position (for a sampling of those text, I refer the reader to this: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/calvinismdefendedcontents.

Barbaro and Abortion

2007-01-29T15:59:00.000-05:00

By John Orlando

Today Barbaro, the racing horse that was injured during the Preakness, was finally "put down." In the reports I heard about it on T.V., the reporters were quick to say that Barbaro was "humanely euthanized." This link contains more comments of a similar nature: http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2007/01/barbaro_euthani.html.

I thought about that for a minute, and then thought about the over 40 million babies that have been aborted (massacred) in the United States since 1973. Isn't it amazing how our culture wants to be real careful to ensure that a horse is put to death in a "humane" manner, yet, it has no qualms about disintegrating an infant in the womb, or sucking the infant out of the womb and disposing of it in a garbage can, or inducing labor on a mother that has carried full term so that "doctors" can ram scissors into the baby's head as it appears out of the birth canal, suck its brain out, collapse the skull, and then dispose of the baby? http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf.html); For pics of infants in their stages of development inthe womb, see: http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal2.html. You can go to this link to see a diagram of the barbaric procedure of partial-birth abortion: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

If you want to see the devasting effects of abortion, I direct you to this link. Note: these photos are absolutely startling and gruesome, and if you have a weak stomach, you may not want to view them. They are pics of aborted babies: http://www.abortiontruth.com/pictures.html

You know, I am all for the humane treatment of animals, and I do pray that those that are grieving over Barbaro are comforted. And I am grateful that people display such compassion for an animal that they would seek only the most humane measures in euthanizing an animal. Be that as it may, I am even more concerned about the "humane" treatment of humans!

Would that our liberal friends would be as well. Can you image if Barbaro had been killed by being doused with a firehose full of a hypertonic saline solution, or thrown into some device that would have dismembered him, and then discarded in the local dumpster, or if he had giant scissors crammed into his skull and had his brain sucked out causing his skull to collapse? The outcry from liberals and animal "rights" activists would no doubt have been deafening and would have filled the airways of our national media. Hollywood would have been mobilized, and we would have seen one star after another stand in front of a camera and encourage us to stop the madness, all the while holding a lit candle in their hands, and then there would be the customary group-hug song a la "We Are The World" being belted out by the world's most famous ensemble of pop stars.

What do we get for the 40 million babies that have been slaughtered? Ridicule, and then one ad after another that warns America to get out and vote (so that we can keep Roe v. Wade legal; in other words, so that the slaughter of innocent human beings can continue).

It is far too cliche to say that "America has lost her way," or that "We have lost our moral compass," or any other cliche you can think of. At this point, words simply cannot accurately describe the absolute horror of the situation where we would care more for the humane treatment of an animal than for the life a human being. May God help us.

But here is thing...all of this only reveals the depths of our depravity. I am no better than the abortionist (as a matter of fact, I was a party to 2 of them before my conversion!) or those that seem to value the life of an animal more than the life of a human being. The same warped mentality that is displayed in such things resides, if I'm honest enough to admit it, in my heart as well. I may not act out the irrationality of my sin in such extreme and overt ways, but how many times have I murdered someone with my words, or my thoughts. I am no better than any of those "mean" liberals. I am just a sinner like them, saved by grace.

I say all of that to say this: Our answers do not lay in politcal mobilization, or self-help techniques, etc. Rather, the only hope for any of us is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As we declare the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit sovereignly applies Jesus Christ to lost souls, our "worldview" will change. It is only then that such crimes as abortion on demand will cease. And it is not just "those" people over there that need Jesus...I need Jesus. As we engage folks, let us engage them keeping that in mind. We can and should condemn such practices as abortion on demand, but let us do so remembering who we are in Christ, and how, but for the grace of God, go I.

Need Some Choir Members?

