Part 4

The church in Rome (a very cosmopolitan setting) was having some controversy. Some of the members were eating meat that had been offered to idols, which they bought at a discount at the local market. Other members were deeply offended by that--many having come out of idol-worshipping cults and others, Jews, who were still following kosher dietary laws.

This was causing a major problem then. Today, what we eat or drink or generally ingest has little affect spiritually on others. However, there are other issues today that would raise hackles and cause harmful controversy:

Racial discrimination is a hot topic today. Anyone who even hints at a racial distinction is often condemned. However, there are still Neo-Nazis, and the KKK is still active. What if you found a church that openly aligned itself with one of these groups? The KKK uses an abundance of scripture to justify their position, and members firmly believe in their tenets. This would cause many believers today--especially believers of color--to be offended and to stumble in their faith.

Discrimination due to sexual orientation is also another sensitive area. We see more and more rainbow doors and banners across the country. However, conservative Christian groups are often openly opposed to the LGBTQ movement, and this would deter anyone with a non-traditional sexual orientation from associating with any church.

And one more area that is seldom mentioned but is a strong issue today: people's economic situation. Churches may minister to the homeless and indigent but welcoming them into fellowship is a different matter. In some churches, this group wears the name of: "Those people."

People can argue back and forth about these issues (and many often do) and one does have to "put their money down" somewhere. But how do we navigate such sensitive issues with such varying opinions?

We can discuss right and wrong concerning these topics, but that is seldom productive.

Part 5

A better course of action would be to go back to the basics of faith in order to achieve (or at least approach) some of the principles presented in Romans.

1. No one is perfect. We all have faults and weaknesses and sins in our life. Humans may say some are worse than others, but the human value seldom considers God's point of view. Sin is sin, and "a miss is as good as a mile." No sins are acceptable, and it is not our right to make 'judgements" about others. Judging others puts us in the position of judge, and that position is reserved for God, who judges justly and fairly. It is always important to remember, God either judges on principles written in stone, or He grades on a cross. (Do not judge 14:13)

On the other hand, we have to accept that there is a progression to building spiritual character: some will be stronger in faith than others. Being stronger doesn’t give a person license to do whatever he or she sees fit, regardless of the rest of the group. Stronger does not mean superior to or above others. If anything, it means that those who are stronger should be able to respect the weakness of others and not cause offense. If someone claims to be spiritually strong and does not respect others, then that person’s spiritual maturity must be seriously questioned.

1. It is essential to remember the unconditional part of God's unconditional love. We are not supposed to put conditions on it. God loves us with all our sins and warts, and He loves others just as much. (God's love through Jesus becomes our model of acceptance 15:7)

Part 6

1. No one is in the faith primarily for what he or she can get (or shouldn't be). Jesus did not come to Earth for His benefit, but for ours, and He is our role model. (15:3) Everyone is in this together. Having said that, we have to acknowledge that people can have a positive or a negative impact on others. And church members are supposed to be "mutually edifying" one another. This means that each member must consider what is beneficial for other members that will strengthen their spiritual strength. This can be tricky, because people often want what makes them happy and comfortable and helps them avoid any kind of change. What is truly helpful for encouragement and spiritual strengthening may not be popular or even liked. (14:19; 15:2)

2. In much the same way as #3, the goal is to be connected more than to be right. Certainly, the church is supposed to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. However, there are still debatable issues and personal decisions, and those can vary among members of a congregation. This is where discernment and sensitivity come in. A person may be completely right and justified in what he or she may be doing, but it still may upset and scandalize others. Living in “peace” is a term of reconciliation and fellowship. This does not mean that we ignore doctrine and that truth becomes relative—the gospel message is not open to modification no matter how many people are put off or offended by it. But some non-essential matters have an allowable degree of flexibility.

3. A litmus test of success in this process is that faith communities actively draw together in attitude and witness. This process does not protect individuality, but it promotes unity. And this is one of the ways that a faith community can activity glorify God. (Glorify means to enlarge or enhance God’s reputation. Our attitude and conduct toward one another are meant to “make God look good.) So there is much more at stake than just our wants and preferences.

Conflict part 3
Matthew 18:21-35

So far, we have established that the disciples were having an arguement about who was Jesus' greatest disciple. Jesus explains that being great is a matter of being humble--like a small child. He goes on to explain how such behavior can cause damage to an individual and to a group. Then He shows how important every believer is to God--regardless of that person's earthly status. Then Jesus explains the four steps to take to resolve such a matter. And He affirms that believers--gathered in His authority--can absolve someone of any guilt or hold them accountable.
This process is not meant to drive people out of a church, but rather to show an individual how harmful his or her behavior has been and to encourage that person to change.
So, if the person decides to change, what would come next?
Peter's question in verse 21 shows that the intention of this process has been forgiveness in order to restore relationships. There are a few things to understand about forgiveness:
1. Literally speaking, forgiveness means "to send away." The idea is that the guilt and the stigma caused by sin have been sent away from that person. If we truly forgive, we no longer see that person through the lens of their sins, and we don't revisit the sins once they are forgiven.
2. In as much as forgiveness means "to send away" in a legal and a relational way, it also implies a change of behavior. If the sin has been sent away, why would a person continue to commit it?
3. Given these two ideas, forgiveness becomes (ideally) a transformative process. It is more than a simple apology or a comment of: "Oh, that's all right." Forgiveness is based on the idea that a wrong has been committed--be it intentionally, accidentally or by ommission. And something has to be done about it--not just the wrong at the moment but the possibility of future incidents as well.
While this is the ideal result, it sometimes takes time to achieve it. And Peter's question also presumes multiple offenses (maybe even the same offense) happening. How many times should that be allowed? Peter suggests 7. Jesus counters with 490.
There are two things to consider, here:
1. We are not supposed to keep track. If we know how many times one has forgiven, there is a suspicion that we have not truly forgiven from the first time.
2. This is not about being permissive or being walked all over and taken advantage of. This is about mainting a healthy and transformative relationship with someone.
Now Jesus tells a parable to make His point:
A king wants to settle accounts with his servants. One servant in partricular owes an outrageous amount of money (about $200,000.00), which he is unable to pay. The king was preparing to take legal action by selling the man and his family into slavery and then liquidating the man's assetts. But the man pleads so convincingly that the king cansels the debt.
This same man leaves the king and meets a fellow servant by whom he is owed money. The man grabs the other man and demands payment. The other man begs for time and leniency, but the first man refuses. Instead, this second servant is thrown into prison until the debt is paid (which would take a while from prison.)
Other servants--who seemingly knew about the first man's debt being canceled--tell the king what happened. The king confronts the first man, exposes his hypocricy, reinstates the debt and has that man taken away and tortured in prison until the debt is satisfied. Then Jesus simply makes the connection between the king in the parable and God, saying that is how people will be treated by God if they do not forgive. This same warning also asppears in conjunction with the Lord's prayer. (Matthew 6:14-15).
So, the question arises: Can we lose our salvation if we do not forgive?
There are a few things to remember:
1. The debts in the parable represent sins--sins against God or against another person.
2. The first man, having had his debt canceled, shows no affect from that. It's like it never happened. If forgiveness is supposed to change a person, he shows no signs of a change.
3. With the second man, he is put into prison. This cannot represent condemnation since people do not send others into condemnation. This represents something more like, "That person must pay his debt. He must make restitution until I am satisfied."
4. Since the experience of the first man is suspicious, it is reasonable to assume that it was not an authentic experience of forgiveness but a selfish experience. He did not lose his salvation; he didn't have it to begin with.

Matthew 18 Conflict
Part 2 (10-20)

