INNOCENTS TO THE SLAUGHTER

They come out in droves – children, some old enough and excited enough to walk, some being carried in the arms of loving but naïve parents. Like hordes of locusts they descend upon us for treats and to show off their costumes. Such fun, such glamour, such festivities for the Prince of Darkness.

As a believer, I know that the entire world has been mesmerized by the Devourer of Souls. But many of those who have had their eyes opened to spiritual things seem to either be enthusiastic supporters of the day, or reluctant participants in its reverie.

I, who staggered through my parenting years in a glass house, shouldn't throw stones. I vacillated between the above mentioned options most of the time. I remember the smuggness of the latter and the enjoyment of the former. But in either case, my conscience never experienced any angst. In fact, I used to suffer the "fools" that think like I do now. All of them seemed like superstitious bigots.

Now, amidst the "tomfoolery," all I can see is a celebration of a predator's world – the one who keeps so many blinded to the misery he inflicts and to the Judgment he ridicules. And my heart wants to cry!

IS GOD SOVEREIGN - SOMETIMES, YOU SAY?

Most believers ascribe to God a sort of limited sovereignty, when it comes to evaluating how often God's hand is responsible for things in their lives. God is credited for the good things that happen to them, but not the bad things – that would be cruel, after all, or so they think!

That means that they would praise or thank the Lord when something happens to them that is advantageous, fair, freeing, or constructive. But if something happens that seems unfair, oppressive, abusive, or destructive, Satan or evil is blamed, depending on whether they gravitate toward the notion of a personal and malevolent Being or to an impersonal (and unbiblical) sense of Fate.

When you consider how many bad things happen in this world that evidently God is helpless to keep from happening, and when you consider how few truly or purely good things happen, the notion of God's sovereignty would seem quite limited.

That would make me very uncomfortable, to think that God is helpless to prevent bad things from happening to me. Bad things will, and do, happen to me. God comforts me with the knowledge that I can know that (not how) they happen by sovereign design and for good reasons.

Do bad things still hurt sometimes? Yes, but they do me no harm. You mean I can be hurt without being harmed? Yes! Hurt involves mental, emotional, or physical pain. Harm involves my standing in grace. Let life bring us what it will. Let it deprive us of its smile – even unto death. It cannot harm those God has sworn to protect, even if it kills us.

MY LOVE-HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH JOHN PIPER

I'm sort of glad I don't know John Piper intimately, or even personally. That would put such pressure on my frail-because-schizophrenic self that its duality would too easily be seen. Why? I love John Piper & I hate John Piper.

The reasons I love John Piper are too numerous to mention, but the most outstanding two are: 1) his profound insights into Scripture; and 2) his passion. He never fails to stir me or challenge me, whether I read him or listen to him!

But then why do I hate him? I hate him because he always exposes me! I am a prideful, selfish, worldly man who fears close inspection. I can't jump the high bar he sets. I don't like what I see in me when he writes or speaks. Everything ungodly in me joins in outcry against him. The picture he paints of the Christian embarrasses me, and makes me feel so small and failing. I suspect that these same feelings keep some away from him, some jealous of him, and many downright critical of him.

My struggles with Piper are natural extensions of two things: 1) I am a renewed creature in Christ, whose flesh deceives me too often; and 2) I live in the natural tension brought on by this time of the overlap of the ages, when we must walk by faith and not sight.

He also reminds me how blest I will be to be glorified by the Beatific Vision that will destroy my flesh, perfect my life, and render me capable of completely enjoying the Inapproachable Light for all eternity.

DECEIT, THY NAME IS BAGEL

I have no aspirations to become the Andy Rooney of the Evangelical world, but I'm trying to find out what there is about a bagel, or what mischievous purpose some chef de cuisine cooked up (pardon the pun!) for that sugarless confection, that requires it to advertise itself as "sliced," all the while prankishly knowing it was really joined in the middle!

How often have I pulled one of those round (sometimes oval) little bakery delights from its grocery store bag, thinking it would welcome my waiting cream cheese, but finding it tenaciously resisting a speedy journey to fulfill the created purpose of its impish existence.

What should a godly man do under such recalcitrance? Certainly he would patiently acquire a sharp knife from the drawer and firmly split that stubborn culinary freak in two.