2007-01-28T23:49:00.000-05:00

By John Orlando

Attention all church music directors and/or pastors: Are you trying to get your choir off of the ground and looking for some great talent? Well, here is an audition tape for you that is sure to blow your socks off! You may even want this one leading the choir! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfZ_gXCHaMw

It's Just Me and My Bible

2007-01-25T19:31:00.000-05:00

By John Orlando

I'll never forget the time a Christian woman argued with me stating that Christians should not read works produced by mere "men," but should only read the Bible. No matter how I tried to convince her of the need for us to read the writings of godly teachers so that we might learn and grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ, the more she resisted.

Well, the following is from Phil Johnson's blog callled Pyromaniacs (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/). I found it at another blog, the Reformation Theology blog, found here: http://www.reformationtheology.com/. It is a great reply to those that fall into this "it's just me and my Bible" error.

Here is what one person asked. Phil's reply follows afterward:

Your identity as a "Baptist"; your endless quotations from Charles Spurgeon; your faithful devotion to John MacArthur; and especially your willingness to call yourself a "Calvinist" are all huge red flags that tell me something is seriously wrong with your theology. Why do you teach a system of doctrine that is named after a mere man? Why are you following human teachers instead of going to the Bible alone? After all, 1 John 2:27 says, "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you." We ought to go to Scripture alone to establish our doctrine! The truth is in God's Holy word, not in any theological system or theology textbook developed by mere men. Isn't that principle what the Reformation was originally about? Sola Scriptura? Didn't even Calvin himself go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Calvin himself wrote for this blog, he would point people to the truth in God's Holy word, not to a theology developed by some other man.

Phil's reply:You have seriously misunderstood sola Sriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Reformers (including Calvin) often cited the works of Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others-ranging from the early church fathers through Aquinas. They didn't follow any of them slavishly, of course, but they certainly took them seriously. Not one of the major Reformers would have tolerated the claim that because the Church Fathers were mere men they were therefore irrelevant or incapable of shedding any helpful light on tough theological questions.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. It is an affirmation that "the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture" and that "nothing at any time is to be added [to the Bible], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." It recognizes that there is ultimately no higher spiritual authority than God's Word, so "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture . . . it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

But none of that means we're obliged to discard the wisdom of godly men from ages past and require each man to try to discern truth from scratch by reading nothing but Scripture by himself.

As for Calvin, he certainly did "point people to the truth in God's Holy Word"-but one thing he did not do was steer people away from the important theologians of the past. In fact, Calvin's works are filled with references to the Church Fathers-Augustine in particular. Calvin knew it was important to demonstrate that he was proposing nothing wholly novel and that his theology was in the doctrinal lineage of the greatest theologians of the church. He regarded himself as Augustinian, in precisely the same way many today think of themselves as "Calvinists."

If Calvin wrote for this blog and someone responded to one of his posts by refusing to read what Augustine wrote, Calvin would probably write that person off as arrogant and unteachable.

Incidentally, 1 John 2:20, 27 is the apostle John's response to an early outbreak of gnostic-flavored spiritual elitism. He was refuting some false teachers (he called them "antichrists") who insisted that real truth is a deep secret, different from the apostolic message, into which people must be initiated by some anointed swami. The Holy Spirit indwells and anoints each believer, and He is the One who truly enlightens and enables us to understand truth. But He also gifts certain people with a particular ability to teach others (Romans 12:6-7; Ephesians 4:11). So while John was condemning the notion of enlightened masters in the style of Freemasonry and gnosticism, he was not making a blanket condemnation of teachers. He himself was a teacher.

Bonus (from Phil):A follow-up message asks if I am suggesting it's wrong for someone to abandon all books and human teachers and rely only on what he can glean from the Bible for himself. Answer: yes, I think that's wrong because it's arrogant and reflects a sinful kind of unteachability. This is my whole point: sola Scriptura doesn't rule out the valid role of teaching in the church.
Furthermore, it is simply not the case that any common, unskilled, unschooled individual, sitting down with his Bible and no other tools, can expect to come to a full and mature understanding of Scripture without any help from godly teachers who understand some things better than he will ever get it on his own. Here's Bernard Ramm's famous response to the arrogance reflected in such a perversion of sola Scriptura:

It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: "Dear friends, I have read no man's book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself." This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.

