Menu

Doctrines

Saints: What is a saint?

,

Question: What is meant by a “saint”?

Answer: The word saint is used in the New Testament to refer to all Christians from the moment they trust Christ as Saviour. It does not single out special ones who have exceptional holiness or more saintly conduct.

Sainthood is not based on human achievement, but is a state into which God graciously calls us. It reflects our position in God’s sight, not our condition in daily experience (though we are certainly called to live holy lives as well, I Pet. 1:15). The Greek word, also translated holy in the Bible, is hagios, meaning separated or set apart. The saints of God (believers) are ones God has set apart for Himself.

Here are some texts that indicate the inclusive nature of the word “saints.”

Romans 1:7: Paul writes his letter to “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. The words “to be” are in italics in the King James Version, to indicate they have been added by the translations. More literally, the phrase reads simply “called saints.” However, even leaving “to be” in there leads us in the same direction. The believers are called to be saints (set apart ones), not by the apostles or the church, but by God Himself, by whom they are “beloved.”

First Corinthians 1:2: Paul writes “to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” “Sanctified” translates another form of the Greek word hagios, and indicates Christians are set apart in Christ Jesus–our standing before God. And again the words “to be” can be omitted. The Christians in view are merely called saints.

Second Corinthians 1:1: Paul addresses, ” the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia.” Ephesians is addressed “to the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1). Philippians was sent “to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi” (Phil. 1:1). Colossians is addressed “to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse” (Col. 1:2).

Second Thessalonians 1:10: Speaks of the day of Christ’s return when He will be “glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe.” The word “and” (kai in Greek) can have the force of “that is,” or “in other words.” If that is the sense here, the first and second clause are both speaking of the same people.

While it’s true that, in their behaviour, some people are more pious and holy than others, yet as to their position before God, in Christ, all Christians are saints, set apart and specially blessed by God as His own, beloved of God, and called saints by Him (Rom. 1:7). Our standing is based fully on Christ’s perfect righteousness, not our own.

Just a Sinner: Is it biblical for a Christian to call himself a sinner?

, ,

Question: Why do so many Christians, including preachers, refer to themselves as “Just a sinner saved by grace”?  Isn’t that biblically incorrect? [The correspondent added, in a later e-mail, “I can find no place in the New Testament that calls, or refers to, Christians as ‘sinners'”]

Answer: Interesting question. Let’s begin with the claim that no Christian in the Bible refers to himself as a sinner.

Paul says, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief [the foremost]” (I Tim. 1:15). Notice, it is not “I was” the foremost of sinners, but “I am.” Until we get to Glory we’ll have that sinful nature still. And Albert Barnes wrote, “The most eminent Christian has the deepest sense of the depravity of his own heart.” Poet and hymn writer Lucy Ann Bennett (1850-1927) puts it this way:

O teach me what it meaneth, for I am full of sin,
And grace alone can reach me, and love alone can win.
O teach me, for I need Thee, I have no hope beside–
The chief of all the sinners for whom the Saviour died!

Paul  also calls himself as “less than the least of all the saints [again using a present tense]” (Eph. 3:8). And, in his testimony, he also reflects a great deal on what he once was (Acts 26:10-11), even describing himself as a “blasphemer” (I Tim. 1:13). No, we are not to dwell on the past. But a frank testimony of where we’ve come from can sometimes help to emphasize how far the Lord has brought us, to His greater glory.

It is not inconsistent for a Christian to embrace his exalted standing in Christ, and still recognize his proneness to go astray, apart from consistent dependence on God. It is to believers Paul writes, exhorting them to walk (more literally, keep on walking) in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16), because, “the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish” (vs. 17).

As to the saying you mention, here are a few thoughts.

Dr. James Martin Gray wrote a gospel song in 1905, along those lines. It’s called, “Only a Sinner.” I doubt that he invented the expression. It was likely being said by others before him, and he simply put into the framework of a song.

Gray was a fine theologian. In later years, he would become the president of Moody Bible Institute, in Chicago. He knew what he was talking about. But I think we need to identify two or three things he was not saying.

1) He was not saying that being a sinner is an insignificant thing. Sometimes we hear of a person who survived an automobile accident with “only a scratch”–in other words, a very insignificant injury. But sin is not like that. To be a sinner–which we all are (Rom. 3:23) is a terrible and destructive condition. It puts us in the position of being God’s enemies (Rom. 5:10), upon whom His eternal condemnation rests (Jn. 3:18, 36).

Not only that, but sin is overwhelmingly significant in terms of the extent to which God had to go to deliver us from it. God, in love, acted to save us, poor, miserable, helpless sinners that we are (Jn. 3:16). He sent is own Son to take sin’s punishment in our place (I Cor. 15:3), so that we, through faith in Him, might be forgiven, brought into His forever family, and receive the gift of eternal life. We are saved, “according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7).

2) No one statement can describe all that a saved sinner is. The statement you quote, and Gray’s song about it, make an important point–which I’ll get to in a moment–but we can be sure Dr. Gray was not saying that the only thing we are is saved sinners. God made man as a unique creation, in His own image (Gen. 1:27). What all that means–and I’m not entirely sure–it’s something stupendous. God “crowned [man] with glory and honour” (Ps. 8:5). That is no small thing!

God’s image in us is marred by sin, but not utterly destroyed (cf. Gen. 9:6). In our fallen condition, we have lost much of the potential, and many of the blessings that could have been ours, though we are blessed in many ways still (Matt. 5:45). One day God’s image in believers will be fully restored (Rom. 8:29). The wonder of it is that, through His grace, our inheritance is not only restored, but multiplied.

The saints are considered “joint heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). In fact, the Bible lists three or four dozen blessings (depending on how we divide them) that God bestows upon us the moment we are saved. To say I’m only a sinner is not meant to ignore my exalted position in Christ, or my eternal future with Christ. It’s the Lord’s intention “that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7). My oh my! What riches!

