Shannon's SuperScrip

Friday, September 03, 2010

The ‘Modern’ Christian (Essay)

Preface: This was written for my Christians and Culture class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted May 13, 2000.

The ‘Modern’ Christian

The word “Christian” these days in many ways is very stereotypical. So many people rally for us to understand them better; more Women’s rights (or should I say Womyn’s rights?), African American’s rights, Disabled person’s rights all just and in some ways deserving and necessary. I, as a Christian, want to be understood better! The stereotype that generally creates a mental image in one’s mind is so detailed that it makes it almost impossible for anyone to be Christian and needs to be broken. Using age, skin color, ethnicity, physical appearance, hobbies, music preferences, that persons’ life before being a believer, and even down to education for some people, to, in a sense, discriminate against the Body of Christ. There is also tradition, and cultural comforts that impress expectations that “Christians” should and should not do. Sadly, almost all of the above-mentioned items merely turn people away from joining, understanding, and growing in the Body of Christ! This is not to say that all things are acceptable, but I think that this way of thinking usually hurts rather than helps evangelism and all its’ possible positive results.

First, what does the term Christian or Christianity mean and encompass? The word Christian does not refer to an object, rather it is “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; an adherent of Christianity.” This definition alone should destroy half the battle in society, as you can only refer to a person as Christian not a movie, or a book, or a song. Take into account a tattoo. Is a tattoo wrong? Is it more “Christian” if it is of a cross? A tattoo is a choice you make, irrelevant of what it is, the tattoo is not Christian…the question should be whether the person bearing it is. Then again, you cannot fairly say that someone is any less Christian than the next because of a tattoo. This is where tradition and society come into play and create stereotypes and make determinations as to what is and is not accepted as being Christian. Remember, however, the only thing that is Christian is a Christ believing person.

So, with that in mind, why is it so hard for some people to believe? There are too many preconceived ideas and non-biblically based requirements from a lot of churches when it comes to salvation and beliefs. This also applies to those who are already believers; just on a path of faith grounded in tradition and cultural bias rather than biblically supported ideas. Our focus, generally, is to the non-believer and “as the non-Christian contemplates the vast puzzle of Christianity, he visualizes a lot more pieces in it than Christ on the Cross.” Some of these ideas, as Joseph C. Aldrich states, are profound yet essential in eliminating for the breaking down boundaries, created by the world, in order to more effectively reach the surrounding community. One being, “to become a Christian, I must give up everything I enjoy.” This could be true depending on what you enjoy; but the Bible says, most strongly in Ephesians 4:22-24, “That ye put off concerning that former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on a new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” So, with a newfound belief system of Christianity comes a new man, created in the image and likeness of God; and a new definition of what ‘fun’ is to some extent of the word. As a new believer, studying the Bible and learning to grow in, with, and by it is necessary. With that, “proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Eph 5:10-11) It must be understood that sacrifices are made with all changes in life, but that life does not get worse once you are a Christian. Another idea presented is that “to become a Christian, I must go to church and get involved in lots of meetings.” This idea is still perpetuated and taken in a negative manner. The bible says in Eph 2:8-9 that “for by grace you are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” So faith is the key here. How do we get faith? Romans 10:8,17 says, “…The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach…So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” By being able to clarify these ideas to a non-believer one should be able to reach a lot of people.

Having these ideas understood by the community and those currently in the church is a key to having a more ‘community correct’ church. Breaking down preconceived ideas about Christians, their beliefs, and what is necessary to be a believer is the hardest thing to do. Another issue in getting out to the community is the physical aspect. Literally, the world is very fast paced, busy, and, for the most part, lacking the morals and values that would normally drive people towards a more positive environment such as church. So, a church must know what avenue to use to effectively reach the community in order to discuss the aforementioned preconceptions. Some may have more frequent services, or evening services. Others might invite the local high school choir to perform one Sunday, drawing in families of the performers, sending out mailers about the church, or physically walking through town with the church’s information. There are also group meetings aimed towards certain people, such as Youth groups, Men and Woman’s bible study, and many more. Ways of attracting the community are endless with one of the most vital being word of mouth. On that note, it is important to know that a church cannot solely focus on bringing people into church, but also keeping them there, and happily, and a biblically based faith, rather than a traditional or culturally biased church and belief system. “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh…Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exaltheth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (II Cor. 10:3,5)