But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.
First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like [Athanasius,] Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule. . . .Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholarship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalalhashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary. [from Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), pp. 17-18 (emphasis in original).]

Why I'm a Christian

2007-01-23T14:05:00.000-05:00

A fantastic presentation by Dr. James White that presents the Gospel in a very down-to-earth manner while still retaining a clear God-centered and sound doctrinal focus. It is just over 27 minutes long and well worth the listen: http://mp3.aomin.org/JRW/WhyAmIAChristian.mp3

Suffering and Sovereignty - A Brief Look at One Woman's Struggle

2006-11-03T20:53:00.000-05:00

By Ursula Orlando

Most people have been through difficult times at some point in their lives. Some of these times last just for a season, and life returns to normal. Then there are people who have endured more than just difficult times; these people have been touched by suffering or tragedy that seems to have no end. Life will never be the same and they must learn to adjust to the radical changes that have come into their lives. Their belief in God is shaken to its core, and they often wonder why a loving and sovereign God would allow this to happen to them or their loved one. While I cannot fully explain why seemingly senseless and even unspeakably evil things happen to people, I will explore the truth that God is ultimately in control of all things, and embraces those with love that cry out to Him.

One person that had to deal with these kinds of questions is Joni Eareckson Tada. In 1967, at the age of 17, she went swimming in the Chesapeake Bay. Joni was an energetic young woman with her whole life ahead of her, but then the unthinkable happened. Joni dove into the water a healthy and vibrant woman, preparing to enter her first year of college, ironically to be a physical therapist. She came out of the water a quadriplegic having broken her neck, robbed of the use of her hands and legs, and confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

Joni, in recounting her story, tells of how she often thought of killing herself in the aftermath of the accident. She would vigorously move her head from side to side hoping to break her neck higher so that she could die. About a year had passed since her accident. Joni was angry with God. Her prognosis after the accident had been bleak and she was devoid of any hope—even the anger dissipated. Despair set in and she refused to participate in physical therapy. She also turned her head away when friends visited.

Hazel, a nurse’s aide from Mississippi, had noticed that Joni was slipping away and tried to get her to talk. She encouraged Joni to cry and that she would wipe away her tears. Joni didn’t want to talk or eat, and proved it when she let the food she was eating dribble out of the side of her mouth. Hazel yelled at Joni, “You get yourself together, girl. Ain’t nothing wrong with you that a good look around this hospital won’t cure.”

Hazel had stirred up resentment in Joni. After Hazel left for the evening, Joni struggled to stop the tears. There was no one there to blow her nose or change her damp pillowcase if she allowed herself to cry. She whispered, “I can’t…I can’t live like this. Please help me.”

It was there in the darkness that something stirred within Joni. Instead of the emotional numbness she had been feeling, hope began to stir within her. It was at that moment that Joni told God that if she could not die, then He needed to show her how to live. God responded to Joni’s heartfelt prayer and set her on a course that would eventually go on to impact thousands upon thousands of people with the knowledge of God’s love and grace.

Joni developed a stronger interest in the Bible and gravitated to the Psalms that offered hope such as Psalm 34:18:

“The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”

And there were other passages that really captured the cry and desperation of her heart, such as Psalm 77:7-9, which says:

“Will the Lord reject forever? Will He never show His favor? Has His unfailing love vanished forever? Has His promise failed for all time? Has God forgotten to be merciful? Has He in anger withheld His compassion?”

These verses are just three of the twenty verses in this psalm. The beginning of Psalm 77 opens with the psalmist crying out to God for help, the middle (verses 7-9) questions God, and the psalmist ends with remembering that God is holy, and all the great things He has done, and that He doesn’t forget His people. According to Joni, like the psalmist, her gut-wrenching questions to God turned her heart away from ungodly despair toward a desire to know and understand Him. Through the psalms, Joni searched for God.