But since, at that time, I am more hungry than godly, I try to quickly claw it open with my less than dextrous pair of hands. Result? Two pieces of torn-to-shedded bagel parts that are no longer suited to my snacking aspirations. And I think to myself, "Oh, the intolerable burden of life. Fooled again!" I find myself feeling like Charlie Brown – fodder again for Lucy's fiendish delight. Will I never learn? Why don't they put a warning sign on those bags to forearm the "galactically stupid" of their deceitful intentions?

What do I do now? Easy! There's always the straightforward pretzel – twisted, but transparently honest.

THE "DECEIFULNESS" OF RICHES

I just checked out the Christian PF (personal finance) website. They consistently make texts that, in their immediate context do indeed refer to money or material wealth, mean primarily that. There is no sense that the concept of "true riches" is what the canonical understanding should be. The website freezes a concept in its temporary place in the progress of revelation - a revelation that is flowing forward to the true riches in Christ and cannot be understood properly apart from the cross.

Christ was not concerned with "making money, saving money, growing money, budgeting money," ad material wealth nauseum. They list 250 verses they believe talk about money. There is no concern to understand these verses in any Christ-centered way.

Now, this is not Copeland or Hagin. It is "evangelical" and, in my opinion, misleading exegesis. We're continuing to inuendo (at least) that the Lord's blessing has material prosperity inclinations. I find this totally contrary to what the Lord is trying to teach us in the redemptive historical progression of the Bible.

Amway (or whatever it's called now), our conservative "American Dream" bastion of Republican orthodoxy is just a prosperity cult in marketing clothes.

I usually vote Republican, but mostly because of the abortion issue. I find much of its fiscal-economic policies, so attractive to multiple thousands of evangelicals, to be simply the voice of "unrighteous mammon," deceiving and distracting so many of God's people.

Many Evangelicals, again in my opinion (and I would certainly class myself as a brand of them), are theologically naive and culturally conditioned in an out-of-control way. I'm personally committed to seeing every book and every theme in the Bible as primarily a part of the grand meta-narrative of redemptive history, with Christ as its interpretive key.

WEALTH OR WISDOM

I'm a little hot under the collar right now; I just got finished reading a Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin inspired, message on why the Lord wants to make you rich. He used Proverbs 10:22 as one of his key texts.

Then, I made the mistake of looking at other things on Proverbs 10:22 that were on the internet, including Matthew Henry and Charles Bridges. Now, I respect the commenting of these two men, but I felt that each fell a little short of bluntly saying "When the entire Bible is taken into consideration, wealth does not indicate God's blessing & God's blessing does not indicate wealth." Now maybe they said as much in their quaint styles, but I missed it in my stroked condition. If they actually agree with the statement in quotes, they have my apologies for my inexcusable "pot-shotting."

Certainly, on the basis of Luke 16:11, we can dismiss the notion that material wealth is the "true blessing" rather than the "unrighteous mammon" it is called. But I don't even believe that the book of Proverbs, itself, is holding out Proverbs 10:22 as its monolithic teaching on riches or being rich. The same book also says:

How much better to get wisdom than gold!
To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.

The Bible, considered as a whole, and even the Book of Proverbs, rightly understood, holds out the superiority of wisdom over wealth. Between the two, wisdom is the true blessing; wisdom, understanding, prudence, insight, and discernment, the true riches of life.

So, away with the Copelands & Hagins of the world! May their tribe decrease!

HOW YO APPLY THE SCRIPTURES

"We must never move immediately from ancient text to modern hearer. We must always go from the text to Christ to whom the text testifies, and only then to the hearer. This order is as true experientially as it is theologically and hermeneutically. Relating to God outside of Jesus Christ is to relate to him as Judge, not as Savior. Why would we want to apply any text of God’s Word without first moving through the text’s fulfillment in Jesus’ saving person and work? "Who may ascend the hill of the Lord?" asks the Psalmist. "He who has clean hands and a pure heart" is the answer (Ps. 24:3-4). That’s not me. My heart isn’t pure. But Christ’s is, and because I am united to him by faith I can boldly ascend to the Lord’s throne (Heb. 4:16)!" Paul Alexander in a review of a Graeme Goldswothy book.

MEDICINE

MY HILLS OF PILLS CURE ALL MY ILLS.
THEY CHILL THE WILL AND KILL THE THRILL.
I DOWN THE SWILL OF MY OWN FREEWILL,
UNTIL A REFILL RESTARTS THE DRILL.

WHEN YOU DON'T "FEEL" FORGIVEN!