So many things can affect how much diversity a church has in its local body. Personally I agree with, as the old saying goes, “Quality over quantity.” I would rather be part of a numerically smaller yet biblically based and spiritually stronger church any day. The overwhelming fulfillment by the Spirit will allow one “to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints that is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Jesus Christ throughout all ages, world without end.” (Eph 3:16-21) So, with that in mind, go as it says in Ephesians 4:17,29 and “testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, …Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” The Lord does not discriminate, does not take into consideration the cultural differences, or location. So, why as a believer would we? Or why would we allow for people to use such traditions and culture comforts to negatively affect out walk in faith and spreading the word? Let’s not allow it; let’s make a new cultural comfort out of Christianity. It is cool to be Christian!

4 - Refer to footnote 3, Emphasis his.

5 - Refer to footnote 3, Emphasis his.

6 - Refer to footnote 3, Emphasis his.

7 - Refer to footnote 3, Emphasis his.

__________________________________________

The Fall of Man (Essay)

Preface: This was written for my Theology Essentials I class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted March 19, 2001.

The Fall of Man

The fall of man is the descent from innocence to guilt after Eve, then Adam ate of the fruit in Genesis 3: 6, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

There are different views concerning the validity of the fall that can be classified into three categories. First being that it is a legend and none of the facts are true. Second are those that believe it as truth, without accepting its historical worth. Thirdly, and more rationally, are those that take it to be a factual and historical truth. Being that the latter is what I agree with, I will use this to discuss the consequences of the fall. There are temporal and spiritual consequences in addition to two specific penalties resulting from the fall, and the reason that we needed Jesus to die on the cross.

There are two ramifications in addition to specific penalties to man . One being that all sin affects others. Eve’s sin to Adam and Adam’s sin to the entire race, even to us now, as without a doubt we are all born into sin as a result of the original sin. No one can sin privately, without having an effect on any single person as all that we do, or fail to do, will have some bearing with another person’s heart. The second penalty is that once committed, sin can never be undone. Forgiveness can occur, along with healing and fellowship to restore a person to who they were before, but the sin will always have happened. For example, the kingdom being taken away form Saul and his descendants in 1 Samuel 13:13-14, “Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: …But now thy kingdom shall not continue.” Also, Esau in Hebrews 12:16, “ Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance.”

There are more specific penalties incurred due to the fall in the temporal sense, or relating to time in the sense of being the opposite of eternity; plainly meaning our lack of an eternal and easy life. It starts when man is driven from paradise in Genesis 3:23, “Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” There were also penalties that were gender specific. Direct punishment for the man, was “…because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Punishment for the woman, “… he said, I [he] will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen 3:16-19) The worst of all, though, being death, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”(1 Cor 15:21-22) and “… we have been planted together in the likeness of his death.” (Romans 6:5) None of these are pleasures in life, but would you rather have a physical penalty, or a spiritual one?

There are numerous spiritual consequences as a result of the original sin. Separation from God and “having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ;” (Eph 4:18-20) Being born in sin, or receiving the inherited sin, as “… in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Psa 51:5)

and thoughts of the heart that are evil, “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” (Matt 15:19). We are in bondage to sin as Romans 6:17 says, “… that ye were the servants of sin,” and to Satan, “…that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (Heb 2:14b-15) Also, “being dead in your [our] sins” (Col 2:13), having “blindness of [in] their [our] heart” (Eph 4:18b) and depraved of all purity, as “…unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” (Titus 1:15). Lastly, we must know that the biggest penalty was the issue of our salvation being lost, but not to worry “for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

So, with all this punishment and loss as a result of the fall, where does that leave us, The Body of Christ? Simply, there was a promise of redemption. Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” This is a ‘protevangelium’, or the first announcement of gospel in Scripture. Christ would render Satan powerless, enabling man to be forever restored to fellowship with God, making possible man’s ultimate rule. (Heb 2:14, Col 2:4-15) Although, Adam and Eve sinned, God moved to resolve man’s

dilemma by pointing to a future Savior who would eliminate death, restore man to fellowship with God, and consummate history with Messiah’s reign on earth to restore all that Adam has lost. In addition, a few things should be noted during this time about God himself. God revealed himself as omnipotent and sovereign in the creation on the universe and the world. God is holy, demanding obedience for fellowship with himself, yet also a God of grace, with an example of through the promise of a Savior. Man is a responsible creature and a constituted sinner through the inherited sin, the sin of Adam.