We are continuing our discussion on conflict resolution and corproate social dynamics as they are presented in Matthew 18.
In review, Jesus encounters the disciples in and arguement about which of them is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus tells them it is the humble person who is greatest, and He uses a child as an example. Then He goes on to describe how serious an offense it is to offend: "one of these little ones who believe in Me."
In verse 10, Jesus goes on to talk about respect for these "little ones." No one should ever look down on another believer (or anyone else). Everyone counts and everyone is important to God. Jesus tells the disciples not to look down on anyone because their angels behold the face of God.
Some take this as a proof text for guardian angels. On the one hand, the Bible does talk about angels being ministering spirits of the saved (Hebrews 1:13-14). But the question arises: "How can they behold the face of God if they are watching over someone here on earth?" There are two things to consider:
1. This verse does not state that there is a one to one ratio of angels to believers.
2. It does not infer 24 hour protection by angels.
True, they are ministering spirits to us, but it is more the case that an angel is sent as needed to whoever is in need of an angel. The verse is meant to focus on the importance of a believer in the eyes of God.
Beholding the face of God refers to a courtly custom where the favored and preeminent courtiers were allowed into the presence of the King and constantly behold his face--That is, remain in his presence and have constant and immediate access to him. So, if beings that are so favored and preeminent are sent to minister to even the most humble believer, how much does God regard that humble believer?
Then Jesus tells a story to make his point. If one sheep wanders away from a herd of 100, leaving 99, the responsible shepherd goes after it. Usually this wayward sheep is depiected as a gentle lamb. But all we know about this animal is that it wandered. It may have been a lamb or a fully grown ewe or an irritable and aggressive ram. The point is: it doesn't matter. Each sheep is important. And, when the shepherd finds that lost sheep, he is overjoyed.
Now Jesus gets to the practical part of this section: how should a person handle a situation where a serious offense has occured?
The focus shifts at this poijnt. Up until this point, the conversation focused on the offender. Hower, now the focus shifts to the one offended. That person is supposed to take the initiative for reconciliation. Why is this the case? That person is the only one who knows that he or she has been offended. In fact, the offender may not be aware of the situation. Sometimes people hurt other people unknowingly or even with good intentions in trying to help them. Also, different people are offended by different circumstances. But the "litmus test" is one's own feelings and faith.
So, in solving the problem, the first step is to talk to the other person, the offender, one on one and privately and try to work it out. No one has to know. It is between you and a brother or sister in the Lord. If the person is responsive and receptive to the conversation, the relationship is salvaged and mended--and maybe even stronger than it was before.
However, if the conversation does not go well. then plan another conversdation but bring along two or three neutral parties to listen and to help moderate the conversation. These people are their to see that what is said is what is heard, and to listen for clues to gain deeper insight into the situation.
Now, if that does not work, the next step is to bring it before the entire congregation. That would be a difficult move today with legal ramifications, but the action has several advantages:
1. It keeps the situation from becoming the elephant in thje room. People may not know the full story, but they will sense conflict and tensions that no one will talk about. This will eventually affect the quality of relationships among many in the congregation.
2. It provides transparency and consistency. Everyone knows what is going on and everyone has the same story. There are no rumors or speculations.
3. Since the offender apparently is unsympathetic to the feelings and sensitivities of others, it is a way of warning the congregation that any interaction with that person may not end well.
The next step is to "shun" the person to make a unified point and to protect everyone else. This doesn't mean that people must be cold and aloof. There can still be some interaction. But it will not be as close or open as it used to be. This is to make the point that this person's behavior is unacceeptable to the rest of the community.
This step of shunning is important in understanding the next section. This section is often cited as a proof text confirming that Jesus is present among believers--even if itr only a few believers. I agree that is the case, but that understanding of this verse misses deeper implications.
This business of binding and loosing is about forgiveness and accountability. To bind means to hold someone accountable; to loose means to forgive the action. And these decisions have heavenly implications.
Verses 19 and 20 are very much verses about authority, buttressing verse 18.
This action requires that people making this decision agree on the decision. Also, these people must gather in the name of Jesus, which is a phrase indicating: "Having the authority of Jesus." And they do have the authority of Jesus because Jesus is indeed with them.
This process used to be practiced wideloy in the Christian church--both Catholic and Protestant--until about 75-100 years ago. But several factors in society changed that affected the church and brought about changes.
At the beginning of the 20th century, conservative and liberal denominations drew away from each other. No one wanted to be mistaken for the other. And no one wanted to loose members.
With WWI and WWII, less money was sent to missionaries. As a result, missionaries had to scramble for resources--often ending in open conflict with other missionaries. This undermined their testimonies, so a more open and accepting approach was sought by all Christian denominations.
With the roaring 20's, the moral fabric of the country changed. Shunning would have been impractical, so churches became more tolerant.
The final point I want to make here is that this arrangement was never meant to be permanent. When Jesus said "treat them like a tax collector" it is important to remember that Matthew had been a tax collector. Next time we'll look at how the conversation changes to forgiveness and restoration.

Matthew 18:1-9

Often, we think of churches as a group of people who are well-mannered and kind—with no “turbulence” of any kind. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and a growing number of churches are experiencing the affects of significant conflict; affects like split churches, lack of growth because of reputation and hurt feelings.

When these things happen, what do we do about them? What is the Christian response?

The text that is considered a classic on this topic is Matthew 18.

(verse 1) The chapter opens with the disciples asking Jesus a seemingly harmless question: who is the greatest in the kingdom of God? (Note, the kingdom of God exists here and now. It is essentially comprised of all believers; all people who have made Jesus king of their lives). However, a closer examination reveals a different dynamic. If you look at the parallel verses in the other two gospels (Mark 9:33-34, Luke 9:46-48) you soon finds that the disciples were having an argument about which of them was the greatest. This is not an academic inquiry; it is a power struggle. And power struggles are not pleasant things. People are insensitive as they insult and point out the failings of others.

(verses 2-4) Jesus answers them, not with a name but with a characteristic: They must be humble (and, for them, it would take a significant change, as it would for most of us). Humility is defined as knowing ones place in relationship to others. And Jesus specifies “humble like a little child.” And children are dependent on Adults—especially parents; they listen to authority figures; they accept what they are given; etc. Another aspect of humility is putting others first and doing what is good for everyone, not just for one’s self. This doesn’t mean denying self-care, but it does mean having a positive, healthy, considerate and encouraging relationship with others.

(verse 5) Now Jesus makes a connection between His analogy of becoming like children and personal faith in Him. The “little ones” in the next several verses are those who are welcomed “in His Name,” and those “who believe in Him.” While He can be referring to literal powerless individuals in society, He is also talking about believers.

(verse 6) Now He introduces the idea of offence and causing one of these little ones to sin (this is more of a fall into habitual and detrimental sin, not just and isolated incident). He emphasizes the severity of the offense with dramatic words. It would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around his or her neck and thrown into the sea than to cause an offense (note, this is an illustration making the point of how serious this offense is; It is not a command). While Jesus acknowledges that this will happen, people are still fully responsible for their actions and how those actions affect others.

Let me emphasize here that this verse and the next three are illustrations dramatically making a point. The context is offenses within a church community setting.

(verses 7-9) Jesus continues making the point about those who offend. He uses the example of body parts causing a person to sin. If it were your hand or your foot or your eye causing you to sin, then remove the offending part so that the rest of your person can be in heaven. It is a logical point, but, again, hypothetical and illustrative. Of course sin does not originate from our hands or feet or eyes; it starts in our hearts and in our minds. Therefore, cutting off one’s hand or foot or eye would have little affect on ones behavior. Sin would still occur. But if there is a person causing trouble offending others in the church, then that one individual must be dealt with before that person scandalizes the whole church.

Baptism and Temptation of Jesus (Lent)

The church (liturgical) year is based on significant events in the life of Jesus. It is meant to help Christians grow in their faith.

Two major events are the baptism of Jesus and His 40 days of temptation in the wilderness. The 40 days is the foundation of Lent. Usually these two events are recognized separately, but the two go together in several ways.

Baptism: When Jesus was baptized, the heavens opened, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove and a voice from heaven proclaimed that Jesus was His son. Both aspects were very important. Concerning the Holy Spirit, the Jewish people at the time believed that the Holy Spirit had been taken away from them because of their disobedience, but that it would return when the Messiah came. So, the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him was a major event that proclaimed His identity as Messiah. Also, the voice from heaven identifying Jesus as His (God’s) Son further identified. This has never happened before and has never happened for anyone else. The significance of identification at baptism is confirmed by John when he said: Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on Him. And I myself did not know Him, but the One Who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The Man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the One who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’” John 1:32-33

His baptism and the 40 days of temptation are first linked by the action of the Holy Spirit. At His baptism, the Spirit lit on Him; shortly after that, the same Spirit led Him out into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan.

And what was the purpose of the 40 days?

The number 40 in the bible is usually a number of preparation. (The Israelites 40 years in the desert; Moses 40 days on the mountain getting the law and so forth) So Jesus’ time in the wilderness being tempted was a time of preparation—a test to show Himself worthy.

It was also a time of fasting, which was also a practice of cleansing and preparation, when a person could focus on his or her relationship with God without distraction.

• The fast was exclusively a food fast. He could drink as much water as He needed.

• While many believe that Jesus was tempted at the end of 40 days, actually He was tempted by the devil all 40 days.

• Jesus faced the temptations as a human. He gave up divine powers (not divine character) and experienced life as any human would, but did not sin.

Having been identified as the Son of God at His baptism, another link between baptism and temptations is Satan casting doubt upon His identity. Two times Satan said, “If you are the Son of God…” This is really a very clever ploy, because it challenges Jesus to prove what God has already said. And, if He does take up the challenge, He is showing that He is listening to the devil instead of God His Father. Furthermore, it is a tactic of control and manipulation. If you can get someone to respond to a challenge, you can keep issuing challenges and get them to do many things.

The implications of the specific temptations may be deeper than what most people at first see.

The temptation of stones into bread is subtle. What is wrong with making bread to eat after fasting for 40 days (unless you turn the stone to bread on day 38). But, more to the point, Jesus would be using His powers on Himself. It would not be a sign for others, it would be solely for Him.

Throwing Himself the temple is a more obvious problem. First, He would be “showboating;” doing something spectacular to get attention. Second, He would be intentionally putting Himself in harms way to force God’s hand to rescue Him, and God does not like being forced or manipulated. And finally, how successful would this be. Jesus performed many miracles throughout His ministry that didn’t always have the impact He wanted. Why would this be any different?

Finally, bowing to worship Satan in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world has several problems. Bowing to worship Satan would mean that Jesus would forfeit everything He had come to earth to accomplish. Also, worshipping Satan always has a price—He would forfeit His eternal life and the eternal life of every man, woman and child who ever lived. And finally, all Satan was offering was a painless but temporary shortcut to what Jesus would already receive. Every knee would bow and every tongue would confess that He is Lord. All power and authority would be put under His feet. Jesus was already set to inherit all kingdoms, but He had to go through the cross to get there.