3) Though it may sometimes be used this way, the statement was not intended to provide a means of personal put-down, words that often seem to express a false (and rather irritating!) humility. Like, “ Look at poor me. I’m nothing, I’m a nobody. I’m worthless.” No! That’s entirely wrong. And it’s often a kind of fishing expedition, an attempt to garner reassuring compliments.

We are, as noted earlier, special creations of God, loved by Him, with a potential beyond imagining. We are certainly unworthy of God’s blessings. That’s where grace comes in. But worthless? Never. As the little boy said, “God don’t make junk.”

What, then, do the saying and the song mean? They are meant to emphasize that the saved person can take no credit for being anything more than a needy sinner–that all the glory belongs to God for his salvation (Eph. 1:12). The opening lines of the song nail down that principle. “Naught [nothing] have I gotten but what I received. Grace [God’s unearned, unmerited favour and blessing] hath bestowed it I since I have believed.”

    Naught have I gotten but what I received;
    Grace hath bestowed it since I have believed;
    Boasting excluded, pride I abase;
    I’m only a sinner, saved by grace!

    Only a sinner, saved by grace!
    Only a sinner, saved by grace!
    This is my story, to God be the glory–
    I’m only a sinner, saved by grace!

Just how impoverished were we, when unsaved? “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23; cf. Jude 1:15). And the Bible describes us as “having no hope, and [being] without God” (Eph. 2:12), and “without strength [spiritually]” (Rom. 5:6). Apart from God’s grace, “our days on earth are as a shadow, and without hope” (I Chron. 29:15). Yet we are also “without excuse,” since God has done all that’s necessary to reveal Himself to us (Rom. 1:19-20).

Before I came to Christ, says Gray later in his song, “sin ruled my heart”and, as a result, I was on the wrong path and heading the wrong way. Just being sorry for my sin was not enough. “Tears unavailing, no merit had I,” says the hymn. I had nothing I could offer God that would cancel my debt of sin and gain me His acceptance. In fact, it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (Tit. 3:5).

The sinner is “condemned already” (Jn. 3:18), and “the wrath of God abides on him” (vs. 36), and “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). All of that, and more, is the condition that James Gray captures with his phrase, “only a sinner.” But, praise His name, God in grace has provided a remedy in Christ. The saints are now infinitely more, though we are sinners still.

Seen in this limited way, the saying and the song are fully biblical.

Apostles’ Creed: Did Jesus “descend into hell”?

,

Question:  What is meant in The Apostles’ Creed by saying that Jesus “descended into hell”?

Answer: First, what is referred to as The Apostles’ Creed was not written by the apostles themselves. Rather, about three centuries after their time, the creed was created to summarize some of the important things the apostles taught. On the whole, it does that quite well.

However, there is one clause in the creed which especially has raised questions. You will, in fact, see some versions of the creed that omit it, to avoid controversy. In my view it is fitting–though I understand not all will agree with my position.

The Apostles’ Creed, as quoted in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, between its reference to the death and resurrection of Christ makes this statement: “He [speaking of Christ] descended into hell.” The question is, did the Lord Jesus actually go to hell, the lake of fire, the place of eternal punishment? And, if so, why?

In answer, the word “hell” in that context is likely based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew word sheol, which actually refers, not to the lake of fire, but to the abode of all the dead, righteous and unrighteous, before the time of Christ’s death.

We see it, for example, in the King James Version of Psalm 16:10. David says, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [sheol]; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” David wasn’t afraid he’d be going to hell. He was simply expressing his confidence that he wouldn’t remain forever in the grave, when he died. That he was going to be resurrected one day.

Many modern Bible versions, such as the New King James, simply use the Hebrew word there. Rather than saying “in hell,” they say, “in Sheol.” The NIV has “You will not abandon me to the grave.”

New Testament writers realized that, though David was speaking in part of himself, his words also applied prophetically to the resurrection of Christ. Peter quotes Psalm 16:10 on the Day of Pentecost, applying it to Him. “David says concerning Him [Christ]…You will not leave my soul in Hades [pronounced HAY-deez, the Greek equivalent of Sheol], nor will You suffer Your Holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2:25, 27). Paul also quotes the verse with reference to Jesus (Acts 13:35-37).

Actually, no human being has yet gone to hell (the lake of fire), so there would be no point in Christ descending there. The lake of fire was originally prepared by God as a place of eternal punishment for the devil and his demon host (Matt. 25:41). It only comes into the picture as a place where unsaved human beings are sent at the time of future judgment (Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14-15).

In Luke 16:19-31, the Lord Jesus tells of the deaths of a rich man who had no time for God, and of a beggar named Lazarus, who was a believer. Some think this is a parable (a made-up story), but I do not. Jesus actually quotes Abraham speaking (vs. 25). In no parable are there found real, historical Bible characters, let alone their actual words. To invent make believe words for Abraham would make Christ a deceiver, which He is definitely not!

No, what we are seeing in the passage is Sheol (or Hades), the place of the departed dead, before Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. There was a temporary place of blessing there, which Jesus calls “Abraham’s bosom” (vs. 22), a place of comfort, and fellowship with the faithful, like Abraham. (“The angels carried him to Abraham’s side,” NIV.)

In contrast, the Lord describes a temporary place of torment for the unsaved (vs. 23). And between the two regions there was “a great gulf fixed” (vs. 26), a great chasm or divide separating the two. No one was able to cross from one to the other. Both compartments, however, were part of Hades.

Today, the unsaved are apparently still there, in Hades, awaiting final judgment. The book of Revelation states that, at the end, “Death and Hades [will be] cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Rev. 20:13-14). Death and Hades being cast into hell means, I believe, that there will be an end to any temporary place of punishment. Hell is forever. The second death refers to the eternal separation of the unsaved from God, and from the place of heavenly blessing (cf. Rev. 22:11).

All through the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were offered. When they were offered in faith, God accepted them, and forgave the sinner. However, it was only a temporary solution, a symbol pointing forward to the coming reality on the cross. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). That is why Jesus had to die on the cross. He is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29; cf. Eph. 1:7).

What, then, can it mean if Christ visited Sheol (or Hades), the place of the dead, after His death? Here is what I think–and what those who fashioned the Apostles’ Creed seem to have believed.