What more would be necessary from a God, graciousness and one who will deliver us who are “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” (Heb 4:15b-16)

Knowing and believing that the “Fall of Man” was an actual occurrence that cost us our salvation, is something that one must understand before, I believe, you can minutely grasp the enormity of what Jesus did for all of us on the cross. We were all lost and dead to the world, literally. Then, came Jesus to save the world that wanted to be saved. Why would you not want to tell the rest of the people about the only one that can give everlasting life by calling on his name? “That whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered” (Joel 2:32) and “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8) Have you accepted your undeserved gift yet?

__________________________________________

God’s Attributes: Actual or Condescending? (Essay)

Preface: This was written for my Advanced Theology class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted October 3, 2001.

God’s Attributes: Actual or Condescending?

There are certain things in the Bible that trigger huge debates, such as the topic of the literal (as opposed to figurative) application of humanlike attributes to God, in the cases as they are actually stated in the Bible. Many believe that repentance by God, in addition to many other similar emotions, is ‘our’ (fallible, small-minded humans) attributing to God human feelings and actions to the Deity. This ‘application’ is also known by the more commonly used term, anthropomorphisms. This topic has puzzled me, depending on whom I am discussing it with. Some think that God is ‘talking down’ to us in order for us to understand his point. I have heard that the word was mistranslated and, “We do not really know what He was trying to say.” Others assert that, “Yes, in fact God did experience that feeling.” I personally can accept the fact that these attributes (material and immaterial) applied to God were written the way He wanted them to be. There was nothing lost in translation and we can take them as literal. This however, is not an exhaustive explanation for me, as there are still verses to discuss with respect to different attributes in order to come to a complete conclusion.

Can God repent? Genesis 6:6-7 says, “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” This seems to clearly mean that He can repent, and this is only one verse of many that are considered anthropomorphisms. So where is the problem? First off, the word ‘repent’ means “to feel regret…change one’s mind” So, the question becomes: Can God change His mind? Since, God is moving in time with us now and does not know what will happen tomorrow, then He can. Change His mind. If he does and did not predestine me to do anything as an individual, then He logically could not have predestined His own thoughts and feelings, right? Therefore, it is only logical to think that God in his infinite power can literally do whatever He wants, whether or not He would choose to, including changing His mind. However, Scofield says, “When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to the O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of man.”” Scofield is in a roundabout way saying that God in fact does not change His mind; we just think He does because He seems to. This logic is illogic to me to be honest. The thoughts behind most who sway this way started with the foundation that Plato created. Plato once said, “The perfect does not change. God is perfect. God does not change.” On the other hand, this sounds completely logical also, does it not? God is in fact perfect, which I believe we would all agree on. However, God is not imperfect for changing His mind. That, to me, makes Him an even more awesome and more powerful God since He is actually dealing with us on an interactive and immediate level. Wouldn’t it be much easier to predestinate everything and then sit back and watch it all happen? We, as humans, can barely handle our own finite lives with the amount of people we deal with. Imagine having to deal with all the people from all time and at all times. This is a definite demonstration of what my God can do. As humans, we cannot fathom that idea, so some choose to say it isn’t so by following the seemingly logical thoughts of Plato, which in the long run I feel minimizes God’s overall abilities with our (Him and us) interactions.

