The book of Exodus is one of my favorite Old testament books to read because it is absolutely resplendent with symbols of Christ and his work to come. In it Israel captive and enslaved is a type of all humanity and their captivity and enslavement under sin and the devil. Moses is a type of Christ, sent by God to deliver the people from bondage. There are many other types as well, the passover lamb, the exodus through the red sea, and the birth of Moses.
The birth of Moses is probably one of the more overlooked types in the book of exodus, but it points us forward quite clearly to two things. On first glance, it is quite obvious that the birth of Moses, when all male children were to be killed by order of pharaoh (Exodus 1:22) was looking forward to the Birth of Christ, when all male children were ordered to be killed by King Herod. Each child was born under a death sentence, and each was protected from that death sentence by God.
Yet the death sentence that Moses was under points toward the death sentence we are all under. The wages of sin is death, and each of is carries guilt for sin. Yet Moses was saved from this death sentence through the waters of the Nile. He was placed in the water under sentence of death, yet when he was brought out of the water, he was saved, no longer was he under the law that all Hebrew boys should be killed; he was now a child of the king.
This is an obvious picture of God's work in Baptism. Even as little children, we are responsible for our sin and are rightly under sentence of Death. Yet through the waters of Holy Baptism God puts us to death with Christ, and raises us up to be his children.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
Monday, September 24, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Literal Interpretation
In the past, I have written a few posts here against the theology of dispensationalism. In all of these posts, I have discussed what is wrong with their theology. Invariably, in a discussion with a dispensaionalist I get accused of “spiritualizing” scripture, that is not reading it literally. This accusation irritates me to no end. Is it true that there are some scriptures which I do not take absolutely literally? Of course, I certainly don't look for a rebuilt temple as described in Ezekiel, nor do I look for the Old Testament sacrifices to be started again. I don't see any reason to believe the thousand years of Revelation 20 is literal seeing as there is no literal dragon, no literal pit or abyss, which will be physically sealed, and no literal chain.
Yet I certainly believe that I interpret the Bible literally. The things described above which are not literal they in fact occur in visions. There is nothing to suggest that things seen in visions and dreams are to be taken literally. There are certainly other times in the Scriptures in which obvious metaphors are used. The Gospel of John is filled with them, for instance in John 15 Jesus calls himself the vine. He is of course not a literal vine, but the vine provides a picture of our relationship to Jesus.
Yet, the fact that they take non-literal things in a literal manner is not the irritating thing. What irritates me beyond reason is the passages that must be taken literally which are in fact spiritualized by most dispensationalists and nearly all evangelicals. The passages which most Christians seem to spiritualize are in fact much more important that the ones which I get accused of spiritualizing.
The first passage that comes to mind is Eph 2:1. It is a simple passage which says “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.” Yet most Christians today do not believe this to be true, they see themselves as being able to co-operate with God to be saved. Certainly not the same as being dead. While on the topic of free will, the entire ninth chapter of Romans is often spiritualized, if not ignored completely.
Nearly any passage relating to the sacraments is not taken literally. Jesus saying “This is my body” can't possibly mean what it says. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? “ can't possibly be what Paul really meant to tell the Corinthians.
“Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins” certainly doesn't mean that Baptism forgives sins. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” doesn't mean that Baptism has any power. Romans 6 sure does a good job explaining the symbolism of baptism doesn't it?
Why is it that we can be accused of spiritualizing the Scriptures by people who spiritualize, or even ignore, these essential sections of the Bible. These are scriptures that affect the daily lives of Christians throughout the world, and they are ripped apart by those who pride themselves on an absolutely literal interpretation of Scriptures. Its asinine.
Yet I certainly believe that I interpret the Bible literally. The things described above which are not literal they in fact occur in visions. There is nothing to suggest that things seen in visions and dreams are to be taken literally. There are certainly other times in the Scriptures in which obvious metaphors are used. The Gospel of John is filled with them, for instance in John 15 Jesus calls himself the vine. He is of course not a literal vine, but the vine provides a picture of our relationship to Jesus.
Yet, the fact that they take non-literal things in a literal manner is not the irritating thing. What irritates me beyond reason is the passages that must be taken literally which are in fact spiritualized by most dispensationalists and nearly all evangelicals. The passages which most Christians seem to spiritualize are in fact much more important that the ones which I get accused of spiritualizing.
The first passage that comes to mind is Eph 2:1. It is a simple passage which says “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.” Yet most Christians today do not believe this to be true, they see themselves as being able to co-operate with God to be saved. Certainly not the same as being dead. While on the topic of free will, the entire ninth chapter of Romans is often spiritualized, if not ignored completely.
Nearly any passage relating to the sacraments is not taken literally. Jesus saying “This is my body” can't possibly mean what it says. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? “ can't possibly be what Paul really meant to tell the Corinthians.
“Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins” certainly doesn't mean that Baptism forgives sins. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” doesn't mean that Baptism has any power. Romans 6 sure does a good job explaining the symbolism of baptism doesn't it?
Why is it that we can be accused of spiritualizing the Scriptures by people who spiritualize, or even ignore, these essential sections of the Bible. These are scriptures that affect the daily lives of Christians throughout the world, and they are ripped apart by those who pride themselves on an absolutely literal interpretation of Scriptures. Its asinine.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Reading From The KJV
A couple nights ago, for my daily bible reading, instead of using one of the translations I usually use (ESV, NIV or NASB) I decided that I would get out my King James Bible (Authorized Version to my British friends). Although it is not the Bible with which I grew up or which my church used when I was younger, I have always had a deep love for this translation of God's Word. However, I have neglected it for the past few months.
Anyway, the other night, I read through almost the entire book of Romans in the KJV. Not only did I read it, but even though I was by myself, I read it aloud. I'm not particularly sure why I did so, but I did. These things made for one of the greatest Bible reading experiences I have ever had. First and foremost, the message of Romans is absolutely beautiful. Luther says in his preface to this marvelous epistle:
This letter of Paul's always seems to uplift me more than any other. Reading from the KJV only helped to reinforce the message. Many people say that the KJV is too difficult to understand for modern readers and does not have too much use today. I agree that the KJV is more challenging to read than other translations, but this is an advantage. The KJV forces you to concentrate more on the meaning of what is being said. It will cause one to think more about what is being said. It stimulates the mind.
Reading aloud serves the same purpose. The reader must clearly read each and every word. It becomes impossible to skim or skip parts of the text. Each must be presented as equal. And then not only are the words being processed visually, but you hear them as well, giving them even more of a chance to sink in.
Lastly, albeit relatively unimportant, the KJV is an absolute Joy to read. The language is gorgeous and as fit a vessel as exists for the Word of God.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
Anyway, the other night, I read through almost the entire book of Romans in the KJV. Not only did I read it, but even though I was by myself, I read it aloud. I'm not particularly sure why I did so, but I did. These things made for one of the greatest Bible reading experiences I have ever had. First and foremost, the message of Romans is absolutely beautiful. Luther says in his preface to this marvelous epistle:
It is purest Gospel. It is well worth a Christian's while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or to meditate on this letter too much or too well. The more one deals with it, the more precious it becomes
and the better it tastes.
This letter of Paul's always seems to uplift me more than any other. Reading from the KJV only helped to reinforce the message. Many people say that the KJV is too difficult to understand for modern readers and does not have too much use today. I agree that the KJV is more challenging to read than other translations, but this is an advantage. The KJV forces you to concentrate more on the meaning of what is being said. It will cause one to think more about what is being said. It stimulates the mind.
Reading aloud serves the same purpose. The reader must clearly read each and every word. It becomes impossible to skim or skip parts of the text. Each must be presented as equal. And then not only are the words being processed visually, but you hear them as well, giving them even more of a chance to sink in.
Lastly, albeit relatively unimportant, the KJV is an absolute Joy to read. The language is gorgeous and as fit a vessel as exists for the Word of God.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Why Free Will Matters
I have, on occasion, been able to discuss the idea of free will with those of an Arminian persuasion. Each and every time I have had a discussion of this nature, it has more or less ended with the Arminian saying something similar to the following: “It doesn't really matter how we come to Christ, as long as a relationship with Christ is where we end up.”* On first hearing, this certainly sounds like an accurate statement. Should I really care how people are brought to Christ?
Although it may seem inconsequential at first glance, the idea of free will has certain consequences which are undesirable to say the least. In the first place, the idea of free will, of making a decision for Christ causes one to put their faith not in Jesus as their savior, but first and foremost their faith is in the decision they have made. Some may say that this is untrue, but when an Arminian doubts his salvation, does he look to Christ for comfort? No! he does not look to Christ, he looks to himself and makes another decision to re-commit himself to Christ. When in doubt, they look towards their decision. For comfort they make another decision. Their own action is their own comfort.
Obviously, this is not Biblical. Our faith is not to be in ourselves or our works or our decisions. Our faith is to be in Christ alone. The law, the ministry of death, tells us to look toward our works and decisions. When directed to ourselves, as we are by the law, we can only see one thing. The only thing we get by looking to ourselves is what we had to begin with, death. By ourselves we are dead in trespasses and sins, and no decision we make or work that we do can change that. It is only an act of God that can make this change. It is only a miracle of the Holy Spirit that can grant us faith in Christ. To put our faith in anything but God is to put something else in place of God, breaking the first and most fundamental commandment. To put your faith in yourself is to make yourself out to be God, to be your own savior.