That the Lord Jesus, between His death and resurrection, visited Sheol in order to assure the believing dead that the final debt of sin had been paid. Though there is disagreement about the interpretation of Ephesians 4:8-10, some believe it is a possible reference to the Lord Jesus visiting believers in Sheol, announcing that their sins where paid for, and escorting triumphantly them to heaven.

If that is so, what a thrill it must have been for the Old Testament saints to learn of that wonderful truth, and see their Saviour! Now, at death, all who are saved go directly to heaven, where they are “present with the Lord” (II Cor. 5:8; cf. Phi. 1:23).

God and Israel: Why does God favour Israel over other nations?

,

Question: If we all people of Jehovah, why did God talk to only people of Israel, not to people of other countries such as India? [The questioner is from India.]

earth

Answer: Those are good questions. Let’s see what the Bible can tell us. We need to consider a number of points.

God is the Creator of all things, including our earth and its inhabitants. “By Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16). He made it all, and He made it for Himself (cf. Rom. 11:36).

Being the Creator gives the Lord the rights of ownership over what He has made. (As an illustration, if you make a table, out of your own materials, on your own time, by your own efforts, it’s yours. You have a right to do with it as you choose.)

Similarly, “The earth is the LORD’S, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Ps. 24:1; cf. Heb. 3:3-4).  That means God, as the Creator of all, is also the sovereign ruler over the nations, with the right to determine their territory, and their destiny.

“The Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses” (Dan. 4:25; cf. vs. 35). “Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; Your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples” (Deut. 32:7-8). “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings” (Acts 17:26).

Now let’s think specifically about Israel. In that case, a sovereign God determined to create an entirely new nation, one that had not existed before. He chose one man, Abraham, and promised to make of him a great nation (Israel), and to give them a land of their own, in perpetuity.

“The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia [also known as Chaldea, or Babylon]” (Acts 7:2). To him God said, “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation…To your descendants I will give this land” (Gen. 12:1-2, 7). “I [God] give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8).

As to why the Lord has done this, it is an extension of His rights of ownership over all. In sovereign grace He has chosen to give the nation of Israel an exalted position. He said to them:

“You are a holy [set apart] people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers” (Deut. 7:6-8).

Then, “You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “and My servant whom I have chosen” (Isa. 43:10; cf. vs. 12). God blessed Israel in a special way so that they would be a witness of His power and His grace to the nations of the world (cf. Ps. 67:1-2; 98:2-3). In keeping with this role, the Lord gave them His holy Word. “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1-2).

Can we argue with God that this is unfair, and He had no right to do this? Hardly! He is God. “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and another for dishonour?” (Rom. 9:21).

But does that mean the Lord has forgotten or neglected India or other nations? Not at all. It was through the nation of Israel that the Saviour has come to die for the sins of all. “Of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen” (Rom. 9:5).

Christ, in His death on the cross, paid the debt of sin owed not only by the Jews, but by all. “He Himself is the propitiation [the fully satisfaction of God’s justice] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (I Jn. 2:2). “For God so loved the world [all the peoples of the earth] that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16).

That is the message of the gospel, and it is to be shared with all people in every corner of the globe. The commission of the Lord Jesus is: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature [i.e. the whole human race]” (Mk. 16:15). “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Lk. 24:47). That has been done, and is being done in many ways today that the apostles did not have access to–radio, the Internet, and so on.

As to India, there is strong evidence (outside the Bible) to suggest that the Apostle Thomas took the gospel to India in AD 52. I understand that in southwest India, a group of “Thomas Christians” still worship in a church that is said to have been founded by him.

In modern times, I had a classmate in Bible college named Anand Chaudhari, a former Brahman priest, whom God wonderfully saved. After his training, he returned to India to minister. He got permission from Dr. Vernon McGee to translate and broadcast his popular Through the Bible radio messages. Many, many were saved through that ministry. God has definitely not forgotten India.

Finally, you describe us all as “people of Jehovah.” In a sense we are, in that God made us. “For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring'” (Acts 17:28).

However, only those who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and are born again by the Spirit of God are the children of God, and part of His forever family (Jn. 1:12-13; Gal. 3:26). Only these are the spiritual offspring of God. That is exactly why the gospel needs to continue to go out–so that others will have the opportunity to hear, to believe, and be saved (Rom. 10:13-14).

God and Evil: Did God Create Evil?

,

Question: Please explain Isaiah 45:7. Why did God create evil?

Answer: Thank you for an excellent question. To answer it (at least as far as is humanly possible with our limited knowledge) I need to deal with several points.

1) First, there’s the reference you mention. It says, in the Authorized Version (the old King James Version), “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

The Hebrew word translated “evil” there, by the KJV, is ra. It has a number of meanings. Sometimes it can refer to moral evil (wickedness). But many other times it is better translated by such words as trouble, disaster, or adversity. In Isaiah 45:7, the New King James (NKJV) has “calamity,” the New International Version (NIV) has “disaster.”

In other words, the word does not necessarily have a moral content. It can simply mean something painful or unpleasant. In Psalm 112:7, the same Hebrew word (ra)  is used when the writer says that the one who trusts in the Lord will not be afraid of “evil [ra] tidings”–in other words, he won’t be afraid of bad news, distressing news.

This helps us understand Isaiah 45:7. God is saying that there are times when He blesses His people with many good things, but other times when He brings trouble upon them, as a chastening for sin. Notice vs. 9 in the context: “Woe to him who strives with his Maker.” If we fight against God, or rebel against Him, we can expect trouble. He will discipline the wayward person. But that is not sin on God’s part. His discipline is an evidence of His love (Heb. 12:5-7).

2) The Bible is overwhelmingly clear that a righteous, holy God does not, and cannot do what is morally evil. Here are a few passages that relate to that. “You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You” (Ps. 5:4). “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (Hab. 1:13). “God…cannot lie” (Tit. 1:2). ” God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone” (Jas. 1:13).