What to expect once you join a church

The attributes of God

The attributes of God can be grouped into two broad categories:
1. Attributes possessed only by God:
A. Omnipotence: Having absolute power. For instance, He created the universe by simply the power of His word (speech). He says it, and it becomes so.
B. Sovereignty: (Based on Omnipotence) He has absolute reign and control of all things, both in rights and in practice. Nothing happens unless God causes it or allows it.
C. Omniscience: God knows all things, from the facts of science (which He created) to the small details of every person’s life. Nothing is hidden from God.
D. Omnipresence: God is everywhere at all times, both spatially and in chronology. Since God also exists outside of space and time, He is not limited by the laws which govern them.
E. Holiness: God is the epitome of holiness. And holiness has two aspects: 1. Holiness means to be completely separate, distinct or unique. God, being spirit, is distinct from the physical world. He is the creator of it, but still distinct from it, like an author who writes a book, but does not become a part of the book. 2. Moral purity and goodness, containing no evil or malice. Whatever God does is good and moral and right.
Actually, the above section could be listed under holiness, because these are all the ways that God is distinct and separate from humanity and creation.
There are positive aspects of God’s holiness: God is good. God can never be evil or do evil to you. God can be trusted to do what is morally right in every situation. You can trust God.

Isaiah has an encounter with God in the temple, and His encounter shows us some of the aspects of God’s holiness
It was in the year King Uziah died that I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. Attending him were mighty seraphim, each having six wings. With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. They were calling out to each other, “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of Heaven’s Armies! The whole earth is filled with his glory!” Their voices shook the Temple to its foundations, and the entire building was filled with smoke. Then I said, “It’s all over! I am doomed, for I am a sinful man. I have filthy lips, and I live among a people with filthy lips. Yet I have seen the King, the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.” Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” Isaiah 6:1-7
1. Sovereign: Sitting on a throne and being served.
2. Omnipotent: Being served by powerful beings (seraphim).
3. Holy: The seraphim call out “holy” three times, which is a superlative. The separateness of holiness as well as the moral aspect is seen Isaiah’s response. The holiness of God exposes Isaiah’s imperfect and fallen nature. He knows he cannot be in contact with a completely holy God.
Impurity and sin cannot stand in the presence of God anymore than paper can stand in fire, or that a person can stand within an allergen and not have a reaction.

2. Attributes that God shares with humanity (though imperfectly).
A. Love: God cares about us; God has a connection with us and wants to be in relationship with us; God loves us unconditionally, so His love for us is not about our merit but about His beneficence. Other characteristics like mercy (withholding a deserved consequence), compassion (giving someone what they need, not what they want) grace (an undeserved gift) and forgiveness (erasing the record of wrong doing) are based on His love.
B. Jealousy: God does not accept spiritual “infidelity” or worship of other gods. As God commits Himself totally to His people, He expects the same degree of commitment.
C. Wrath: Administering appropriate and severe consequences for actions. This is an extension of God’s anger.
D. Just: God is a just God administering decisions impartially. God shows no favoritism or bias in rendering decisions.
If you put some of these characteristics together, you can see some problems and dilemmas.
1. If you consider His holiness in conjunction with His qualities of being just and exercising wrath, andwhen you consider that people are fallen and imperfect, then we have a great problem: How can we ever be in relationship with God? How can we be in His presence and not suffer wrath?
That is the gist of God’s explanation to Moses when Moses wanted to see God:
And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
Exodus 33:19-20If that was all there was to it, our furutes would look very dismal, but we have a God Who cares about us so much that He offers the solution to our problem.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
Romans 5:7-8Attributes of God—part 2
One of the great challenges to belief in God is the question, “If God exists, why does He not do something about all the evil in the world?” Many of the problems that people experience seem to challenge or at least question God’s character.
Appearance: Character Challenged:
God seems incapable of stopping evil His sovereignty
God seems to permit evil His holiness
God seems unwilling to judge evil His justice
God seems indifferent to people’s suffering His love

How are we supposed to make sense of this?1.First of all, we have to accept that we are using our standards to define the problem. The problem focuses on evil in the world. But how does one define “evil?” Some people define it in terms of moral unrighteousness and the horrible things people do to each other. This is indeed evil, but it is something that cannot be blamed on God. God has given people choices, and with those moral choices comes responsibilities and consequences. When the Hebrew people were about to crows into the Holy Land that God had promised, He told them this:
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach... No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to Him, and to keep His commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. Deuteronomy 30:11; 14-15Every culture has a code of right and wrong, and people know if what they are doing is right or wrong.
However, many people refer to illness, injury or natural disaster. When some people see the devastation of a volcano or a mudslide or a tsunami they often say, “If God is a loving God, why does He allow this sort of thing to happen to innocent people?” But these events aren’t evil.
Natural disasters and illnesses—in and of themselves—are morally neutral. They occur randomly and impartially; no one is targeted nor immune. And in many cases they are part of the natural cycle of nature; God set things up and needed things like hurricanes and blizzards and earthquakes to maintain the Earth. So, considering that, why would God want to stop a process that is actually for our good and the benefit of the Earth?
As far as illness and injury goes, we were born into this fallen world as finite beings. We are not invincible and our life on this planet will one day end. We have to accept our limitations, but also we need to develop an eternal perspective.2. Hardships are how we grow and mature. The progression in James chapter one makes that clear:
Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything...Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1:2-5; 121-153. Evil actions is how we tell who is good and who is not.
In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 1 Corinthians 11:18-19

The will of God part 2

If God is all-powerful, we have to ask ourselves a question. Is God’s plan rigid or fluid? What is our concept of God—a clockmaker or a chess player? If God is a clock maker, and his plan for all humanity is already determined and every day we are just walking through a predetermined plan, this raises several problems:
Everything that happens must happen (including evil and sin.) It is part of God’s “clock” that He is building. All parts must fit together perfectly; there is no room for improvisation. Therefore, God is ultimately the author of evil.
If all actions are predetermined, then people are not responsible for their actions an, of God is actually unfair and unjust.
People could conceivably thwart or at least delay the will/the plan of God.
I would like to suggest that God is a chess player. He allows for our moves, yet He remains in control of the board.
However, the fact still remains that God knows everything that is going to happen and every decision that every person is going to make. Even if it is not causative, it would seem futile. The area where this becomes most obvious is with prayer. If God already knows what we are going to request and He knows what we need, why do we even have to pray? Why act out what you already know?
Let me use two analogies to help explain why.
1. We do this sort of thing all the time without thinking anything about it. How many times can we listen to a favorite song? How many times can we watch a favorite movie? How many times have we heard an orchestra play a familiar piece? Do you have a favorite book you’ve read more than once? In each of these examples, we know what is going to happen. The movie is not going to change, the music will not vary and there will be no sudden edits in the book. In fact, that it what draws us to them. We want that same experience that we had before. We want to hear the same nuances in delivery or read the same flow of words. We often look to the experience of these and many other arts, and God looks forward to experiencing life with us. He does not grow tired of the experience. Even though He may know what is going to happen, He enjoys the experience as we are going through it. It is about experience and relationship, not just the destination.
2. The second analogy is much like the first, but with a little different twist. Have you ever thought about telling God a joke? It would be impossible because is based on the unexpected twist that God would already know. So imagine one of the disciples coming up the Jesus and saying, “Hey, Jesus, did you hear the one about…” and Jesus replying, “Yes, but go ahead. I like the way you tell it.” Again, it’s about relationship and experience, not about knowing the end.

Of course, some things were predetermined in great detail and those things can be seen as a step by step process. For instance, Jesus’ crucifixion was determined before creation even happened. And it wasn’t just a general sketchy plan, but details were discussed and included in prophecy.
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
1 Peter 1:20

The plan of salvation was laid out well ahead of time, but each person will have to take responsibility for his or her actions.
It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’” So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Romans 14:11-13
It says much the same thing in 1 Corinthians 3:12-13:
If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 1 Corinthians 3:12-13

We can see a balance between the plan of salvation and Human responsibility:
Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with Me will betray Me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about Him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Matthew 26:23-24

Closely related to this idea of people just “walking through the motions” is a concept of salvation where no one is held responsible for his or her actions because Jesus paid for all sin (or there never was aprice) and so everyone is going to heaven automatically. It is called “universalism” and there is a growing trend in the modern Western church. Closely related to it is the teaching that Hell does not actually exist or was never meant to be occupied. The simple fact that Gospel messages are usually ended by urging a decision and that decision is presented as paramount. This suggests that the decision is essential and the consequences are real. Why would it be necessary for Jesus to die and for the gospel to be preached if the eternal destiny of all people everywhere and for all time were already secure.
Jesus fulfilled His purpose and completed His part of the Father’s will. Now, all people are exhorted to make a choice and accept God’s salvation. All people will be held accountable for all words and actions. It is best (the only secure eternal) if a person has confessed his or her faith in Jesus and decided to take Him as savior.
Could God make all people accept Jesus by His divine power? Yes He could, but He wants followers who have not been forced into relationship. That would be inauthentic—and more like brainwashing. God wants knowing, willing and voluntary devotion.