When God forgives our sin by means of the sacrificial death of his Son, He no longer holds those sins against us, but two possible dynamics may still be slow to die.

First, we may still hold those sins against ourselves, especially if they were committed after our conversion, even though our head knows that God no longer does. The more shameful we see a sin (even a forgiven one) to have been, our incurably humanistic, "religious" flesh feeds on it, often causing continued inner turmoil and spiritual paralysis. It will not acknowledge the completeness and fullness of our forgiveness, since it has only been bestowed by God (to whom it won't submit).

The second dynamic comes from Satan, the enemy of our souls. In Rev. 12, we see him cast out of heaven. What does that mean? Apart from the death of Christ, Satan could successfully accuse us to God. But, since the death and exaltation of Christ, he no longer has any unpardoned sins of a child of God to legally accuse them of to God. His case against us was thrown out of court. The only accusations against us he can lodge now are to us. We'll listen! They have no legal basis, of course, but when we listen, we afflict ourselves with the feelings of a non-existent (except in our imaginations) guilt or shame.These enemies must be fought daily with faith. Hear God! Believe God! Pray that God might strengthen your faith in his promise to not only forgive your sin, but to cleanse you from your unrighteousness - especially your conscience.

I'm not trying to scare anyone with this paragraph. I have no desire to burden the soul of a born-again Christian. But, perhaps the reason you just can't believe God is because he has never given your soul true life. Hence, saving faith is impossible for you. Your guilt is there because you don't possess genuine faith in Christ, so God has not yet taken your guilt away. Your conscience still bothers you because you have never received God's cleansing from the stain with which sin has soiled your heart.

Is there any hope for you? Yes! If you are not a Christian, but guilt and shame are "alive and well" in your life, there is, yet, hope. Your conscience is still doing its job. By it, you care about the fact that your own conscience would condemn you, if God were to accuse you.

Faith is still the answer! The horror of your sin is not that you are being tortured by it, but that you know you have no way to answer God for it. I say to you, bow your knee to Christ, the Lord of the universe, the one who new that you could not stand on the Day of Judgment, the one whose blood was shed to save sinners such as yourself. He is a beautiful Savior and a bountiful Master.

SHOULD BELIEVERS BE READERS?

In every ministry, one has disappointments. Mine is no exception. But my church is not among them. They have allowed me to preach freely, cared for me during my months of recovery from a stroke, and have been charitable toward my blunders.

However, one of my hopes was to open their minds toward excellent Christian literature and set the pace in reading for inquisitive learners. Don't get me wrong; I don't think what I feel in this regard applies to all members of my church, but neither do I feel like I've left my mark on many in this regard. If any of them are readers now, they probably were already one before I came into their lives. If any of them were never great readers before my appearance on their scene, they probably still aren't. I know that's a sweeping generality, and, like all sweeping generalities, there are notable exceptions. This matter is no exception to the rule, but most should recognize its general accuracy. Over the years, I have set before them varied inducements, but to little avail.

So, let me offer yet another incentive - obedience to apostolic example. There certainly is no command in place here, and the exact identity of the literature involved is not clear. But, with those provisos, II Timothy 4:13 may very well indicate for us the high value Paul placed on the Scriptures (the "books") and other expensive, codex-like "parchments" that he was accustomed to reading. Were these "sacred works?" from the rabbis & scribes? Perhaps, perhaps not. Was there some secular or legal material among them? Probably. We know that Paul was familiar with compositions from outside Judaism (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12).

Since the nature of this literature is unclear, I hesitate to rule any decent literature out. I think the apostle's reading habits were dictated more by "why" he read them than by "what" he read. But at least we can safely say, "He was a reader."

Believers should be known for their frequent, God-honoring reading pursuits. Are you an avid reader? Do you read "in love," i.e. is the Glory of God your ultimate interest, or is it self-interest? Is there anything wrong with reading for pleasure? It depends what you mean by that. Is it wrong to mainly read for one's own pleasure? I think it may be so. Is it wrong to get pleasure from reading? Absolutely not. Not sure where to start? I may have some suggestions that might fit your current Godly interests. Any of the classics among the world's great literature can be selected for discerning reading. Christianity has also produced some great sacred classics that are always good reading.

I close with some words from John Piper (talking about D.A. Carson's great book on prayer, "Spiritual Reformation."