“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (I Jn. 1:5). “All that is in the world–the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life–is not of the Father but is of the world” (I Jn. 2:16). We can add to such statements verses that speak of the sinlessness of the Son of God (II Cor. 5:21; Heb, 4:15; 7:26; I Pet. 2:22; I Jn. 3:5; etc.).

3) The word “evil,” in a moral sense, cannot ever be applied to God. Where, then, did evil (or sin) come from? Sin does not come from God, but from His creatures. God is not responsible for evil; His creatures are. God created angels and human beings with a mind, emotions and will. That means they have the ability to know, to reason and to choose. Evil became a reality only when God’s creatures chose to rebel against Him, chose not to believe or obey Him.

We see that with Satan, when he coveted the throne of God and rebelled against his Maker (Isa. 14:12-15). We see it in Adam and Eve, when they disobeyed the command of God (Gen. 2:17) and ate some of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6). There is a mystery here, however, something the Lord has not seen fit to reveal to us. We know that Satan (appearing as a serpent) tempted Adam and Eve to sin. But who tempted Satan to sin in the first place? We simply do not know.

There is are verses in Revelation (Rev. 12:3-4, 9) which may indicate that a third of the angels of heaven rebelled with the devil and were cast out of heaven (becoming what we call demons). However, it also seems that the Lord confirmed the angels that were loyal to Him in their holiness, so that they do not and cannot now choose to sin. I believe the same will happen with the saints in heaven (cf. Rev. 22:11).

4) I said a moment ago that God is not the origin of evil. But we must add one more thought. Though He is not the source of evil, He is able to use evil to fulfil His righteous purposes and, in the end, to bring Him glory. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise You,” says the psalmist.

We see that in the cruel treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians, during their years of bondage there. And later when something similar happened through the Assyrians and the Babylonians. What these nations did against God’s chosen people was wrong, and He held them accountable for it. Yet He used their actions to chasten His people and turn them back to Him in repentance–a good result.

Joseph recognized that principle. His jealous brothers sought to do him harm, by selling him as a slave into Egypt. The Lord did not cause the brother’s evil actions, but He worked through it to save many from starvation, during a time of famine. When Joseph later met his brothers, he said, “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive” (Gen. 50:20).

The greatest example of that is the cross of Calvary. Men did their worst against the Saviour, but God turned it to a good purpose. “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). In wonderful grace, the Lord took the cruel abuse of sinful men and used it for their own good!

No Lost Tribes: What is the fallacy of British-Israelism?

, ,

Question: Were there lost tribes of Israel? Which ones were they? So in the end, as in the Book of Revelation, there will not be twelve tribes then?

Answer: In Genesis 12:1-3 we read of how God made a covenant with Abraham (confirmed with his son Isaac, and Isaac’s son Jacob) that He would make of Abraham’s descendants a great nation, and give them a land of their own in perpetuity. As the historical record unfolds, we learn that it’s the sons of Jacob who are to form the various tribes of Israel.

The names of the tribes are listed 29 times in the Word of God. The list is not always the same, but there are always twelve in the list. We are not always told why there are variations, but God has his reasons. Here are a couple of possibilities.

Joseph, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, is included in the list sometimes. But there is no tribe called “Joseph.” Instead, Joseph’s two sons (Jacob’s grandsons), Ephraim and Manasseh, each became the ancestor of a tribe. Also Levi, the priestly tribe, was given no tribal territory of its own. Thus, when we consider the tribes according to their allotment of land, Levi may be omitted. In Revelation 7:1-8, the final listing is found. There, Levi is included, and “Joseph” apparently represents Ephraim. The omission of the tribe of Dan at that time is not explained.

Under Joshua, the Israelites captured the land of Canaan. Each tribe was given its own territory (except the Levites, who individually dwelt in the tribal cities of others), and for a period of time the nation were served by a series of judges. But with King Saul, Israel became a monarchy. When he rebelled against the Lord, Saul was replaced by David, and after him, David’s son Solomon ruled over the people.

But with Solomon’s son Rehoboam ascending the throne, a radical change took place. The northern tribes rebelled against Rehoboam’s harsh and arrogant rule, and split off to become a nation unto themselves. For a time, there were two kingdoms, where there had been one before.

The Southern Kingdom called itself “Judah,” after the major tribe in the south. It had the capital city of Jerusalem, the temple, and the Levitical priesthood, and the rightful kings of David’s family on the throne. Some of the kings were godly men; others were not.

The Northern Kingdom continued to call itself “Israel” (or sometimes Ephraim, after the major tribe there). The capital of the Northern Kingdom was the city of Samaria. The people had their own idol gods, and their own heathen priesthood. None of the kings ruling in the north was a Davidic king, and they were all evil rulers, without exception.

That dual use of the term “Israel” can be a little confusing. Sometimes when you see the word Israel in the Bible, it refers to all of united Israel. But other times, it’s speaking just of the northern, rebel tribes, during the split. You have to judge by the context–the surrounding verses–which is meant.

Finally, in 722 BC, the armies of Assyria swept into the Northern Kingdom and conquered it. With that, the Northern Kingdom ceased to exist as a separate entity, and it was never set up as a separate kingdom again.

Following their usual practice, the Assyrians brought many of their own citizens into the north of Israel to live, and they intermarried with the people there. This accounts for the hatred of the Jews for the Samaritans up north in Jesus’ day. Those down south considered them “half-breeds” and despised them.

What happened in the south was different. Because the Southern Kingdom had some wise and good kings, it had times of spiritual renewal. But eventually it too succumbed to idolatry and unbelief.

To chasten them, God allowed the Babylonians, under King Nebuchadnezzar, to take many of the people of Judah captive around 605 BC. They were slaves in Babylon for seventy years (Jer. 25:11). Then, those who wished to do so were allowed to return to their homeland (as described in the book of Ezra).

That brings me to your question. What happened to those northern rebel tribes? Did they disappear after the Assyrian conquest? Were they somehow “lost”?