Her despair did not disappear right away, but she knew she was moving in the right direction because she said she was moving toward God. Joni says:

“My questions also created a paradox: in the midst of God’s absence, I felt His presence. I found Him after I let go of what I thought He should be. My despair ended up being my ally because through it, He took hold of me.” (Joni Eareckson Tada, When God Weeps, p. 155)

Shortly thereafter, her friends came with Bibles in hand to talk and pray with her. They treated her as a person, and not as a cripple, as they watched football games, and ate pizza together. One day a friend quoted a passage out of the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, which states:

“In everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.”

That sounds great when things are going well, but it is a hard truth to comprehend when things are bad or when tragedy strikes. Joni couldn’t believe her friend was serious, and said that in no way did she feel thankful for her accident. Her friend replied by saying that the passage doesn’t say to feel thanks, but to give thanks; trusting God doesn’t have to do with how one feels, so take a step of faith and do it. I believe that became another turning point for Joni and her relationship with God. During a 2005 interview on Larry King Live, Joni stated that before her accident, following Jesus was just a religion to her, but afterwards she developed a warmer, deeper relationship with Him, and it is that personal relationship with the Lord that has made the difference in her life, and has helped give her a sense of peace and perspective that she otherwise would not have had.

That doesn’t mean that everything is all good and that Joni goes around living as if she were a spiritual giant, or that she is living in denial about the difficult circumstances that she grapples with every day of her life. She is quite open about the fact that there are times when she really struggles with her feelings. Joni does not stop there though. She keeps going back to her trust in the sovereignty of God, knowing that while she cannot fully understand all of the reasons why she is in the state that she is in, she knows that God is using her circumstances for purposes that she certainly is incapable of ever fully understanding, but also in ways that she would have never dreamed of. Joni founded Joni and Friends (JAF) Ministry in 1979 to bring forth the gospel message, and to equip Christ-honoring churches throughout the world to minister to people affected by disabilities. She has learned to paint with her teeth and is the author of over twenty books. Her positive impact on the lives of others cannot be overstated as she has brought the Gospel of Jesus Christ to bear in so many lives.

There are also a number of things that Joni cannot due as a result of her accident over thirty years ago. Joni cannot feel her husband’s hand in hers as they sit together. She cannot walk, swim or ride horses as she did as a young woman. She said she often dreams of dancing. Despite all this, Joni believes that God turned her tragedy into a blessing. Just as Romans 8:28 states, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.”

Joni’s questions of “why” did not get answered. Instead, God answered with Himself. Joni realized that it wasn’t the “why did this happen” that would comfort her heart. Ultimately it was giving up on trying to figure it all out, and turning to God in her deepest moment of despair and growing in her relationship with God. Though times are still difficult, Joni nevertheless can truly say that God has turned her tragedy into a blessing, and through it all she has come to experience the love of God in a most profound and personal way.

By His Grace,

Ursula Orlando

Closing comments from John:

Dear one, I hope this very brief look at the sovereignty of God and suffering through the life of Joni Eareckson Tada has been a source of edification and encouragement for you. As you can see, there are no simple answers to the topic of suffering and sovereignty. God Himself does not give us any detailed answer either...He simply bids us, and requires us, to trust Him. I have stated before that the absolute sovereignty of God forces us to trust God absolutely. That is never more true in the midst of suffering. Some try to relieve God from any role in the suffering that enters our lives, by claiming that God does not want to bring such things in our lives. Sentiments such as these only make things more difficult though, because if something came into our lives that God did not in some way ordain, then that means that the universe is out of control, and that ultimately there is no purpose for my suffering. To me, that is the unbearable thought; to think that suffering is not ordained by God. If we take hold of the fact though that God is indeed absolutely sovereign, and as such He has ordained all things that come to pass, to include suffering, then we know and can trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for ordaining all that He ordains, and that He is, as the apostle Paul said, "causing all things to work together for good." (Romans 8:28, NAS). Take heart then beloved, and turn to Christ. Set your mind on things above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of the Father (Col 3:1), and remember that the suffering we endure now is nothing to be compared to the glory that will be revealed (Rom 8 :18)

Many blessings,

John Orlando

Why Did Michael The Archangel Dispute with Satan Over Moses' Body?