Depending on what you feel is the more rational way to view God and his interactions with man that will determine how you view the necessity and purpose of any verses containing anthropomorphisms. I believe that the verses are not used in a condescending manner as E.W. Bullinger says, nor an exaggeration of the truth to make a point to the readers as I have heard others say. The Holy Spirit will work in us to make the point; we do not need for God to exaggerate one word in a verse. In the cases of the use of the parables, that is an obviously more clear purpose of getting a point across to the readers, but what would the use of the word “repent” in a verse do? I do not see any other purpose but to take those instances literally and to try to understand the complexity that our God works in to the point that He can repent because he is able to when we, as free will agents, have not done what we are supposed to have done. With that in mind look to Exodus 32:14, “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” This is when Moses changed God’s mind to not “wax hot against them [Israel].” (Ex. 32:10) In this instance, God did literally change His mind (repent), as he did not put His wrath upon the people. Another example of God’s ability to repent is in 1Samuel 15:11 and 35, “It repenteth me [God] that I have set Saul to be king…” and “…the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.” An interesting verse is 1Samuel 15:29, ”And also the Strength of Israel [God] will not lie nor repent for he is not a man, that he should repent.” Here, most Calvinists have argued that this plainly states that God cannot repent, so the other verses must be exaggerations or ones of condescension. I urge you, however, to re-read the passage. It does say that God ‘should’ not repent; it does not say that he cannot, will not or does not. I feel this verse is saying that God should not have to repent, the same way that I should not have to tell my children more than once to clean their room, because they know what they need to and should be doing it. This does not mean that I will not tell them more than once, and that God will not repent.

Our understanding of God can be hindered by the use of these anthropomorphisms, if our foundation for understanding is not on stable ground to begin with. If one does not understand that God has not predestined the world and its events before time, then the idea of God is as preposterous to them as it would be to me to say the God could not change His mind. The topic of anthropomorphisms is so translucently clear if the foundation is the right one. God is not seeing yesterday and tomorrow right now as he watches me type. He only can see what I have done once I do it and my heart. He does not know if I will ever turn in this writing to fulfill my assignment. He does however; conclude based on my past actions and my oh-so-obvious human predictability as to whether or not I will. With that in mind, it is not the anthropomorphism that will hinder my understanding of God, but rather my understanding of God that may hinder the purpose or meaning of the anthropomorphism.

Many times I have come to notice that people read the Bible and put culture or presuppositions into it. We need to pull from the text and apply it to our lives, not add into it to make it fit our lifestyle. People often do this with God. They want to put our limited understanding onto what He can do. It should be the opposite. God can do all things, and we cannot. So, for God to be able to rejoice (Isa. 62:5), have sorrow and grief (Judges. 10:16), to love (Prov. 3:12), to repent (2Sam. 24:16), have anger and vengeance (Nah. 1:2), be comforted (Ezek. 5:13), have jealousy (Ex. 20:5) and many more immaterial feelings are very seemingly possible. We have them, so why can’t God? Has He put limits on Himself? What about the idea that we are made in His image? What if we have our feelings because we got them from His image, just like everything else? We must sway away from putting our limitations onto God. He has no limitations of this sort.

With those that say an anthropomorphism is just a word that was mistranslated and, “We do not really know what He was trying to say” take away from the whole point of inspiration in the Bible, which is a huge and vital part of it. There are many random thoughts on this topic, but I do not believe (nor understand) such random theology. I believe only in grounded, logical and biblically correct concepts. For that reason, the anthropomorphism is not a ‘problem’ for me as it would be to others. On the contrary, it is the epitome of the awesomeness of what my God can do. If I were to discount the verses in question, what would that do to the quality and validity of the rest of the Bible?

The Practical Application to Christians (Essay)

Preface: This was written for my Titus: Digging Deeper class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted October 17, 2001.

The Practical Application to Christians

I have a book that I usually reference when attempting to argue a point, which is called the “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.” To my surprise, it actually covers seemingly difficult things, an “FAQ” of sorts, throughout 52 books of the Bible. Titus is not one of them that is discussed! Not only did this make my study harder to promote, it made me think in a simpler manner. Titus is not as ‘difficult’ as I am trying to make it.

I feel a strong thread throughout the whole book of Titus is the, or our, actions as Christians. (Quote Titus Commentary book: pg. 69) Paul makes it even easier for Titus, and now us as readers, with what do to if we have a certain role in the church, also. As soon as Paul finishes with his “credentials”, he immediately focuses on Elders. Why? I believe elders are the “human foundation” for the church when they have their roots in Christ. Paul wants to make sure Titus understands that the elders, older women and men (aka- the people who are looked up upon as wiser) show themselves good before the younger more impressionable ones in the hopes to have them follow their lead. No matter what our current role now, we will or have been considered a ‘wise one’ to someone. The mention of the slaves also seems to stir up conversation, which I will offer a light on this towards the end.

First, Paul breaks it down into groups of people and also addresses people as a whole. I found the condensing of a lot of information into a few verses interesting also.