There is a strange belief called British-Israelism (or Anglo-Israelism) that has been adopted by several false cults. It holds to the theory that Western Europeans, particularly those of Britain and America, are the direct descendants of the “ten lost tribes of Israel.” Some have gone so far as to say that the British are the lost tribe of Ephraim, and the Americans are the lost tribe of Manasseh.

Part of the appeal of this lies in the supposition that Christians of Western European descent can claim all the covenants made with Israel as their own. But it’s a pipe dream. These notions have been refuted by modern genetic science, by archaeology, and in other ways. It can be shown to be false from Scripture too, but some continue to cling to the idea.

So what actually happened?

When the nation of Israel split in two, the first man to rule in the north was King Jeroboam. And he was well aware that many in the north did not agree with the split. Many still remained loyal to the true God, the Levitical priesthood, and the throne of David. He was fearful that a host of people would simply pack up and move down south–which, as we’ll see, is exactly what did happen.

In his spiritual blindness, King Jeroboam naively thought that if he could only provide the people in the north with their own gods, and their own organized religion, this would satisfy them, and keep them where they were. You can read about this in First Kings 12:26-29. He even established a substitute for the priestly tribe, the Levites (vs. 31), and his own feast days to honour his idol gods (vs. 32-33).

But, of course, that was not going to satisfy the true believers in the Northern Kingdom. They began to do just what he feared they would. They migrated south and joined the kingdom of Judah. Soon “Rehoboam reigned over the children of Israel [the northern kingdom] who dwelt in Judah” (II Chron. 10:17). And notice how the Lord refers to “all Israel in Judah and Benjamin [two southern tribes]” (II Chron. 11:3).

“And from all their territories the priests and the Levites who were in all Israel took their stand with him [King Rehoboam in the south]….And after the Levites left, those from all the tribes of Israel, such as set their heart to seek the LORD God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD God of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong for three years, because they walked in the way of David and Solomon for three years” (II Chron. 11:13, 16-17).

Many passages refer to this migration, and attempts to prevent it. For example: II Chron. 15:9; 16:1. Eventually, it was accepted as common knowledge that Judah included many people from the northern tribes. Frequently, the term “all Israel” is used to show the term was now all-inclusive (II Chron. 23:2; 24:5; 29:23-24).

After the Jews of the Southern Kingdom returned from seventy years of captivity in Babylon, we can see that Ezra had before him representatives of the whole nation. They offered sacrifices to the Lord for all twelve tribes (Ezra 6:17; 8:35). In the New Testament, we’re told that Anna (who rejoiced to see the Baby Jesus in the temple) was from the tribe of Asher, one of those supposedly lost northern tribes (Lk. 2:36).

No, the tribes were not lost. After the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, Judah came to represent all Israel. And the Lord Jesus could promise His disciples “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration [the renewal during His coming earthly reign], when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). All are honoured in the heavenly city, New Jerusalem, with twelve gates inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:12).

Two Witnesses: How do the pairs of witnesses in Zechariah and in Revelation relate to the church?

Question: Do you think that God is done with telling his servants, as He has in the past, about events that are about to take place? What about His two witnesses, the ones pouring oil into the lamp stand and feeding the church in knowledge or whatever? Are they done in their work? I know there are false prophets but there are also the genuine ones too.

prophet

Answer: It’s an interesting question, but you seem to imply in what you say some things with which I disagree.

The Gift of Prophecy

First, we need to consider the prophetic gift. When the Lord commissioned Jeremiah to be His prophet, he tells us, “The LORD put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me: ‘Behold, I have put My words in your mouth'” (Jer. 1:9).

That does nicely as a definition. A prophet is one whom God prepares to speak a divinely inspired, utterly trustworthy revelation.

When Moses balked at being God’s spokesman, the Lord appointed his brother Aaron, instead. God still revealed His message to Moses, but Moses, in effect, became like God to his brother, putting the inspired words in Aaron’s mouth. The Lord says, “He shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God” (Exod. 4:16).

Though the two situations are different, they both clearly illustrate God’s way of transmitting inspired truth. Before God’s Word was written down and preserved as we have it now, this was a necessary gift. But since we now have His completed revelation, the prophetic gift is no longer needed, and I do not believe there are prophets in the church today, in the sense I’ve described.

Those who attempt to add to (or subtract from) the inspired Scriptures are condemned (Rev. 22:18-19). In answer to the first part of your question, yes, I believe God is done with telling his servants about events that are about to take place. We have all the information we need.

As far as the church of Jesus Christ is concerned, the work of the apostles and prophets was foundational (Eph. 2:20). A foundation is not the same as a superstructure. We are now continuing to build on the foundation laid in the Apostolic Era. Today, evangelists carry on the gospel proclamation and church-planting work begun by the apostles. Pastor and teachers preach and teach what was revealed through the prophets (cf. Eph. 4:11).

When I preach God’s Word, I’m not introducing new revelations. I’m proclaiming what God has said, and showing how it applies to us in the present day. Instead of craving new revelations, I believe folks need to study and apply what God has already given them. “His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (II Pet. 1:3), if we’ll only make use of what if found in His Holy Word (cf. II Tim. 3:16-17).

Zechariah and Revelation

The prophetic vision of Zechariah (Zech. 4:1-14) concerning the golden lampstand and the two olive trees seems in general to represent the work and witness of the nation of Israel in the world, by the power of the Spirit of God.

In the immediate context, it provided a message of encouragement to Zerubbabel, in his efforts to lead the returned exiles in rebuilding the temple (vs. 9). Further, the blessing of the Lord on Israel back then is a foreshadowing of the glorious place that will be theirs in the future messianic kingdom (cf. Isa. 60:1-3; Amos 9:14-15, etc.).

The “two anointed ones” (vs. 14) would seem to be Zerubbabel, the governor, and Joshua, the high priest at the time (3:1). Thus, Israel’s governing authority and religious leadership is represented, as both being significant servants of God.

Some see a parallel between these two anointed servants of God in Zechariah, and the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3-14. Perhaps the one foreshadows the other to some extent (cf. Rev. 11:4). But it is Christ Himself, in the coming Kingdom Age, who will combine the roles of priest and king, when He reigns in the power of the Spirit for a thousand years.