2006-10-27T10:05:00.000-05:00

This was the question a freind of mine asked me recently. Here is my reply:

The passage is Jude verse 8. Your question is a good question, and has been a difficult question that commentators through the years have struggled to answer. Before offering my answer, there are a couple of important matters that must be considered anytime we approach a difficult text (or any text for that matter).

1. We must consider the context of the passage. This includes considering a number of factors, such as who is writing the passage, who is the audience, what is the issue being discussed, what are the other passages around that verse talking about, what kind of literature is it (is this a poetry, historical narrative, etc.), etc., etc.

2. We interpret Scripture with Scripture. In other words, when we discover a text of Scripture where we are unsure of its meaning, we must go to other places in Scripture to see if more light can be given with regard to the passage in question. In this regard, one of the important things to remember is that just as there are passages that are very clear as to their meaning, there are other passages where the meaning is not so obvious. So, we always want to take the passage that is less clear and compare it with other similar passages that are very clear and beyond question, and interpret it in light of the passage that is clear.

This also calls our attention to the fact that there are some things in Scripture that are more important to grasp than other things. For example, the fact that Jesus will return one day to consummate His kingdom is one very clear and central teaching of Scripture. However, the details of what will occur are not as clear, and are less central. This is why all Christians believe in the Second Coming of Christ, but, there are many different understandings as to many of the details pertaining to that. Those details are important, but do not rise to the level of being essential to understand. Well meaning Christians can differ over those details and still maintain fellowship.

The problem occurs when there is a difference over a clear, fundamental, and essential teaching of Scripture. For example, one person claims that Jesus is in fact God in the flesh, while another person claims that Christ was merely a man. Or, one person affirms that the way a person gets to Heaven is by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, but someone else says that in order for God to let someone into Heaven, their good works must outweigh their bad works. In that case, salvation depends not just on faith, but also on whether we have done enough works. Now, those 2 issues (the nature of Christ, and the teaching on how it is a person gets to heaven) are essential teachings in Scripture, and what a person believes about those things has a direct bearing on whether or not that person would even be considered a Christian.

As for those 2 issues, legitimate Christianity has always maintained that Jesus was in fact God in the flesh (He was 100% God and 100% human), and that salvation is in no sense based on human works, but is purely by God’s grace (undeserved favor) alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This truth was especially brought to light in the Protestant Reformation in 1517. This link provides a very good, and brief overview of the Reformation: http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.2.HTML. More info can also be found at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/fivesolas.html)

Anyway, I belabor all of that because I think it is important to keep in mind, particularly when dealing with a relatively obscure passage such as Jude verse 8, in which Michael is said to have disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. Keeping in mind what I have outlined above, lets makes some observations about this passage, and then see if there is an answer:

1. As for the context of the passage, we note that Jude is writing to believers primarily to warn them against false teachers. We are not sure of the location of the writing and the identity of the believers themselves (were they Jewish, Gentile, etc.). The reason that would be important (the identity of the readers) is because the writer would gear things a little differently in communicating with his audience. We see this throughout the New Testament especially. In a largely Jewish audience, there will be more emphasis on certain cultural practices, as well as a more direct appeal to the writings of the prophets, etc. If the audience is assumed to be largely Gentile (i.e., non-Jewish), different things will be emphasized by the writers in order for them to make their point. Anyway, the key here for the context is that the purpose of the letter is that Jude is warning the church against false teachers. I for one believe that the audience was composed largely of Jewish believers in Christ, because most if not all of the examples and imagery used by Jude are related directly to either Jewish history or other Jewish writings. More on that a bit later.