"Read great Christian writers who know God deeply and saturate their writing with the Bible and take you deep into its spirit.
"They are like reading the Bible through the mind and heart of great knowers and lovers of God. Don't let long books daunt you. Finishing the book does not matter. Growing by it matters. But finishing is not as hard as you might think.
"Suppose you read slowly like I do—about the same speed as you speak—200 words a minute. If you read 15 minutes a day for one year (just 15 minutes, say just before supper, or just before bed), you will read 5,475 minutes in the year. Multiply that by 200 words a minute and you get 1,095,000 words that you would read in a year. Now the average book has about 360 words per page (that's what Carson's book has). So you would have read 360 words into 1,095,000, or 3,041 pages in one year. That's 13 books the size of Carson's book, or reading his in 21 days. All that in 15 minutes a day.
"The point is: the words of Jesus will abide in you more deeply and more powerfully if you give yourself to some serious reading of great books that are saturated with Scripture."

THE SPIRITUAL LOGIC FOR A SATAN

If, as I John 1:5 says, "God is light and in him is no darkness," how can evil, in any sense, be attributed to God? Wouldn't Satan have to be credited as the ultimate author of evil? God forbid! But why do I say this? According to Ephesians 1:11, God "works all things according to the counsel of his will." That means that Satan exists by God's decree, evil exists by God's decree, sin exists by God's decree, error exists by God's decree – everything that exists, exists because God willed it to. Why? For the complete knowledge of His glorious character and the fulfillment of His purpose to "unite all things in him (Christ)!"

Satan is not an independent agent. He is the hardest worker for God's glory in the plan of God. He doesn't believe that all his adversarial work is accomplishing the will of God to exalt his holy name and his Son, but it is! The more he flexes his muscles, schemes his schemes, or heralods his errors and deceits, the more he contributes to the ultimate purpose of God. We are to polish the monuments that God builds from the rubble of the work of the Destroyer.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH CALLING IT "LIMITED ATONEMENT?"

Limited atonement is a confusing way to describe the Calvinistic view of the extent of the atonement. Particular redemption or definite atonement are more precise ways to say it. It involves no limitation on the value OF Christ's work, when Calvinists say that Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice with the purpose of saving his elect.

This view asserts that Christ perfectly saved the ones He intended to save, while at the same time denying the possibility of making an atonement for anyone who never savingly benefits from it. There is no failure in the work of Christ; He accomplished (real atonement) for all those for whom he died (the elect).

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? SEE FOR YOURSELF!

11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[a] and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall(A) the righteous one, my servant, (B) make many to be accounted righteous, (C) and he shall bear their iniquities.12(D) Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,[b] (E) and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,[c]because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors;(F) yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Not all, but many. God's stance of mercy is extended to all, but Christ was only a divine Substitute and Sin-bearer for those he makes righteous.

DOES 1 JOHN 2:2 CONTRADICT 5 PT. CALVINISM?

This modest inquiry into the answer to its leading question, will neither attempt to, nor succeed in, laying out a defense of a 5 pt. Interpretation of this verse. What it will do, however, is set out how I would go about establishing this verse's true meaning over against the truckload of Arminian & Amyraldian thought that has obscured it for most 21st century readers.

In addressing interpreters of our target verse, I would ask them to answer several questions with sound exegesis and Biblical Theology:

1. Does the sacrifice of Christ truly, finally, and forever deal with the wrath of God for a sinner's sin? In other words, did the death of Christ save the sinner, or merely render him saveable?

2. Why does the author uses "peri" rather the "huper," if he really intended the word to have causal force? In other words, why couldn't "for" mean something other than "on behalf of?"

3. Who is the "our" to which he refers? Can it only mean all who, along with him, were already saved at that minute, or may it carry a more restricted focus?

4. What are the possible understandings in this verse of "the whole world?" Is "every person alive on the face of the earth" the only choice we have?

Arminianism is certainly the vox populi at present among evangelicals. Even the Calvinism that may seek to combat it is typically of the 4 pt. variety. Unfortunately, they would understand I John 2:2 in exactly the same way. I John 2:2 is simply a small battlefield of the much larger issue of whether or not the Bible teaches a definite atonement (and therefore "limited" in this respect), which was only intended for, and applicable to, the elect, or whether the atonement was merely hypothetical and potential.

I John 2:2 can legitimately yield interpretations that can be shown to be: 1) sustained by the overall teaching and implications of the Bible, and 2) consistent with Pauline, Augustinian, and Reformational theology.