Bible Study—Will of God, part 3

When the “Will of God” is discussed, the topic of predestination has to be addressed. This term more than any other carries with it the weight of God’s sovereignty. However, there is far from universal agreement of what the term implies, how far it carries and how it works out in human history.
There are two general ways that people use the term predestination. 1. The first is to refer to events that have been predetermined and prearranged in the mind of God and happen in human history. Large tragedies (accidental train accidents) and natural disasters (hurricanes) are often put into this category. Phrases like “These things happen in His timing,” or “When someone’s time is up…” reflect a general attitude or belief that God orchestrates these things.
On the one hand, we have talked about God’s sovereignty and we have seen that He is ruler of the universe. Nothing happens that He doesn’t know about—even matters of small detail (Matthew 10:29-30. This was spoken in context of witnessing and persecution)—and His power and majesty are above all things. Certainly, we have to accept that much of what happens is under His control.
On the other hand, two problems/challenges arise. A. One problem is to answer the question: Is God the author of natural evil? (There are two types of evil—natural and moral. We know that God is not the author of moral evil. But, what part does He play in natural hardships?) If God is in control of everything without a free will, then is He directly responsible for everything that happens as a result of natural disaster and non-preventable events? How much in these situations lies with human responsibility, and how much with the sovereignty of God? Furthermore, how much lies with the powers of evil? (Examples: Airplane crashes—how much is God’s control and how much is human error or neglect? Terminal illnesses—where does responsibility lie there?) As a resolution, let me suggest that there is no one formula that explains all of these things. All three can and usually do play a part to some degree. Exactly what part must be determined on a case by case basis.
B. The other problem to address is, how much does God’s sovereignty affect free will? An extreme position held by some is that everything, even wrong decisions, are predestined according to God’s plan. Free will is just a charade upon which God’s plan plays out step by step. Everything is predetermined, and there is nothing we can do about it.
However, I refer back to last week’s discussion on sovereignty and free will. God’s sovereignty does not cancel out responsibility for wrong actions. God is a chess player, always in control of the board but also letting us make our moves. A fair reading of the whole bible does not support this view.
This is one understanding of the word “predestination.”2. Another understanding of the word “predestination”, and the more classic definition, refers to a person’s eternal destiny. It is the belief that God has predestined some to eternal life and some to eternal condemnation based solely on God’s sovereign rule.
St. Augustine first expressed this doctrine in the 5th century AD. He taught that all people are justly predestined to eternal condemnation because of humanity’s inherent sin nature, but some are graciously chosen for eternal life (enough to replace the fallen angels of heaven). John Calvin later developed this doctrine in the protestant reformation. It can be summed up with the anacronym “tulip:” Total depravity, unconditional election predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.
There are some verses that seem to teach this doctrine. Let’s look at several and see what they hold. The specific question is: do these verses irrefutably teach that God singled out certain people for eternal life, or couldthey hold other teachings that are compatible with Bible teaching?
Ephesians 1:3-12 (in particular 4-5, 11-12)
The question that has to be asked at the start is: is the emphasis here on the people chosen, or on God and His plan? Also, to whom is this letter addressed? 1:1 says it is to the faithful in Christ (believers in Christ).
:3 states that we have been blessed in every way in heaven by means of Christ.
:4 makes a comparison with :3 and can be translated: Just as in the same way…it links/compares the two.
Without the descriptive prepositional phrases, verse four reads: Just as in the same way he chose us (those who believe in Christ) to be holy and blameless in His presence/face to face.
:5 continues the description of the plan He predestined us (those who believe in Christ) into adoption through Jesus into Himself according to His good pleasure. Compare the timing in 1:13. When did the sealing happen, before or after belief?

God’s will part 4

Tonight, we get more specific. We start to answer the question: What does God want me to do? How do I find God’s will for my life?
T he place to start—the first set of boundaries containing God’s will is found in His moral will. God wants us to live a certain lifestyle.
I Thessalonians 4:1-8 It is God’s will that we should be sanctified—set apart, distinct, holy. The word means more than just pure—it means set apart and distinct. It should be noted that pleasing God in verse 1 is associated with doing God’s will in verse 3. This section addresses specifically sexual immorality, which would have been a major issue for non-Jewish converts. Infidelity was socially acceptable for men in some cultures, and temple prostitution was practiced in parts of the Empire (like Corinth). So, while the verse addresses holiness in a specific contest, the general principle should still be observed regarding all aspects of life. Verse one also says that we can do this in degrees. We may be living in a way that pleases God and where we follow His will, but we can possibly do it more. This means that doing God’s will is not a yes or no situation. It’s not a matter of ding it or not doing. We can not do God’s will, or we can choose to what degree we do God’s will.
I Thessalonians 5:14-22 The section in Chapter 4 focused on behavior to avoid in order to do God’s will. This section cites some positive behaviors.
:14-:15 tells us to encourage others to live a Christian life.
:16-:17 tells us to nurture certain Christian characteristics (joy, prayer, and thanksgiving) regardless of circumstances.
:18-:22 tells us to develop our spirituality.
In both sections, God’s will involves certain lifestyle expectations.
But, let’s put this in perspective. God does not want a race of simple moralists. Our lifestyle springs from our covenant relationship with God. To see how that works, let’s turn to the original covenant between God and His people.
Exodus 19:1-6 First, God acts on behalf of His people to save them. The people had been in bondage in Egypt, but God brought them out. Through this, God reveals Himself—the people had no doubt whom it was they were dealing with. After God acts on behalf of His people, then He calls them to a moral code.
Exodus 20:18-21 The people had the opportunity to go up the mountain to be in the presence of The Lord, but they declined. Moses invited them so they would have a personal experience of God that would keep them from sinning. Unfortunately, they let fear overcome them and they refused. Their history in the desert shows the effects. Psalm 78 is a summary of the people’s unfaithfulness in the desert. That is why they did not go into the Promised Land.
Exodus 24:7-8 The covenant is sealed and finalized. The conditions consist of the material in chapters 19 through 23—all moral and some ceremonial material.
Why follow God’s law? Is mere obedience enough, or is there more to it?
Three practical reasons whey we should obey God’s law:
It is good for us (Deuteronomy 30:11-18).
It glorifies God (Matthew 5:14-16, I Corinthians 10:31-33)
It creates a good testimony so people see a difference (Ephesians 5:8-14).
Two things to remember:
God is concerned with the inside (Mark 7:1-23)
God is concerned with the Spirit, not the law (Galatians 5:16-26).

The Church

After a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and baptism, what comes next?
Next is a process of learning, growth and Christian maturity. And these are pretty much universal in all Christian churches. I’m going to use the results on Acts chapter 2 as an outline for church activities.
1. They continued in the apostle’s teaching. Study and teaching were essential. Truth is essentially the guidance through this world. It tells us about God and what He expects. And it is right in the center of the transformation process. (see Romans 12:1-2 and Ephesians 4:21-23. Both talk about renewing the mind.)
There is a sense of curiosity concerning study. Acts 17:11 contrasts Berea and Thessalonica and states that the Bereans were more noble because they searched the scriptures daily making sure what Paul was telling them was so. Also, I Thessalonians 5:19-22 tells us to test everything. Don’t take things for granted. Have a reliable criteria by which you can evaluate matters that you encounter.
2. Fellowship (community). There was a strong sense of community, unity, and togetherness. How do we achieve fellowship? A. How we treat each other (Colossians 3:1-17. This section relates the work of Christ to relationships, especially 12-16). B. Finding our role or place in the body (I Corinthians 12—relates the church to a body. Every part has a purpose and everything is important.)
3. Breaking bread—worship. This topic will be addressed in appropriate detail at a later date.
4. Prayer. The word “prayer” defines a relationship—a lesser person asking a superior, like a servant to a master. It speaks about humility and dependence. We need to remember to Whom it is we pray. It is a tremendous privilege to be able to come before God with boldness and confidence, but don’t mistake these for presumption and audacity. Humility and an awareness of our dependence upon God are essential factors in prayer.
The results of the church in Jerusalem on those not yet a part of the church?
1. The church found favor with all people (except for the Jewish authorities we soon find). The community of believers conducted themselves 9in such a way that outsiders looked favorably upon them. These outsiders may not have agreed with the church or joined it, but they weren’t complaining about it.
2. Miracles were performed, which produced a sense of awe and fear among the people.
3. God added daily. This is a reminder that it is God who ultimately converts people. It is not our strategies but His truth and power.

And along with these activities, they also had an outward focus. They regularly practiced evangelism in their own communities or abroad.
Jesus gave this as a unique command in Matthew 28:16-20. There are a few features here to highlight. The first quality that Jesus mentions about Himself is Authority. He has the authority (endowed with the right to do what He does), so He is the one who can give directions and commands to the apostles.
The commission looks like a series of commands, but in reality, there is only one command here: make disciples. The others verbs are a description of how that command will be carries out. It could have been translated like: by going, make disciples, by baptizing them and by teaching them. He ends the statement with an assurance: He will be with the disciples always. Connecting a few dots, the one who has the authority to direct the disciples in their mission is going with them, so their source of authority is going to constantly be with them.

The Birth of Jesus

Details and Apparent Contradictions

In The New Testament, we have two sources for the birth of Jesus: Matthew and Luke. While each evangelist writes about the same event, they offer different perspectives and include different details. Some scholars claim that there are contradictions between the two stories. Let’s take a look and see.

Luke 1:26-38 starts the story of His birth with Gabriel’s birth announcement to Mary at Nazareth in Galilee. Mary is a descendent of David** and pledged to be married to Joseph (see below)* but is still a virgin. Gabriel explains that this act will be performed through the power of the Holy Spirit. Because of that, the child will be called the son of the most High. She will give birth to a son and He shall be named Jesus.

Matthew 1:18-25 offers some of the same details in his account:

While Matthew does not talk about an angel, Mary is affirmed to be pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.

¨ She is not called a virgin, but it is specified that she and Joseph had not yet “come together.”

¨ Mary is pledged to be married to Joseph (see below)*.

¨ The lineage of David** is affirmed through Joseph.

¨ She will give birth to a son and He shall be named Jesus.

¨ Given the divine nature of this Child, He will be referred to as Immanuel—God with us.

*The betrothal period is a legal arrangement between the family of the groom-to-be and the bride-to-be. It was established by the man offering a “payment” to the woman’s father in exchange for his daughter. The man and women were legally bound, but did not live together and they were not intimate. Nonetheless, the woman is often referred to as the wife during this time.