• In only 3 verses, 15 items are mentioned for Elders

a) 1&2 Timothy and Titus book-pg 280

• In only 2 verses, 5 items are mentioned for Older Men

• In only 2 verses, 5 items are mentioned for Older Women

• In only 2 verses, 7 items are mentioned for Younger Women

• In only 2 verses, 4 items are mentioned for Slaves

a) 1&2 Timothy and Titus book-pg 281

• In only 3 verses, 12 items are mentioned for All People

The way we live and what is projected from us is a huge factor in our lives’ as Christians. With that in mind… (Quote: Titus Commentary book: pg. 71).

Now, most of us live by our faith. The faith that we live in is also what we walk in. (Quote 1&2 Timothy and Titus book: pg.278, 282, 284, Pg 286)

Closing: pg. 287-288

__________________________________________

Titus Outline - The book of “Do’s and Don’ts”

Preface: This was written for my Titus: Digging Deeper class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted September 23, 2001.

Titus Outline - The book of “Do’s and Don’ts”

(This outline is not exhaustive)

I. Rules for Titus

a. Do’s

i. Complete work and appoint elders as instructed (1:5)

ii. Rebuke [those who rebel against right teaching] (1:13)

iii. Promote living that reflects right teaching (2:1)

iv. Teach older men (2:2)

v. Teach older women (2:3)

vi. Encourage young men (2:6)

vii. Be an example to the young men (2:7)

viii. Reflect integrity and seriousness of his teaching (2:7)

ix. Correct teaching so as to not be able to be criticized (2:8)

x. Remind the people to submit to the government (3:1)

xi. Give a 1st and 2nd warning to those causing divisions (3:10)

xii. Meet Paul at Nicopolus as soon as possible (3:12)

xiii. Help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos (3:13)

b. Don’ts

i. Let anyone ignore or disregard what he [Titus] says (2:15)

ii. Get involved in foolish discussions (3:9)

iii. Get into fights about obedience to Jewish laws (3:9)

iv. Have anything to do with persons after the 2nd warning if they are causing divisions (3:10)

II. Rules for Others

a. Elders

i. Do’s

1. Well thought of (1:6)

2. Faithful to his wife (1:6)

3. Have well mannered, obedient children (1:6)

4. Live a blameless life (1:7)

5. Enjoy having guests in his house (1:8)
6. Love all that is good (1:8)

7. Live wisely (1:8)

8. Be fair (1:8)

9. Live a devout and disciplined life (1:8)

10. Have a strong and steadfast belief in the message he was taught (1:9)

ii. Don’ts

1. Not arrogant (1:7)

2. Not quick-tempered (1:7)

3. Not a heavy drinker (1:7)

4. Not violent (1:7)

5. Not greedy for money (1:7)

b. Older Men

i. Do’s

1. Exercise self-control (2:2)

2. Be worthy of respect (2:2)

3. Live wisely (2:2)

4. Have a strong faith (2:3)

5. Be filled with love and patience (2:3)

ii. Don’ts

1. None mentioned

c. Older Women

i. Do’s
1. Live in an appropriate way (2:3)

2. Teach others what is good (2:3)

3. Train younger women (2:4)

ii. Don’ts

1. Go and speak evil of others (2:3)

2. Be heavy drinkers (2:3)

d. Young Men

i. Do’s

1. Live wisely in all they do (2:6)

ii. Don’ts

1. None mentioned

e. Younger Women

i. Do’s

1. Love their husbands and children (2:4)

2. Live wisely (2:5)

3. Be pure (2:5)

4. Take care of their homes (2:5)

5. Do good (2:5)

6. Be submissive to their husband (2:5)

ii. Don’ts

1. Bring shame on the Word of God (2:5)

f. Slaves

i. Do’s

1. Obey their masters (2:9)

2. Show themselves trustworthy and good (2:10)

ii. Don’ts

1. Talk back (2:9)

2. Steal (2:10)

III. Rules for all People

a. Do’s

i. Turn from godless living (2:12)

ii. Turn from sinful pleasures (2:12)

iii. Live with self-control (2:12)

iv. Live with right conduct (2:12)

v. Live with devotion to God (2:12)

vi. Submit to the government and it’s officers (3:1)

vii. Be obedient (3:1)

viii. Always be ready to do what is good (3:1)

ix. Be gentle (3:2)

x. Show true humility (3:2)

b. Don’ts

i. Speak of evil (3:1)

ii. Quarrel (3:1)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question:

Why did Paul write this letter?