The two pairs of individuals in Zechariah and the book of Revelation relate to two widely separated times and situations. As to your question’s reference to “two witnesses…pouring oil into the lamp stand and feeding the church,” I’m not sure what you mean.

In Zechariah we are dealing with the people of Israel after the Babylonian Captivity, and before the birth of Christ. In Revelation chapters 6 through 18 we are dealing with the judgments of God poured out on the earth during the seven-year Tribulation that follows the rapture of the church (I Thess. 4:16-17).

The two witnesses in the latter time will be supernaturally protected so they can testify to the terrible final days of judgment on a godless world to be unleashed by the sounding of the seventh and last angelic trumpet (Rev. 11:15).

Their identity is unknown. Some say they Moses and Elijah come back, because of the similarity of their miraculous powers (Rev. 11:6). But we do not know for certain. They may simply be two men selected from the 144,000 appointed from the tribes of Israel (Rev. 7:4).

The ministry of the two pairs is also quite  distinct, suited to the differing situations. If the Church Age begins, as I believe it does, at Pentecost (Acts 2), and ends with the catching away of the church at the Rapture (I Thess. 4), neither of the two pairs of witnesses is involved in that period.

A Wider Application

The main parallel between them is that both are dependent on the power of God working through them to accomplish their God-given tasks.  And it is precisely on this point that we have a universal application. If we are to become what the Lord wants us to become, and do what He wants us to do, it will be by His enablement, and all the glory will be His.

“‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 4:6). The Hebrew words translated “might” and “power” in that text are not completely synonymous. The word for “might” (chayil) is frequently used of men working together–an army, or armed force, a host of men. The word for “power” (koach) is generally translated strength, and speaks of human effort in general.

We might paraphrase Zechariah 4:6, “Not by human force or individual effort, but by My Spirit.” Either way, the words of the Lord Jesus apply, “Without Me you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5). “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God” (II Cor. 10:4). “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God” (II Cor. 3:5).

That is something for today that we can take away from the ministry of these four men.

Go to Heaven: Do people go to heaven when they die?

,

Question: Do people go to heaven when they die?

Answer: Thanks for the question. It’s quite a broad subject, so I’ll try to look at it from several different angles.

About Human Spirituality

Your question implies at least the possibility of something beyond what we see and know in this mortal life, a spiritual and eternal world beyond our own material and temporal one. That thought, that there must be more beyond this life, is common to man. The Bible tells us God “has put eternity in their [human] hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end? (Ecc. 3:11).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary says of that Bible text: “People have a longing or desire to know the extra-temporal [beyond the present world] significance of themselves and their deeds or activities” (p. 984).  It seems there’s a kind of inborn sense of…something…but certain knowledge of it remains out of reach It’s a world that seems misty and mysterious, and it’s often the realm of wild imaginings, fearful superstitions, and even the deceptions of demonic spirits (I Tim. 4:1).

“The natural man [a human being born physically into this world, but not born again by the Spirit of God] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit” (I Cor. 2:9-10).

The unsaved person does not have the ability to grasp spiritual things, or the spiritual power to live a life pleasing to God. But that is within reach. Sinners can be saved by God’s grace, through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Jn. 3:16). When we are, we’re also born again by a work of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:12-13), and indwelt by the Spirit (II Cor. 1:21-22), who becomes our Teacher, illuminating the Scriptures so we can understand them (Jn. 16:13-14).

False and True Choices

Thus the boundaries of our understanding depend somewhat on our spiritual condition. Not that I’m saying we as Christians fully understand our infinite God and His ways. But we are equipped to grow in our understanding and application of the Bible, over time, and are encouraged to do so (I Pet. 2:2; II Pet. 3:18).

But what of those who do not have God’s life within them, and His provision to grasp spiritual matters? How do they describe life after death? There are many answers to that, the false and the true. Here are several.

1) Atheism says, there is no God, and no eternity up ahead. Dead is dead–it’s the end of existence. But God says the one who clings to that notion is a fool (Ps. 14:1). All of the Bible proclaims a life beyond the grave.

Job, in his time of terrible suffering asks, “If a man dies, shall he live again?” (Job 14:14). And he answers with a strong belief in the resurrection and an afterlife: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God” (Job 19:25-26).

Jesus also taught the truth of a future resurrection: “Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:31-32). And Christ declared that He was going to heaven to prepare a place for us to live there with him (Jn. 14:3-4; cf. Jn. 17:24).

2) The religions of the world offer no such hope. Buddhism speaks of a future Nirvana. The word literally means a blowing out, as one would extinguish a candle. After death, they say, we enter some kind of permanent state, but there is no personal God there. In contrast, God’s Word says His plan is: “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7).

3) And what of Hinduism. They believe human beings are reincarnated, over and over–either as animals, or different human beings–trying to solve the issues of this life. Some of them believe in a kind of god to go to; others think that in the end each human personality will be dissolved in the abyss of Brahman.

4) Primitive Spiritism speaks of joining our ancestors at death, but they claim to know little about the future world, other than seeing it as just as full of trouble and pain as this one. (How sad!)

5) Some believe in what is called “soul sleep,” teaching that the dead lie in grave awaiting resurrection, and that they are totally insensible (unconscious) and are aware of nothing. Much is made of the fact that in a few places death seems to be described as a sleep (Dan. 12:2; Jn. 11:11-13; I Thess. 4:13-14). But I believe that is picture language, intended to convey a couple of things.

First, it is simply describing the appearance of things–much as we describe sunrise, though we know the sun does not rise. In reality, the earth revolves, and it appears to us that the sun rises. In a similar way, a dead person often looks much like a sleeping person. Second, the almighty power of God is such that He can raise the dead even more easily than we would arouse someone from sleep, so it’s a way of emphasizing the power of God.

Further, the dead are not unconscious in the grave. Moses and Elijah met with the Lord Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and talked with Him, and Peter certainly saw all three (Matt. 17:2-4). Our own experience in death, as believers, will be to be “absent from the [mortal] body and to be present with the Lord [in heaven]” (II Cor. 5:8), instantly going from one world to the next. To the dying thief who believed on Him Jesus said, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise [heaven]” (Lk. 23:43).