**The lineage of David being traced through Mary in Luke and through Joseph in Matthew offers a clue in unraveling why the two genealogies are so different. Matthew starts at Abraham; Luke starts with Adam, the son of God. The names between Abraham and David are the same, and then they diverge. This would suggest that Luke features the genealogy of Mary (in the ancient world, it was customary to trace the wife’s background through her husband) while Matthew features the genealogy of Joseph

Another explanation is that one genealogy features the bloodline of David while the other features the lineage of the king. Or perhaps it is a combination of the two.

Matthew includes some other details as well:

¨ A nameless angel visits Joseph in a dream assuring him of Mary’s innocence in the matter.

¨ Joseph took Mary home as his wife, suggesting that the espousal period was over and at some point they married.

A note about recording “time” in the Bible should be made. The biblical authors were not always concerned with chronology of events or the passage of time. Events that may have been several years apart are sometimes recorded next to previous or past events as if (to our modern way of reading) the two events happened consecutively with no lapsed time. The biblical writers were concerned with the pertinent details of an account and not extraneous ones.

There are two major differences between biblical writers and today’s historians: 1. Biblical writers were focusing on particular events (the actions of God) and not an inclusive narrative of an event or time in history. 2. Recording anything in the ancient world was more expensive and time consuming than today. Therefore, a “just the facts” approach had a practical aspect.

One detail is missing from Matthew’s account:

¨ Matthew makes no mention of where this all took place. We are not told where Mary and Joseph live.

But that brings us to the next part of the story—getting to Bethlehem, where the details of that visit are contained in Luke. Luke mentions a census where everyone had to return to their family home of origin to register. Both Joseph and Mary were from the line of David, so they have to go to Bethlehem.

Why would they have to go to their ancestral home to register? And weren’t the Jewish people already taxed? At the time, Augustus needed military money, and it is thought that Augustus was imposing an additional inheritance tax to raise the additional capital.

There have also been questions about the date of the census. Quirinius was governor in Syria starting in 6 AD—a date too late to mark the birth of Jesus. However, there are several explanations that have been suggested to solve this problem:1. The verse could be translated “before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
2. Or it could be translated “before (the census) that Quirinius took when he was governor of Syria” suggesting two separate census. The Romans did like to count and keep records, so this would be a reasonable occurrence.
3. Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, the first being when Jesus was born.
4. This was a world wide census encompassing the entire Roman empire. It would have taken years to complete, and could have started around the time Jesus was born and run into the time Quirinius was governor of Syria.
So where did Mary, Joseph and Jesus stay? At the time, Bethlehem was a small village of about 1,000. people. It couldn’t accommodate a large influx of people.
Tradition says that Mary and Joseph stayed in a cave, which is where Jesus was born. And that is quite possible. But there are alternatives:
1. At the same time, we know that at least Mary had family in that general area (Elizabeth) and could have stayed with them. It was not uncommon at the time that homes would have a large pen for livestock attached to the home and accessible through a door. That is where the manager would have been.
2. Another possibility is that they intended to stay at an “inn”, but there was not enough room. The “inns” at the time were not centers of hospitality like taverns in later times. They were little more than lean-tos set up temporarily in the streets. They weren’t much and they did have limits of occupancy. So then, a cave or the livestock pen would be a reasonable alternative.
Shepherds would have been close by in the fields. This was probably the herd from which sacrificial animals were taken, and they would have been out year round.
The number of angels is significant. We very seldom see more than one angel appear on the earth. But this is a multitude of the heavenly host, or a lot of the angel troops in heaven.
They do end up staying in Bethlehem for a while. Jesus would have been circumcised on the eighth day, and Mary’s purification would have been 40 days after the birth.
The end part of this story ends with Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus going back home to Nazareth. Which brings us to the next mystery. At the end of Luke’s story, Mary, Joseph and Jesus return to Nazareth. But in Matthew chapter 2, they are back in Bethlehem. What happened?
Well, for one thing, some time seems to have passed. Herod had asked the Magi when the star appeared. And when he ordered the execution of children, it involved boys two years old and under. That suggests that at least two years had gone by since Jesus had been born. Furthermore, the family is in a house (2:11) and Jesus is referred to as a “child” whereas Luke refers to him as a “baby” or an infant.
There are several possible explanations for this:
1. Finding Bethlehem more financially solvent, and having reconnected with family, he may have decided to move his home, family and business from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
2. The family could have gone to Judea for one of the festivals and they could be staying with family at their house.
Now, who were these guys from the East? They were Magi—astrologers, soothsayers, sorcerers and mystics probably from Persia. We actually don’t know how many their were. The number three is based on the number of gifts they brought. (The Eastern Orthodox church celebrates 12 Magi.) They were not kings, but they would have been noblemen who traveled in the king’s court.
How did they know the Messiah was born, and what does a star have to do with it? Again, the Magi were astrologers. They read the stars to predict events. Also, Daniel had been in Persia—the east. He received several visions of the political scene to come. In the last empire, Rome, it was foretold that the Messiah would be born. These Magi would have had this information.
Furthermore, some speculate that the star is also somehow related to the prophecy in Numbers 24:17.
No one knows for certain what this star actually was. It has been suggested that it was a comet or a conjunction of planets. Whatever it was, it moved according to laws of celestial movement (it first appeared in the east and slowly moved into the west, and it lasted for several months).
The idea that is stopped over the house in Bethlehem is probably a euphemism for the star guiding them to the exact place using some kind of celestial divination.

The Birth of Jesus

I would like to address some of the falicies concerning Christmas that are circulated every year. These falicies are "fake news" that are
put forth as fact and used to undermine the integrity and even the reality of the Christmas story.
First is the idea that our Christian symbols and practices can be traced back to pre-Christian times. This is very common and
and applied to every aspect of the Christian story. Let's look at two examples:
1. The claim that the use of evergreens was taken from pagan practices. It is true that ancient, pagan, pre-Christian religions did use evergreens as symbols. However the Christians use of evergreens--and in particular Christmas trees--did not start until the 1800's in Germany. It came to our country through immigration, but didn't really catch on in general until about 100 years ago. So, if someone is trying to trace the idea from paganism to Christianity, there is about a 2000 year gap--during which time the pagan religions AND THEIR TRADITIONS had long since died out. So, anyone trying make that connection has to find a direct link through that 2000 year gap.
2. Another example is the virgin birth. Some scholars claim that virgin birth was a common feature in the story of pre-Christians gods. But these features really don't qualify as a virgin birth. For instance, the god "Mithras" is said to have sprung from a large rock outcrop. And he sprang forth full grown. This is hardly birth and doesn't involve any virgin. Any connection is an oversimplified stretch at best.
Add to the fact that all the stories of the pre-Christian gods happen in prehistory--with no time references. The Christmas story happened in "real time" with verifiable details. Another common idea is that Christmas is simply a Christian remake of Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a Roman holiday honoring the god Saturn that was first celebrated on December 17 but over time the observance was stretched into a full week (17-24). Initially, it was a solomn occasion, but by the first century AD it had turned into something very different. The poet Lucian of Samosata (AD 120-180) described it this way: ‘During my week the serious is barred: no business allowed. Drinking and being drunk, noise and games of dice, appointing of kings and feasting of slaves, singing naked, clapping … an occasional dunking of corked faces in icy water – such are the functions over which I preside.’ This hardly sounds like anything the Christian church would adopt. Add to this the facts that the length of celebration was different; the dates were different and some Christians celebrated both Christmas and Saturnalia suggests that the one did not replace thge other. Furthermore, Dr David Gwynn, lecturer in ancient and late antique history at Royal Holloway,
University of London, has said, "The majority of modern scholars would be reluctant to accept any close connection between the Saturnalia and the emergence of the Christian Christmas." Finally, there is the idea that the church set the date of Christmas to coincide with the winter equinox--the shortest day of the year but where the days begin to get longer. And it is pointed out that the church set the date of Christmas in the 5th century based on the Equinox. A reliable calendar that fixed the dates of celestial events wasn't developed until well into the 7th century. There was no leap year. Days and even weeks would occasionally (albeit randomly) be added when the seasons were bviously out of sync with the date. Therefore, the date of the wintrer equinox would be slowly shifting over the years. And, keep in mind that with our modern calendar, the date of the equinox still is not set. Because of a variety of astronomical conditions, the equinox can be anytime between 12/20 and 12/23. But never on 12/25. Because of this, it is more reasonable to assume that the Church would have set a floating date as it did for Easter.
Granted the birthdate for Jesus is not essential. The important details are recorded in each birth story (Matthew and Luke). Arguements have been made for virtually every other month as the actual date, but evidence is hard to come by. Some claim the summer months because the sheep are in the fields at night, which wouldn't be the case in winter. However, I have also read that shepherds kept their sheep in pasture year round in the lower climates and near towns. And the flocks around Bethlehem were most likely the
sheep used for sacrifice and would have been kept out all winter.
His birthday could be on any day of the year, but December 25 actually has more evidence than any other month. While the Church may not have officially set the date as December 25th until the 5th century, the majority of Church fathers (late first and second century) cited that date clearly in the second century. And they were certainly closer to the actual event than later scholars. And remember, Mary, His mother, and His brothers were part of the early church and could have shared many personal details.
There will always be scoffers and skeptics, but read the Christmas story knowing that the evidence backs up the story as written.