2. In the immediate context of the passage (verse 9), Jude has exhorted these believers to be prepared to contend for the faith (verse 3), and tells them the reason they need to be ready is because there will be “certain men” that have “secretly slipped in among you…who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” (v. 4).

Jude then goes on to provide a description of these false teachers. He does this by reminding his readers of some of the examples that they are familiar with, such as the disobedience of Israel after they were brought out Egypt and how there were those that rose up against Moses and sought to lead the people away from his leadership, which resulted in them rejecting God in favor of the golden calf (see v. 5. Note: this is not explicitly stated by Jude, but is clearly implied when we go back to that period of time that Jude is referencing and see what occurred…notice, we compare and interpret Scripture with Scripture). Please note, in their rejecting of Moses, they were in essence, as God said, rejecting Him (see Exodus chapters 3 and 4, and Numbers chapter 12, and Numbers 13:11). When they spoke evil of the things Moses was telling them, they were in essence speaking evil of God Himself. This is important, because this is one theme that Jude is trying to develop. He is trying to demonstrate to his readers that the false teachers they are dealing with are, as he will say in verse 8, those that, “pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.”

Then in verse 6 Jude provides another example by speaking of the angels that rebelled. This obviously would be Satan and the host of angels that went with him. The issue with Satan and his minions was an issue of again rejecting the authority of God, and slandering the person and nature of God.

In verse 7, Jude highlights the consequences for such actions, and he again uses imagery that a Jewish audience would be very familiar with: Sodom and Gomorrah. The thing that those that he has described, and these false teachers that he is ultimately alluding to, can expect is punishment by eternal fire (which the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah serves to illustrate).

So, after providing these allusions and illustrations, Jude basically sums up the moral shortcomings of these false teachers by stating in verse 8 that they were dreamers who “pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.” One key to understanding this last phrase (slander celestial beings) is to understand the word slander. Slander is a false and malicious statement or report about someone. Obviously, to engage in slander is sin. The point is that we are not free to slander anyone, the devil included. Slander and false accusations is the devil’s game, not ours.

So now the stage is set for the passage in question! :-) Jude hones in especially on the crassness of these false teachers in terms of their slandering of celestial beings by pointing to an example where it is said that even Michael the archangel “did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him (Satan)” when they disputed over Moses’ body. Now, what of this passage?

First, it is obscure. In other words, this is the only place (at least that I’m aware of) where this is mentioned. Hence, we do not all of the details. We have no idea why the body was disputed over, when the dispute occurred, and what the results of the dispute were (though we could rightly imply that Satan lost the dispute, because Michael said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you!”). But now we can ask more questions of this passage.

First, when we begin to examine this verse, we discover that this passage is actually found in a piece of ancient literature known as the Assumption of Moses. Now, that writing (the Assumption of Moses) is not considered to be part of the Scripture. However, we do find various writers of Scripture that do quote from uninspired sources. As a matter of fact, Jude does it again in verses 14-15 when he speaks about Enoch, and he is getting his material from a writing known as The Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. The Apostle Paul does a similar thing in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12 when he quotes the writings of pagan poets and philosophers. The NIV Study Bible provides a helpful commentary on passages like this: “Such usage [of uninspired writings] in no way suggests that the quotations, or the books from which they were taken, are divinely inspired. It only means that the Biblical author found the quotations to be a helpful confirmation, clarification or illustration.” (NIV Study Bible, note on Jude verse 9).

So, why would Jude include this incident that is found in an uninspired writing, particularly if the incident is not found anywhere else in the Bible, and if he was not going to give us more information about it? Because ultimately, the point of the passage is not to tell us about the fact that Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. The point that Jude wants us to see is that even Michael the archangel, with all of his authority, did not sink to the level of slandering someone even as evil as Satan; yet, the false teachers that Jude has been warning his readers about, who are mere human beings, think nothing of engaging in slander, and their slander ultimately is against the authority that they should be submitted to (namely God and His word). They simply have no fear of God, and Jude is powerfully illustrating the utter folly of these false teachers (who obviously are less in stature than someone like Mchael the archangel).