Answer:

I believe that a main purpose of this epistle was to ‘check in’ with Titus. Paul says Titus is his “true child in the faith” (1:4) that he “left on the island of Crete.” (1:5) Wouldn’t a father want to check in with his son that he left all alone? Also, it is to follow up with him on what he needs to do (what he was sent there for) and to remind him that he has to instill the “Do’s and Don’ts” in the people. Thirdly, it serves as both a motivation and a warning (i.e., 1:13 and 3:9). Lastly, it is simply informational as Paul tells Titus where to meet him next and why at that location and who to help. (3:12-14) In addition it is the constant reminding of what God has done for us and what we were before we accepted Christ. To me, all of these factors give the impression of a parent or friend checking up on someone they love who is away and in charge of a large task.

__________________________________________

Thirteenth Apostle? (Essay)

Preface: This was written for my Theology Essentials class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted February 1, 2000.

Thirteenth Apostle?

All of us would agree that Paul was an apostle. However, we would not all agree on whether he was the 13th apostle or one who stood on his own to deliver a separate message. When reading the Bible, we must decide how we, as members of the Body of Christ, choose to interpret it. There are two hermeneutical (Greek for interpretation) options. The first one is the more literal of the two interpretations, eliminating any symbolic meanings, and is actually the more commonly chosen view. The second one has a much more symbolic, or nonliteral, definition to it. This latter is also the view that creates the majority doubt in the Word, I believe, as all objectivity is removed adding a further discussion as to who decides what the “correct” symbolic meaning really is. This directly affects my aforementioned question: “Is Paul the 13th apostle or an apostle with a separate message?” The first view, a literal hermeneutic, also results in a person who recognizes and agrees with the dispensationalist view of the Bible. By holding to dispensationalism, you will also find it very clear that Paul was definitely an apostle for a separate message, and program. The separate message refers to our current dispensation; the program is either the Prophetic or the Mystery, the latter being our current program.

“Our God is a God of division.” (Paul M. Sadler, ‘Exploring the Unsearchable riches of Christ’) He divided the waters (Gen1: 7), the oceans and land (Gen1: 9,10), the day from the night (Gen1: 14), and the Heavens and the Earth (Gen1: 1). The Heavens and the Earth also help us relate to the two programs he created. The Earthly program is also known as the Prophecy and the Heavenly program is defined as the Mystery. A few of the differences are that the Prophecy requires the fulfillment of the Old Testament through the law, faith and works, and also has time frame used with regards to it. The Mystery does not require the fulfillment of the Old Testament, as it is not prophesied (Eph3: 5), the law or works (Gal3: 11-12), and it is also free from any mention of time, as it is the Mystery and unknown. The Prophecy is very clearly the program for the 12 Apostles; which are also clearly named one by one in Matthew 10:2-5; in which Paul is not named. The Prophetic program gives a different message and also is directed to Israel solely, different than the people in the Mystery Program, the Gentiles. Therefore, if Paul is not included in Matthew 10:2-5 as one of the twelve to speaks to the Jews, then who is he for? His purpose was to provide the Word to the Gentiles during the Mystery, our current program. Thus, so far proving that he was indeed not a 13th apostle, but rather an Apostle to the Gentiles for the Mystery Program, juxtapositional with the Dispensation of Grace.

A dispensation simply defined is: “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” There are many dispensations in the Bible; the actual amount is also a disputed point. However, it is seemingly agreed that there is only one dispensation that coincides directly and exclusively with the Mystery Program, which is the Dispensation of Grace, our current dispensation. Each dispensation, also known as administration or oikonomia (Greek), changes whenever there is change in the way God deals with us. For example, the first administration was “The dispensation of Innocence” which ended when God had to change the way he was dealing with Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit; thus, changing to the next dispensation. Remember though that all of the dispensations, excluding the current one, fall under the Prophetic Program. Meaning that each oikonomia had a set of rules and/or works to live with, other than the Ten Commandments, which will always apply, under that program; but as we are under the Mystery, or Musterion (Greek), program the only rule we have is to believe that Jesus died for all of us and rose again. So how do we know that Paul is the Apostle to this program? As said in Eph 3:2 by Paul, “ If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,” and it is obvious that Paul has the message that we as the members of the Body of Christ need to listen to.