Baptism

Baptism becomes a difficult topic to talk about. On the one hand, it is practiced by virtually all Christian denominations in one way or another. But on the other hand, the significance attached to it and the regulations regarding its administration vary so much that it is one of the biggest bones of contention in the Christian church. And historically, the group that has caused the greatest contention regarding baptism has been the Baptists.
Let’s look at three of the main questions or problems regarding baptism. These are: A. the proper mode of baptism, B. the proper recipients or candidates for baptism, and C. the significance of baptism

I. The first point to discuss is the proper mode of baptism, or how should baptism be performed. Should it be immersion, which is a complete dunking, or should it be some kind of pouring or sprinkling? The overwhelming evidence is for immersion. Almost all scholars, including those from other denominations, concede that immersion was the method used in the early church. And there is much evidence supporting this conclusion.

1. The word “baptize” originally meant to dip or to submerge. It was originally a term used in dying fabric. It meant to dip the fabric in the solution in order to dye it, so complete immersion is implied in the word.

2. Baptism is related to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as stated in Romans 6:3-4. Immersion best fits this imagery and therefore makes the best symbolic representation. (see major point 3)

3. Whenever baptism is described in the New Testament, large quantities of water are sometimes mentioned or implied. John baptized in the Jordan River (Matthew 3:6), when the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, they found an oasis (Acts 8:36-38).

4. Forth, the language surrounding baptism implies immersion. Jesus came up out of the water (Matthew 3:16). The eunuch went down into the water and came up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39). This seems to suggest a position in the water, which immersion would most logically require.

5. There were some Jewish groups who practiced ritual purifications called mikveh, and this was performed by immersion. It was also used to initiate converts into the Jewish covenant. And often, these were referred to baptisms. Many people believe that the Christian practice of Baptism is based partly on these Jewish mikvahs. At any rate, it seems unlikely that the Christians, who were originally Jewish, would employ a word already in current use and then give it a foreign meaning.

6. There is historical evidence. A second century book of instruction called the Didiche, explained that immersion was the most proper way to baptize, but other means (pouring or sprinkling) could be used if circumstances necessitated.

All of these factors combined give strong evidence that the early church immersed when they baptized.

II. The second point to be discussed is: who are the proper recipients for baptism, or who should be baptized? Should it be reserved only for people who can articulate a personal faith, or should we baptize infants. The New Testament seems to favor believer’s baptism.

Acts 16:29-33

1. The specific examples of people being baptized in the New Testament are people who are old enough to have a personal faith and who could express it. There are no specific examples of infants being baptized.

2. When baptism is practiced, it is proceeded by a proclamation of the gospel, and it is implied that the people being baptized responded to and accepted the gospel message. Even when large crowds or households are mentioned, it is often implied that all present responded. Faith and/or repentance are conditions that are usually mentioned in connection with baptism. (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12-13; 16:13-15; 27-34). Infants would be incapable of showing faith or repentance, or understanding the gospel.

While we are on the subject of infant baptism, let’s look at the reasons other churches give for practicing infant baptism, and how Baptists respond to that.

There are essentially two reasons why different denominations practice infant baptism. The first is that it washes away original sin and gives the child a pure standing in the eyes of God. However, there is no clear evidence for the doctrine of original sin as such or that baptism washes it away. The Bible does state that we are all born with a very real capacity and a nature to sin, but that isn't a mark like original sin is considered. I Peter 3:21 says that baptism saves us, but it cites the pledge of a good conscience—something that infants would be incapable of.

The second reason for infant baptism is found in a covenantal understanding of baptism. This relates baptism to circumcision, and it states that just as circumcision made children a part of God's promises in the Old Covenant, Baptism makes children part of God's promises in the New. This view sees the church as the new Israel. However, it doesn't make the promises automatic, because the child has to show a personal faith once he or she has grown up—usually through confirmation.

C. The final point to discuss is the significance of baptism. What does baptism mean and what does it do for a person? Does it impart salvation, or is it simply a sign of the salvation that has already occurred? This is probably the most crucial question, but also the most difficult one to answer.

The most important thing to understand when discussing this point is that baptism was practiced a little different in the New Testament church than it is now. Back then--generally speaking--a gospel message was preached, people responded, they were brought into the water and repentance and a confession of their faith was a part of the baptismal process. So, profession of faith was not a separate act from baptism. Very little time, if any, separated confession and baptism. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss baptism as a separate practice from a profession of faith based on New Testament material

So, if baptism doesn't really save us, what does it do? Baptism becomes a symbolic representation of several things.

Romans 6:1-11

1. baptism is a sign that we are spiritually clean before God. There are some New Testament passages which do speak about baptism as a washing. But, the washing does not come from the water. It is based on Jesus sacrificial work on the cross. It is the blood of Jesus that has washed us. We are baptized into his death. Now, remember, when this was written, baptism and confession of faith were the same act. So baptism did wash a person because that person's sins were washed by his or her own confession of Jesus as savior. Baptism was an outward sign of that. Even though time now separates the confession and baptism, the symbolic meaning is still true. (I Peter 3:21)

2. baptism identifies us with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and is an outward proclamation that we chose to live a new lifestyle because of that. When we confess our faith, we acknowledge that we are dying to our old selves and that we are becoming a new creation formed and renewed by the power of God. Baptism symbolizes all of this. By being immersed, we identify with the death of Jesus and show that we are dying to our old self. By being raised from the water, we identify with his resurrection and show that we are being renewed by God. So, baptism symbolizes the great spiritual change that has taken place in our life that should show itself in our actions and our lifestyle. (Romans 6:3-11, especially 11)

3. Baptism adds us to a faith community or a church. It is an initiation process. The general pattern in the book of Acts is that the people repented, were baptized and then formed a faith community or a church.
   

D. A strict conclusion from this is that only people baptized by immersion after a personal profession of one’s faith has followed the proper procedure. Others may be invalid.

This stand has made Baptists unpopular over the years and gotten us into a lot of trouble. It is difficult to maintain this view and participate in ecumenical relationships. What do we do?

Some Baptists have adopted a policy that states that baptism and a profession of faith are necessary for membership, but the order is not essential. Also, mode is not essential—if baptism is a symbol then the mode is not essential and other forms are recognized.

And there is still room for rebaptism. (Acts 19:1-7)

My approach is that, if a person’s earlier baptism is part of his or her faith journey, then I will certainly recognize that. However, if an earlier baptism has no significance, then I encourage the person to consider a rebaptism.

On line Bible study—the Bible

Since the Bible is as the foundation for our faith and our knowledge of God, it is important to consider why the Bible is considered reliable and distinctive above all other religious literature.

The bible maintains its integrity in several ways today.
1. The accounts in the bible have been shown to accurately reflect the history, customs, geography and laws of their times in which they are set. The verifiable details of the bible have been repeatedly substantiated by historical and archeological research. (And often, these details add little more to the story than historic flavor, but even this helps to authenticate the accounts. ) If the Biblical authors were careful to present verifiable history correctly, that lends credence to the supernatural details of the accounts also being accurate.
For much of the early Old Testament, it is believed that the recorded incidents were first passed along orally before they were often put into writing centuries after their occurrence. We have to ask, “How could the ancient Hebrew authors have known about these details centuries after they occurred?” In the ancient world, only the elite had access to libraries, so the Hebrew people essentially had no access to outside historical material. Therefore, we can only conclude that these events were standardized shortly after they happened, and the accounts included the historic details of the time; details that were well known at the time but fell out of use centuries later. These accounts, being standardized, were passed along by a reliable oral tradition until they were written down. For example, when Abraham buys a piece of land from a Hittite in order to bury Sarah (Genesis 23:17-18), the account includes the detail that: both the field and the cave and all the trees within the boarders of the field were deeded to Abraham. A strange detail to include, but in the ancient Hittite world, a buyer chose to buy the trees along with the land or not, so the buyer would own the land but the seller retained possession of all the trees. This is an obscure detail and would only be included if it was a part of the transaction.

a. Another aspect about the Biblical accounts that lends to their authenticity is that they often contain details about main characters or the general population that reflect poorly on the main characters or the population. And many times, these main characters are attributed with recording these events. This was a very unusual trait in ancient literature. Usually, only the positive traits or actions were included in histories, And even past victories were often reattributed to a current leader. This aspect is also regarded as an indication of authentic reporting.
b. A special note should be made about the New Testament. Not only has the historical, cultural, geographical and political details been substantiated, but it is important to remember that the New Testament developed while eye-witnesses were still alive, and these accounts were preached in the same areas where they had happened. If the New Testament did not accurately relate the details of events, there would have been people who would have been able to contradict those details.

2. The manuscripts of the Bible have been scrutinized and analyzed in the most minute of detail, with examination often being focused on particular words and even letters. And the general consensus of scholars is that the current version of the bible is 99.9% reliable. In this regard, the Bible is more reliable than any other historical document. Furthermore, the Bible is the only sacred book that has been studied in such detail, and it continues to stand the test. Also, comparing ancient manuscripts to more contemporary ones, it is easy to see that very little if any change occurred across centuries of copying and transmission.

3. The bible has many instances of fulfilled prophecy. Sometimes these prophecies pertained to an event that occurred within the lifetime of the prophet who proclaimed it. (For example, the prophecy concerning Ahab and Jezebel. These prophesies were given by Elijah in 1 Kings 21:18-24, and were fulfilled in 1 Kings 22:37-38; 2 Kings 9:36; 2 Kings 10:10-11) But as often, these prophecies were more far reaching. In particular, the prophecies that pertain to Jesus are the most prevalent example of far-reaching prophecy fulfilled. For example, Malachi 3:1 and 4:5 are prophesies concerning the coming of John the Baptist after the manner of Elijah and as a forerunner of the Messiah. This was spoken roughly 300 years before it happened.
Some critics suggest that the prophecies were added after the fact. However, there is no solid evidence to suggest that. This point of view tends to be more an interpretation of skepticism.