Another thing to consider with regard to the incident of Michael disputing with Satan over Moses’ body is that because Jude is quoting from this extra-biblical source (The Assumption of Moses), it could be that this event was just a common fable that is found in Jewish literature that Jude decides to use to make his point. In other words, the event itself may have never occurred, but Jude, in wanting to illustrate his point about the character of the false teachers, decides to refer to this scene because it would be something that his audience, particularly if they were Jewish, would be very familiar with, and it would make the best impression upon their minds.

We do this frequently in our own speech and writing today. For example, when we want to illustrate a point, we sometimes refer to scenes in popular movies or novels. In the relating of that scene, we usually do not say, “now we know that this scene did not occur in real life…” No; we just refer to the scene and leave it at that. For example, if I want to illustrate the power of perseverance that some people have, I might say, “and look at Rocky Balboa. He battled against insurmountable odds, and ended up beating Apollo Creed!” Anyway, we know that Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed are purely fictional characters, and they did not really fight. But what if someone 200 years from now read something I wrote where I mentioned that, but never qualified it by referring to it as fiction? They might get the idea that Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed were real people who really did fight!

In Jude’s case, it is a little more complicated because the individuals he refers to are real individuals (Michael the angel, Satan, and Moses). However, the events associated with them may not have actually occurred. Anyway, that is one possible understanding of the text. The other understanding is that the events alluded to by Jude did in fact occur, however, whether they actually occurred or did not occur, it was beyond his purposes to state why the dispute arose, and the Bible does not shed any more light on the issue either.

So, the ultimate answer to the question is 3-fold:

1. Jude is citing a non-biblical, uninspired source. The incident he cites is not alluded to anywhere else in Scripture, so we are not 100% sure whether it occurred in history or not. If it did occur, no information is given as to why Michael the archangel was disputing with Satan over Moses’ body.

2. Jude’s purpose for citing the incident is not to merely tell us about the incident; rather, he is using the incident to prove his ultimate point about the character of the false teachers that he is warning the church about. The incident itself is not the thing that is paramount in Jude’s thinking.

3. Our response should be then to consider all of the factors involved, and:
a. Discover the author’s (in this case, Jude’s) purpose for the text.
b. Not lose sight of Jude’s intention (and therefore God’s intention, since it is His
word that He is giving us through Jude). In other words, we must keep before us the primary purpose of the text, and not move from that. We can speculate about the incident, but, we must be careful not to lose sight of why the incident is reported in the first place.

Sorry for the long answer! But, as you can see, there are a number of things to consider, especially with a difficult text like this one.

Blessings!

John
johnandursula@comcast.net

Baptists and Calvinism: An Open Debate Not To Happen

2006-10-11T12:50:00.000-05:00

I recently wrote an article (http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/baptistscalvinism) about the upcoming debate where Drs. James White and Tom Ascol would be debating Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 16th. In that article I described some of the recent history and discussions that have already occurred among Evangelicals on the issue of Calvinism, focusing in particular on the interactions that Dr. James White has had with such men as Dr. Norm Geisler and Mr. Dave Hunt. I then provided some background on the difficulties that Drs. White and Ascol had experienced in dealing with both of the Caner brothers, as well as the Liberty University debate team director, Dr. Brett O’Donnell, who was to be the moderator of the debate. The behavior exhibited by our three brothers in Christ (Ergun and Emir Caner and Dr. O’Donnell) left much to be desired both in terms of what one would consider “scholarly” interaction, and also just basic common courtesy that one would expect from even a morally challenged unbeliever, let alone one that names the name of Christ...to continue, click here: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/nodebate ...