6) Some teach that the unsaved will simply be annihilated after death, and cease to exist, that only the saved are immortal. But not only the saved, but also the unsaved will be raised bodily from the dead in the day of resurrection (Dan. 12:2; Jn. 5:25-29). At that time, the unsaved will be judged before God’s Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11-12), and condemned to eternal punishment in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). Jesus describes this as a place of “everlasting fire” originally prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41), and a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk. 9:48).

7) For us, as Christians, the future is described in First Thessalonians 4:14-17. If we die before Christ returns, we’ll come back with Him (which obviously implies we will have been with Him in heaven before). If we are alive when He comes, we’ll instantly receive our glorified resurrection bodies and join the other saints (I Cor. 15:51-53).

We can be sure of heaven by trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, believing that He paid our debt of sin on the cross. Our future with the Lord is assured. Through Christ, we have the gift of “eternal” life (Rom. 6:23; I Jn. 5:11). That life would not be truly eternal if it ended at the grave.

Being Born Again: Is the new birth the only way to gain eternal salvation?

,

[In spite of an atmosphere of sarcasm in the comments, and the writer’s errors at various points, he expresses a valid concern, so I tried to give him a clear answer.]

Question: If the Baptists and evangelicals are correct, and their “born again experience” is the true and only means of salvation, isn’t it odd that the term “born again” is only mentioned three times in the King James Bible? If “making a decision for Christ” is the only means of salvation, why doesn’t God mention it more often in his Word? Why only three times?

Why is it that the Apostle Paul, the author of much of the New Testament, never uses this term? Why is this term never used in the Book of Acts to describe the many mentioned Christian conversions? Why is this term only used by Jesus in a late night conversation with Nicodemus, and by Peter once, in just one letter to Christians in Asia Minor?

If you attend a Baptist/evangelical worship service, you will hear this: “You must be born again: you must make a decision for Christ. You must ask Jesus into your heart. You must pray to God and ask him to forgive you of your sins, come into your heart, and be your Lord and Saviour (the Sinner’s Prayer).”

For this, you must be an older child or adult who has the mental capacity to make a decision to believe, to make a decision to repent, and to make a decision to ask Jesus into your heart.

It is very strange, however, that other than “you must be born again” none of this terminology is anywhere to be found in the Bible! Why use this non-biblical terminology when discussing salvation? Maybe “accepting Christ into your heart” is not what being born again really means. Maybe making a “decision” for Christ is not how God saves sinners!

Answer: H-m-m… Well, first of all, thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I certainly agree with some of what you have to say–sort of. I agree that it’s possible to use vague or unbiblical terminology when making an evangelistic appeal. Sometimes it just confuses the issue.

One you don’t mention is “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Lk. 18:13)–which is actually what you incorrectly call “the sinner’s prayer.” It’s a good prayer, as far as it goes, but it is pre-Calvary. It describes a repentant Jew appealing to the blood stained mercy seat in the temple. It could literally be rendered, “God be mercy-seated to me a sinner.”

I would hope, whatever we tell the sinner, we direct him to the cross of Christ, and explain that things such as the new birth are ultimately available because our debt of sin has been paid by Christ (Eph. 1:7). Central to the gospel of grace is that “Christ died for our sins” (I Cor. 15:3), and we are to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” for salvation (Acts 16:31; cf. Jn. 3:16; Gal. 3:26).

Having said this, though, let me add a couple of thoughts in defence of using expressions in our presentation of the gospel that are not specifically found in the Word of God.

First, the fact that a term is not actually found within the pages of Scripture does not automatically disqualify it. Otherwise, a word like Trinity would be off limits. What is important is whether the expression accurately reflects a truth or doctrine that is found in God’s Word, whether or not the word itself is there.

Second, the spiritual and eternal work of the Holy Spirit is difficult (or impossible) for God to describe to us, given that we are so much oriented to a mortal existence in a physical universe. The Lord therefore uses spatial and concrete imagery at times, in order to describe or symbolize spiritual realities.

These are metaphors for spiritual truth. They say to us, “This is something like that.” But we must be careful not to come to the conclusion (as Nicodemus mistakenly did about spiritual birth, in John 3:4) that, “This is exactly the same as that.”

The “filling” of the Spirit is one such term–found in both the Old and New Testaments (Exod. 31:2-5; Eph. 5:18-21). We are not to think in terms of God’s Spirit being poured into us as if we were so many quart sealers. Both the Hebrew and Greek words so translated mean filling and fulfilling. They represent God’s enablement and empowerment of the believer to accomplish (or fulfil) His purpose.

You state that the term “born again” is only mentioned three times. I wondered if you were implying that God has to say things more than three times, or they don’t count. Isn’t even once enough, if the Lord says it?

But, if we are thinking specifically of those two English words in one particular Bible version, what you say is true. The words “born again” are found three times (Jn. 3:3, 7; I Pet. 1:23, NKJV). However, there are a number of expressions that are closely related, and others that have a significant association to the new birth.

1) Another text you should consider is John 1:12-13 which speaks of being “born…of God.”

Incidentally, those verses also refer to “receiving” Christ, explaining that it means to “believe in [or on] His name.” Compare Colossians 2:6, “As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” (Some would add Revelation 3:20 which describes receiving Christ in pictorial terms.)

2) In John 3:5 the Lord speaks of the need to be “born of water and of the Spirit.” (And I believe the “and”–translating kai in Greek–likely has the force of “that is,” or “in other words,” using water as analogous to the new birth. (Cf. Jn. 4:10, 14; 7:37-39, where water is also symbolic of the work of the Spirit.)

3) Then, there’s John 3:8, which speaks of being “born of the Spirit.”

4) Titus 3:5 is another text to consider. There Paul speaks of the “regenerating” work of the Holy Spirit–regeneration being another term meaning born again. (So, you see, Paul did speak of the new birth.)

5) And you did not include First Peter 1:3, which speaks of Christians being “begotten [i.e. born] again.”