Does this sound inconsequential to you? Does it really matter how people are brought to Faith? Yes it matters! By making conversion dependent on one's own actions, one sets a strong precedent for making Christianity into a “self-help” religion. Christianity is the only religion in the work that is in no way a “self-help” religion. Biblical Christianity is the only religion in which one's works are not the source of salvation (or favorable reincarnation or nirvana or 70 virgins or whatever delusion the followers of false religions are trying to obtain).
Yet, by teaching that we can even do this one work, or co-operate with God in this one work, the Arminians teach that a person can help himself to salvation by doing this one work. This one work seems to lead to a whole religion of self-help and self-improvement. By beginning the Christian life with a work, they are inclined to go through it and finish it in the same way. Their preaching continues this mind set, and nothing but law-based sermons get preached. The Gospel does not tell you how to lead a “Christian Life” so it is largely ignored.
Does this sound inconsequential to you? I certainly hope not. Arminianism poisons the Gospel, it makes the most blessed news ever proclaimed nothing but another law. It silences those who proclaim the Gospel because it is not relevant. It takes credit from God and gives it to man. It makes man out to be God, and as such is fundamentally anti-Christian. It is no trivial matter, it threatens the Gospel itself and must be taken seriously.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
* This first thing to note is that even the statement “It doesn't really matter how we come to Christ, as long as a relationship with Christ is where we end up” presupposes an Arminian viewpoint. If you notice, they are still stating that “we come to Christ.” Even when they basically say “lets agree to disagree” they still make sure that they are using their own terms and their own theology. If I would make a similar statement saying “It doesn't really matter how the Holy Spirit calls us, as long as we are called to be children of God through Christ.” the Arminian would not find that to be a “lets agree to disagree” statement at all. Why they expect us to accept their statement I don't know.
Although it may seem inconsequential at first glance, the idea of free will has certain consequences which are undesirable to say the least. In the first place, the idea of free will, of making a decision for Christ causes one to put their faith not in Jesus as their savior, but first and foremost their faith is in the decision they have made. Some may say that this is untrue, but when an Arminian doubts his salvation, does he look to Christ for comfort? No! he does not look to Christ, he looks to himself and makes another decision to re-commit himself to Christ. When in doubt, they look towards their decision. For comfort they make another decision. Their own action is their own comfort.
Obviously, this is not Biblical. Our faith is not to be in ourselves or our works or our decisions. Our faith is to be in Christ alone. The law, the ministry of death, tells us to look toward our works and decisions. When directed to ourselves, as we are by the law, we can only see one thing. The only thing we get by looking to ourselves is what we had to begin with, death. By ourselves we are dead in trespasses and sins, and no decision we make or work that we do can change that. It is only an act of God that can make this change. It is only a miracle of the Holy Spirit that can grant us faith in Christ. To put our faith in anything but God is to put something else in place of God, breaking the first and most fundamental commandment. To put your faith in yourself is to make yourself out to be God, to be your own savior.
Does this sound inconsequential to you? Does it really matter how people are brought to Faith? Yes it matters! By making conversion dependent on one's own actions, one sets a strong precedent for making Christianity into a “self-help” religion. Christianity is the only religion in the work that is in no way a “self-help” religion. Biblical Christianity is the only religion in which one's works are not the source of salvation (or favorable reincarnation or nirvana or 70 virgins or whatever delusion the followers of false religions are trying to obtain).
Yet, by teaching that we can even do this one work, or co-operate with God in this one work, the Arminians teach that a person can help himself to salvation by doing this one work. This one work seems to lead to a whole religion of self-help and self-improvement. By beginning the Christian life with a work, they are inclined to go through it and finish it in the same way. Their preaching continues this mind set, and nothing but law-based sermons get preached. The Gospel does not tell you how to lead a “Christian Life” so it is largely ignored.
Does this sound inconsequential to you? I certainly hope not. Arminianism poisons the Gospel, it makes the most blessed news ever proclaimed nothing but another law. It silences those who proclaim the Gospel because it is not relevant. It takes credit from God and gives it to man. It makes man out to be God, and as such is fundamentally anti-Christian. It is no trivial matter, it threatens the Gospel itself and must be taken seriously.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
* This first thing to note is that even the statement “It doesn't really matter how we come to Christ, as long as a relationship with Christ is where we end up” presupposes an Arminian viewpoint. If you notice, they are still stating that “we come to Christ.” Even when they basically say “lets agree to disagree” they still make sure that they are using their own terms and their own theology. If I would make a similar statement saying “It doesn't really matter how the Holy Spirit calls us, as long as we are called to be children of God through Christ.” the Arminian would not find that to be a “lets agree to disagree” statement at all. Why they expect us to accept their statement I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