There are many differences when comparing the 12 Apostles and Paul. Looking at the Twelve Apostles first we should note that there was a necessary participation in the fulfillment of the Prophecy (Acts2: 14-20), that the justification was only through faith and works (James2: 14,20), and the hope was that of an Earthly one (Mat5: 5). Also, baptism was through water (Acts22: 16) and spirit (1Peter3: 21), salvation was conditional (2Peter1: 4-10), the eschatology (Greek word is eschatos for last or farthest; in relation to the final events of the world within the various Christian Doctrines) was the second coming, and since their hope was earthly, their final place would be on Earth-a ‘new’ Earth (Isa65: 17, Rev22: 2) for those of Israel. Israel was the only focus of the 12 Apostles (Mat10: 5-6), as it was given the name “the Bride of Christ.”(Rev22: 17). In contrast to that, Paul delivers the message of Grace, under the Mystery (Eph3: 3), which does not require participation or fulfillment of any prophecy. Justification is solely through faith, irrelevant of works (Eph2: 8-9); there is a heavenly hope (Phil3: 20), baptism is acquired through spirit only (Eph4: 5), and salvation is unconditional (Eph1: 13). The eschatological view is also that of the Rapture, which is heavenly (1Thes4: 16-17) for all. The focus for Paul and his message of God’s grace is for the Jews and the Gentiles and all those in between equally (Gal3: 28) as we are the Church (Eph1: 22-23) which is “The Body of Christ” (1Cor12: 27) rather than the “Bride of Christ.” Another point to mention is that there seems to be a numerical similarity between the Twelve Apostles and Paul. The Prophesy mentions 12 in many areas, the number of the governmental authority stamped on the house of Israel, 12 sons of Israel, 12 tribes, 12 portions of land, 12 princes, 12 thrones, 12 foundations in the New Jerusalem (Rev21: 14) and 12 Apostles. The Mystery is consistent with the number one. One Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one Father, and one Apostle (Eph4: 4-6).

Paul’s message began when the Prophetic program was put on hold when Jesus died for our sins and allowed for us to be saved purely by faith through the grace of God. The abolition of the law occurred the day that Christ died (Col2: 14), with exception to the 10 Commandments. No longer being under the law, not needing works to be saved there is only faith left, which is included Paul’s message of grace. Grace is not easily understood nor easily definable, as we will never fully comprehend it until we are Heaven. What God says through Paul in the Bible about grace should be enough of a motivation to live with faith in him. I believe that once you believe that we are indeed under the Dispensation of Grace, whether or not the concept is fully grasped, it should be obvious that it will all come down to your relationship with God. We as humans will never repay what God has done for us as stated in Heb2: 9 “that he (Jesus) by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” All Paul wants to do is help us understand that this immeasurable gift from God is not hindered by sins, nor attained by works, and is paired with truth. Do we as members of the Body of Christ need all of the writings Paul has given us to see how easy it is to life and enjoy this gift? Maybe so, but don’t let this gift of grace go dusty on your shelves at home. Use it, feed it, share it and it will grow and become a cyclical part of your life, as the more you use it and feed it-the more you can share it and allow it to grow. Colossians 1:3-6 says “We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus…whereof you heard of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; …since the day you heard of it, and knew of the grace of God in truth.” We know of the grace which God through which Paul tells us about in his messages and it is all we needed to compliment our faith in the Trinity. Are we being active or passive Christians? I challenge you to follow Christ’s message to Paul. Or as a final thought, of William A. Ward from James1: 22; “It is not enough to own a Bible; we must read it. It is not enough to read it; we must let it speak to us. It is not enough to let it speak to us; we must believe it. It is not enough to believe it; we must live it.”

__________________________________________

When did Jesus 'Come in Glory'? (Essay)

Preface: This was written for my Discussing the Undiscussable class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted June 11, 2001.

When did Jesus 'Come in Glory'?

“For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and them he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matt. 16:27-28) This is when God will come in His glory, but when does this occur? Or has it not yet happened? In “Last Days Madness” by Cary DeMar there are a few viewpoints presented. In the following, I will present the authors view and my own to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the author is misinterpreting the Scripture.