4. There is a consistency of theme among the books of the Bible, which is demonstrated by the tendency of subsequent books to quote and allude to earlier works. In spite of the fact that the individual books of the bible were written over the course of about 1500 years, and even though this was done by different authors from different walks of life in different cultures and in different circumstances, there are no internal disagreements.

5. The Bible presents principles that are unique and cannot be traced to any other contemporaneous culture. Several examples of this include:
a. The Sabbath. No other cultures had a regular day of the week set aside for religious purposes; or a sabbatical year where fields lay fallow and slaves would go free; or a 50 year “reboot” where debts were cancelled and land that had been sold reverts back to the original family
b. Forgiveness. Other cultures thought forgiveness was a sign of weakness and did not consider it a virtue.
c. Monotheism. All other cultures had a pantheon of gods, and did not consider the worship of multiple gods a problem. Some nations even incorporated the gods of other nations enlarging the pantheon.

This is the capstone of the Christian faith, the last essential element of faith concerning the earthly ministry of Jesus.  Without this, the rest of the beliefs stand powerless and irrelevant.

           As important as it is, it is the most difficult points to accept.  Some people just dismiss it as fabrication; some people try to make it a metaphor; and some try to explain it naturally and rationally.  In discussing the resurrection, I’m going to address each of these false claims.

It didn’t happen.

The message of Jesus’ resurrection was proclaimed shortly after the event.  And, it was proclaimed in the same area where it happened.  If it didn’t happen, there are those who would have disputed the details, or details would have been chaotically skewed.  Also, names were mentioned, so there were people who were still alive who could be asked to verify the details.

It couldn’t have been a hallucination.  Multiple witnesses saw Him at the same time (1 Corinthians 15:6 states that 500 saw Him at once).  Mass hallucinations where people see the same thing are essentially non-existent.

Believers were willing to suffer and die rather than renounce the resurrection.  And this has been true for centuries and generations.  For a belief to be that powerful it is highly unlikely that it’s a lie.

It’s a metaphor or a myth.

The events are presented as actual and literal history, including names, times and locations.  Also, the details of the events read like actual events: the women were the first witnesses (very unusual since women were not considered reliable witnesses).  The disciples were fearful and very skeptical (in a myth or metaphor, the main characters are usually heroic.).

He didn’t actually die.

The evidence pointing the Jesus actual death is overwhelming.

Jesus was scourged (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1).  Scourging was often performed in conjunction with crucifixion.  Matthew and Mark make it clear that the scourging happened after the sentence of crucifixion was pronounced.  This would have made it the worst form of scourging.  Straps with metal or bone connected at the end of leather strips were used.  Skin was ripped off and bone and internal organs were sometimes exposed.  Sometimes, people did not survive this punishment.  Some think Jesus died because of this scourging.

Jesus was crucified.  Few details are shared in the gospels, yet this was a well-known form of execution in the ancient world.  The Romans were not alone in using it nor were they the first.  It was used by civilizations centuries before and was still used centuries after.  One reason for its “popularity” is that it was a particularly painful and cruel form of execution.  Spikes were driven through the forearm and sometimes the feet of the victim.  The spikes that were driven through the flesh held most of their body weight.  Death was a result of shock or suffocation.  It often took hours or days.  Victims continued to hang until dead.

His side was pierced with a spear, and blood and water flowed out of the wound.  (John 19:34)  Blood and water flowing separated are recognized as signs of death.  Also,the spear was thrust into his side, which itself would have inflicted a fatal wound.Mark makes a point to confirm the death of Jesus (Mark 15:44-45).  The Romans were master executioners.  They knew when someone was dead.Points 1-4 reflect the customs of the time.  That’s how political prisoners were executed, and they made certain that they stayed on the cross until dead.  there is no precedent to support the idea that Jesus survived crucifixion.  Historically, no one has survived crucifixion.Furthermore, a guard was posted.  (Matthew 27:62-66).  This same guard told the chief priests what had happened.  The guards were bribed and a story was fabricated. (Matthew 28:11-15).  However, there were some problems with this storyIf they were all sleeping, how did they know who took the body?Why was there no punishment?  Sleeping while on duty could be punished by death.Why weren’t the disciples arrested for body snatching?  Why was there no follow up?How do we know about the plot?  Some priests (Sadducees) and some Pharisees became believers (Acts 6:7, 15:5).  Even some local Jewish rulers who may have been “People in the know” believed but kept it to themselves (John 12:42).Jesus was switched with someone on the cross.Who would be willing to do that to establish a lie? The body would still have to be secretly taken.Jesus actually died on the cross and someone took Jesus’ place.The body would still have to be secretly taken.The person would need to have a fairly detailed account of Jesus’ life, depending on how big an inner circle was needed. All the people (disciples, family) would have to be in full agreement for the plan to work.  There could not be one dissenter, even in persecution.  And a sibling or His mother might pick up on some anamoly.What does the resurrection mean?  What is its significance and its application?1 Corinthians 15:12-20

1. It endorses the life of Jesus and especially the Cross. If Jesus had not been raised, forgiveness for sins would not have been accomplished.

2. It allows us to be changed by the power of God (Ephesians 2:18-21)

History: The Hebrew people were given a list of laws defining how they should live.  It covered every aspect of life.  One large part of the law was the sacrificial system—instructions concerning how and when a person was to make a sacrifice.  Central to this system was the intention of keeping God—Yahweh—central in their lives.  Sacrifices could be made to other pagan gods, but that was idolatry, which is unfaithfulness to the God of the Hebrews.

However, since God knew that the people would make mistakes—either intentionally or unintentionally—the sacrificial system provided for forgiveness or a way for making up for failures.  And central to this was the sacrifice for sins.

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.   Lev. 17:11

So the shedding of blood from an acceptable sacrifice was required to remove the penalty of sin.  And God was willing to accept the sacrifice of an animal in place of the person who committed the sin.

But it wasn’t just the sacrifice that was required.  Attitude was also important.  And there are several places in the Old Testament where God rejects the sacrifices of the Hebrew people because their attitude was inappropriate. (Psalm 50:7-9; Isaiah 1:10-13; 66:2-3)

That is the setting of the New Testament and for the life and death of Jesus.  And the New Testament itself makes those connections.  Read Hebrews chapters 8-10 to find a number of correlations between the sacrificial system and the ministry of Jesus.

Understanding the Crucifixion:

1. The crucifixion of Jesus was not a sudden “plan B” made up by God. This was established even before creation;

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors,  but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.  He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.   1 Peter 1:18-20

1. Jesus knew and agreed to this plan. He did not go in kicking and screaming; He didn’t run like Jonah; He was not somehow tricked or unknowingly manipulated into being crucified. He knew His fate and He accepted it. (Matthew 16:21-24).

2. Jesus and the cross are the fulfillment of the promise of a better covenant to come. (Hebrews 8:7-13, from Jeremiah 31:31-34)

1. The cross (or Jesus’ blood shed on the cross) fulfills the required penalty for sin.

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed ( bought back ) from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 1 Peter 1:18-20

1. ere is a substitution that happens through the cross: Jesus took on the penalty for,because He was without sin, and every believer receives the righteousness of Jesus, because our sins have been paid for through Jesus.           Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!   All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:   that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he Has committed to us the message of reconciliation.     We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.   God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

   1. The blood of Jesus is the source of peace (relationship) between people and God, and between people of differing religious or cultural orientations. (Ephesians 2:13-16)

   1. The sacrifice of Jesus is universal—it potentially applies to all people, and is equally available to all people. (1 John 2:1-2; Romans 10:11-13—no difference between Jew and Gentile)

Online Bible study 4

Applying the Cross

9/30/2020

              We’ve already established that people have a problem: people are fallen and sinful, and imperfect flesh cannot stand in the presence of a perfect and holy God.  Last week, we looked at the meaning and significance of the cross.  It relied heavily on the Old Testament sacrificial system—sacrificing an animal to atone for the sin of a human.  Today, we’re going to look at how a person applies the cross.

The first part of the process is for a person to realize he or she has need of forgiveness.  And this is not just a human endeavor—it’s not just about feeling guilty.  There is a supernatural aspect to this:

John 16:8-11

Jesus mentions three functions of the Holy Spirit.

1. Convict the world of sin (of guilt because of sin) because people do not believe in Jesus. If a person doesn’t believe, then there is no forgiveness and their sins still count against them. The person needs to do something about this.

2. Convict the world of righteousness because I have gone to the father. Besides being seated at the right hand of God, Jesus performs two important functions in heaven: 1. He is the ultimate high priest who entered the holy of holies in heaven and offered the once-for-all sacrifice of His blood for the remission of sin (Hebrews 9:11-12).  2. Jesus intercedes on our behalf  (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:23-25).  Because of His sacrifice and because he intercedes on our behalf, we attain to a righteous status before God.

3. Convict the world of judgement because the prince of this world stands condemned. There is a consequence for sin and disobedience, and the final consequence is judgement and condemnation. Since the “prince of this world” now stands condemned, all those who follow him intentionally or by default will be condemned with him.

When a person develops a sense of these three things, this evokes a response: Acts 2:37-28

Repentance: More than saying “sorry,” or “I did something wrong,” repentance means literally a change of mind or direction.  It may involve a confession of specific sins, but also includes an acknowledgement of a generally sinful nature.  It is a permanent and progressive change that leaves the door open for a realization of other sins in the future.  It is an action that is required of and open to all people for salvation (Acts 17:29-31).