Add to this texts that refer to the saved person becoming a “new creation” (II Cor. 5:17), and as being “created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2;10), and you will begin to see that this is a concept well supported by Scripture in various ways.

You question whether it’s correct to say that the born again experience is the true and only means of salvation. Some final thoughts on that.

First, we can say, on the authority of the Son of God Himself, that the new birth is absolutely necessary. In order to enter the kingdom of God, an individual “must be born again” (Jn. 3:7). By a physical birth we enter this earthly kingdom, by a spiritual birth we become part of the kingdom of God.

However, “born again” is not the only term that can legitimately be used to describe salvation. Others are saved, redeemed, converted, “brought near [i.e. to God]” (Eph. 2:13), and so on. Even the expression “born again” itself can be translated various ways. Williams has “born from above;” the Amplified Bible has “born anew (from above).”

And strictly speaking, this is not what you term an “experience,” in the sense of being discernible by our physical senses. It’s a spiritual work of God. We will experience the results of it in our lives, but cannot physically detect God doing it. The Lord indicates that in John 3:8, with His comparison to the wind. We can’t see wind, but we can see its effects.

I hope these few thoughts are helpful. God bless.

Down with Doctrine: Is doctrine a hindrance and unnecessary divider?

,

Question: Doctrine only divides people. Why can’t we just forget about doctrine and all love Jesus?

Answer: It was an evangelical pastor who voiced the question, adding as a supposed clincher, “After all, could Jesus catch a cold?” Apparently that was the level to which he felt doctrinal controversies inevitably descended. Did he also expect me to debate with him how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? This is foolishness.

Doctrine (didache in Greek) is a word often used (KJV/NKJV)for the truth of God shared by the apostles after the ascension of Christ. Those first won to Christ “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42).

In contrast, Paul lists a number of sins in his first letter to Timothy, characterizing them as “contrary to sound doctrine” (I Tim. 1:9-10), urging the young man, “Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (I Tim. 4:13).

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine” (II Tim. 3:16). But the apostle warned, “The time will come when they [Timothy’s hearers] will not endure [not tolerate, put up with] sound doctrine” (II Tim. 4:3-4).

Clearly, that day has come in many churches. “Give us something to tickle our ears. Let’s talk about love. Don’t get all doctrinal on us!” How sad. “But as for you [to Titus, this time], speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1).

Is our goal to draw a crowd? If so, announce that the pastor will ride a horse down the main aisle next Sunday, or perhaps stand on his head and whistle “Just as I Am.” But if we are committed to honouring God and His Word the clear proclamation the Scriptures, in a context of sound doctrine, will be our aim.

Sad to say, in order to make God more acceptable to the unregenerate, and broaden the appeal of the gospel, too many are tempted to bring the teachings of God’s Word down to some kind of lowest common denominator, something all can agree to, and feel comfortable with. But such compromise eventually brings weakness, and breeds confusion.

Will we abandon a belief in a God-breathed, verbally inspired, infallible and trustworthy Bible? If so, almost anything goes after that. What of Christ? Was He just a wise teacher, or was He God incarnate? Will we strike from our doctrinal statements a belief in the deity and virgin birth of Christ, His blood atonement, His bodily resurrection, and His soon return?

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (II Jn. 1:9).

How far are we willing to go with our compromises? The answer to that is often, “Just a little farther.” And later, the next step down doesn’t really seem so far as it once did. The frog in the kettle is content to be boiled alive if the water temperature is raised slowly enough. And this incremental apostasy has spelled the end for churches and denominations, and for Bible colleges too. 

Is doctrine narrow? Certainly it is. There is only one Holy Bible, only one Saviour, and only one way of salvation (cf. Eph. 4:4-6). We follow a narrow way (Matt. 7:13-14), and the majority will refuse to accompany us. The Lord Jesus not only spoke of love, but of how the truth was bound to create divisions. He said:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;’ and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt. 10:34-37).

An unwillingness to take a firm stand on God’s infallible Word has led to the decline of many once vibrant churches and denominations. I can think of one in Canada that was formed from several other groups, a century ago, in response to a call for compromise. It is now in the grip of a dead liberalism.

I talked with one of its pastors and he told me, “I don’t know what to believe, and this is the only denomination that would have me on those terms.” He later was asked by a gentleman, in my hearing, whether he was a born again Christian. “Some people need that,” he said, “but not me.” He seemed to think the new birth was a kind of new start for down-and-outers, but not necessary for decent, good-living folk. (He needs to take a closer look at Nicodemus and Christ’s message to him!)

This kind of vague doctrinal confusion brings to mind a cartoon published years ago. It shows a discouraged pastor at his desk. Behind him is a graph revealing a steady decline in attendance at his church. A deacon has come to offer a suggestion. He says to the pastor, “Maybe you shouldn’t end every sermon by saying, ‘But then, what do I know?'”

It’s funny–but it isn’t. Even though those words aren’t spoken, many sermons and Bible studies seem to have an air of befogged uncertainty that is both disturbing and discouraging.

The preacher, or study leader will say, “People differ on what this means”–and leave it at that, implying we have no hope of ever knowing with certainty what God intended. Or he’ll say, “What do you think it means?”–giving the uninformed an opportunity to become blind leaders of the blind.

Sound exegesis, rooted in consistent literal interpretation, will almost always lead to a satisfying conclusion. The Bible is God’s revelation, after all, of things He wants us to know. “God has revealed them to us through His Spirit.” (I Cor. 2:10). That there are some things beyond our full understanding is to be expected. But it makes no sense for God to give us His Word, and preserve it down through the centuries, if we can’t know what it means.

If we are truly people of the Book, we’ll take our stand unashamedly on the fundamentals of the faith. That is not to say that Christian love is unimportant. A loveless fight against error in the church at Ephesus is condemned by the Lord (Rev. 2:2-4). We are to “adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour” (Tit. 2:10), enhancing and ornamenting the truth with the Christlike character that befits it. But that is not incompatible with an insistence on sound of doctrine.

Load More