Baptism: And outward sign of an inner conversion.  In the New Testament, a confession of sin and acceptance of Jesus as Savior happened during the act of baptism.  By the second century, due to severe persecution, the confession of sin and acknowledgement of Jesus as Savior were separated by several months to test the sincerity of the convert.  But either way, baptism represents an identification  with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.  (Romans 6:2-4)

Forgiveness of sins: It is through acknowledging one’s need and one’s powerlessness before God and identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus that our sins are removed.  And not just past sins, but all sins: past, present and future sins; intentional sins and unintentional sins; and sins of commission and omission.

Another place to explore is Romans 10:8-11, which clarifies two aspects of conversion:

1. Believe in one’s heart. A person’s conversion must be sincere. He or she may not have a complete understanding of all the details or all the implications, but it must be a sincere action that opens up the possibility of understanding it more fully or growing into it.

2. Confess with one’s mouth. Expressing it openly helps make it very real, and it’s one way of acting on one’s sincere beliefs. One could have sincere beliefs about something, but if that person doesn’t act upon those beliefs or openly those beliefs, others could ask how real those beliefs are.

 Last time, we talked about the basics of the evangelical Christian faith.  We ended with the problem that humanity inherited—not being able to stand in the presence of a holy, perfect and infinite God in and of ourselves.  But God still wants a relationship with us, so He has provided a solution found in Jesus Christ.  Today, I want to start to talk about that solution: Who is Jesus?  And what did He do?

—But first, I want to address the question: Did Jesus exist?  How do we know He existed?  What evidence do we have?  Some people believe that the Christian faith is all made up; that it’s a rouse created to take advantage of people and to manipulate and control people.  How do we answer such an objection?

1. It is universally accepted that some of the gospels and the epistles were written as early as 50-55 AD. That is about 20 years after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. However, they didn’t start there.  It is, again, universally accepted that these were collections of stories, beliefs and early creeds about Jesus that were circulating only a few years after the events occurred.

There are two implications to this:

1. Myths, legends and embellished stories take centuries to develop—not just a few years.

2. These stories and even the written accounts in the gospels where shared in areas where the original events actually occurred (and the stories include enough details to locate where the event happened and approximately when). It is very reasonable to assume that eyewitnesses were still alive and living in these areas. However, in spite of this, there are no recorded instances where anyone refutes the details of the story.

(Note: people claim that oral tradition is like the game “telephone” or “whisper down the lane.”  That a story shared and passed along eventually changes.  However, these games are based on the rule that one person privately shares the story with the next person, and the second person must share what he or she heard without clarification.  However, the gospel stories and Christian beliefs were shared openly and repeatedly.  There would have been feedback loops for correction and verification.  The system would have support correct transmission and not “quirks” and errors.)

1. Jesus is mentioned in other historical works besides the gospels. Roman historians like Pliny and Tacitus record the existence of and some details about Jesus. But most notably Josephus—a first century Jewish historian who may have lived during the lifetime of Jesus—records some details of Jesus’ life as well as John the Baptist.  There are also several allusions to Jesus in the Talmud—the collection of oral comments and applications of the Torah (law) that was developed by rabbis between the 2nd century BC and the second century AD.  These are all contemporary enough to be considered reliable history.

2. The disciples and followers of Jesus were willing to die for the gospel rather than renounce it. If the gospel were made up, or even just an abstract concept, why would anyone be willing to die for it?

The next question to answer is: Who was Jesus.  What are some details of His person?

—Jesus holds a unique place in human history.

Hebrews 1:1-4 Makes six claims about Jesus:

1. Jesus is in the line of the prophets in communicating God’s word and His will to people, but at the same time is the final culmination of God’s communication to people.

2. Jesus is heir of all things.

3. Jesus is the vehicle through which God made the universe.

4. Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of God’s being.

5. Jesus has provided purification for sins.

6. us is superior to angels since He is seated at the right hand of God. (Note: humans are made a little lower that the angels (Psalm 8:4-6).              There is another way in which Jesus is unique: He is the sole mediator between God and people 1 Timothy 2:5.              What made His so unique?          1.     Jesus has a uniquely divine origin and nature.              His conception was a divine act—non-human  (Matthew 1:18-23, esp 18, 20, 23. p. 2  Also Luke 2:35)   John 1:1-3 is part of the prologue that gives important background to his gospel and also sets the tone for the rest of the gospel.  It’s like and overture or an introduction.  And the opening words affirm Jesus’ divine nature.  These verses state that Jesus (the Word) was present/in fellowship with God before creation (the beginning of beginnings), that the Word was God, and that the Word was the active agent in creation.  If you read through Genesis chapter 1, God speaks, and creation comes into being.  These verses bring us into the mystery that Jesus was in fellowship with God and, at the same time, was God—God is His identity.   Also, Philippians 2:6.  Of His divine nature, it says that He existed in the form (very nature of being) of God, and that equality with God was not anything to—claim or hold onto hang onto.  (He was in the form of God but He did not consider this equality with God something to hang onto.)Jesus was divine.  He was God.

   1. At the same time, he was fully human.

   John 1:14 says He became or turned into flesh.  Flesh in the bible signifies human weakness.  So Jesus became fully human

      Philippians 2:7 says emptied Himself—an act of humility.  He took on the form of a slave.  This is the same word as in 2:6 referring to being in he form of God.  He became a human (same word as in John 1:14).  He became as human as He was God.

      Although there was a dramatic change in his existence, He did not stop being God (John 8:58 “I Am.” referring back to burning bush Ex 3:14. ” John 14:7-9.  If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.)

      We also start to see the practical application in His unique quality, because we start to see some aspects of Jesus life that are unique.

   1. Jesus led a completely sinless life. (II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15)

   1. Because Jesus had no sin, He could be the perfect sacrifice for our sin, so that we could be

         righteous before God.      (II Corinthians 5:19-21 Hebrews 9:25-28)

Online Bible study  on faith

09/02/2020

I would like to offer three characteristics that can be used to define Evangelicals that also explain my perspective and my methods:

1. Evangelicals have a high regard for the authority of the Bible (specifically the 66 books of the Protestant Bible) and accept all of it as an essential guide for belief and conduct. The Bible is a record of revelation, which is the only way people can know about God.

2. Evangelicals try to responsibly interpret each passage of the Bible (investigating historical and cultural context, literary context and grammar and syntax) and only then consider how the principles might be applied today.

3. The core of Evangelical belief focuses on the life, crucifixion and literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.

     I try to take the Bible on its own terms, using any and all details to help me understand the text.  I also believe that the Old Testament contains the foundation for the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

What is faith?

First, let me clarify what faith is not.

Faith is not:

  a. a set of Theological points to which one must subscribe. It is not an academic activity. Faith does require an understanding of and a certain degree of acceptance of some points, but these are not the end goal of faith.

   b. Faith is not: a set of dos and don’ts. It’s not a set of rules. Living a life of faith does result in attention to ones own lifestyle and morals, but this is more a by-product.  It’s not the goal.

     Faith will involve these two areas, but they are not the core of faith.

     Faith is: the assurance that you have a consistently/eternally favorable relationship with God based on God’s terms.

     I say eternally because that is the ultimate gift of faith.  So, with faith, a person can face physical death with the confidence that it is a transition into a spiritual plane of existence in the continuing presence of God, which is wonderful beyond imagination.

About death.

     1. Everyone is mortal, which means everyone is eventually going to die. And about all we can say about death with human assurance is that there are two possible outcomes when a person dies: nothing happens or something happens.

     1a. If nothing happens, then nothing matters beyond this world.  Eternity is an abstract idea with no real relevance.

     2. If something happens, again there are two possibilities over which we have no control: It is a complete mystery and we know nothing or we can know something about it and be prepared.

     2a. If it is a complete mystery then we have no way of preparing.  It could be great; it could be horrible beyond imagination; and human imagination can only offer a fraction of possibilities.  But It is the ultimate gamble and the ultimate surprise.

     3. If we can be prepared (which includes both knowledge and opportunity) then the only responsible action is to find out what that involves, because it stands to reason that people will be held accountable.

III.        What is the core of our faith that helps us prepare for death and eternity.?

     1. God is an absolute, infinite, perfect and eternal being in His knowledge, His power, His presence, His judgments, His goodness, His love and His holiness.

     2. God created the material world, and this has several implications:

A. He made it; He owns it. Psalm 24:1-2 The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it—the world, and all who live in it;  for He founded it on the seas and established it on the waters.

B. His ownership is all inclusive—encompassing all of creation. Deuteronomy 10:14 To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

C. Since it is His, He can do what He wants with it. Exodus 19:5-6a Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,  you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

 D. All of Creation points to God Psalm 19:1-4 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.  They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.  Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

E. Through creation is a basic way that all humans will be held accountable. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      3.He placed human beings in a uniquely elevated position.

A. Humans are the only part of creation that bear the “image” and “likeness” of God.

B. They are the only part of His creation to whom He gives dominion over the rest of creation.

C. And we are the only part of creation with which God converses, showing their unique position as well as God’s desire to have a relationship with people and their (our) ability to respond.

     4. from the very beginning people have had the ability to exercise free will.

     5. The first humans exercised free will in a negative way, creating a breach in humanity’s relationship with God for all subsequent generations. All humans are imperfect.

     6. This creates a problem for people that people cannot solve: Nothing imperfect and limited can stand in the presence of absolute perfection and holiness anymore than paper can stand in the presence of fire.  Exodus 33:18-20   Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19 And (God) said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”     7.God, still wanting to have a relationship with people, has continuously reached down and provided a solution to the human problem. The last and ultimate solution is Jesus Christ.