The author, DeMar, believes that Matthew 16:27-28 is referring to and fulfilled through the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He states, “If we maintain that the event Jesus is describing is still in our future, then how should we interpret His statement that some of those with whom He was speaking would still be alive when He did in fact ‘come in the glory of His Father with His angels?’…we must look for an event that was far enough in the future where most of Jesus’ hearers would be dead, but not so far in the future where they all would dead. Is there such an event? Yes! The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Romans” He correctly links it to a parallel passage in Luke 9:27, but still with the wrong application of the verse. He supports most of his view; it appears to me, through the commentaries of others such as S. Greijdanus:

“Then this coming of God’s dominion cannot refer to out Lord’s resurrection, not to the gift of the Holy Spirit which were to be realized within the year…Nor can it refer to our Lord’s coming in judgment which is even now in abeyance…Nor can the powerful spread of the gospel be meant, for this already came about within comparatively few years…We shall have to think of the destruction of Jerusalem…In it God revealed his kingly dominion in his judgment, a precursor of his judgment on the last day.”

The best argument (which is still not good) the author can seem to present with a verse reference is to that of the book of Revelation. DeMar states, “A similar pattern is found in Revelation 2:5: ‘Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you m and will remove your lamp stand out of its place—unless you repent.’ Similar ‘coming’ language is used in Revelation 2:16, neither of which refer to Christ’s second coming.”

In my opinion, I believe that this is clearly talking about the second coming. Which, at that time would have been 40 days and 7 years away from the time frame the verses were said by Jesus. So, to anyone who is not a dispensationalist, this verse would make no sense, but to those who can rightly divide the Word of God we can see how this is one of the prophecies not yet fulfilled in the Bible due to the insertion of the Dispensation of Grace. If you break up each verse into phrases it becomes easier to decipher and link to the second coming as a whole. Starting with Matthew 16:27, the first part, “For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels” coincides also with Matthew 25:31, which is talking about the second coming. Secondly, “and them he shall reward every man” can be supported by mark 9:41. The balance of the chapter of Matthew 25 (verses 31-46) describes how the people of Israel will be judged “according to his works”. Rewards are a ‘given’ to happen during the second coming along with judgment. Now, to verse 28, “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death.” Jesus is talking to the 12 Apostles here, and one of them will not be there for much longer, Judas. Not to forget that there was 40 days until Calvary and then 7 years for the fulfillment of the 490-year prophecy of Daniel, without the interruption of the Grace dispensation. This timeframe and statement was not illogical at that time (nor is it now), and Jesus did know what he was talking about. The last part of the verse is “…till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” The word ‘till’ in the Greek is “an” and is a conditional form, meaning that “it was conditional on the repentance of the nation…their continuing to live was certain, but the fulfillment of the condition was uncertain.” Being that it was a conditional term supports even more the idea of a dispensation cutting in before it would or would not happen. To keep with my biblical support of my viewpoint, 1 Corinthians 15:24 shows “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father…”

In conclusion, this author says, “First we want to be accurate in our understanding of Scripture since it is God’s only Word to us, the expression of His will, To misinterpret Scripture is to misinterpret God’s will. Second, the integrity of the Bible is at stake.” How right one can be, but too bad he is the one putting the Bible at stake. DeMar fails to support how most of these two verses could be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, with the exception of 2 words: some and coming. There are over 50 words between the two that are not mentioned. I wonder why? With the fact that I found a typographical error in the book, it clarifies how erred the actual content of the words are also. There is no ‘reward’, no ‘judgment’ and no ‘Son of Man coming in his kingdom’ during the destruction of Jerusalem. There is simply no biblical support for this view. Not only does that author twist the words of the verse to read from “some” to “most”, which is a topic in and of itself, but the lack of rightly dividing the Word is a sad thing for someone who could be great if he were in the right path of truth.

2 - See Note 1, pg. 43, 44-45

3 - See note 1, pg. 45

4 - See note 1, pg. 49

6 - See note 1, pg. 46

__________________________________________

God’s Approval Of Polygamy with King David? (Essay)

Preface: This was written for my Advanced Bible - Old Testament class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted June 1, 2001.

God’s Approval Of Polygamy with King David?

The seventh commandment says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exod. 20:14) What about King David, who lived four centuries later? It appears as though God is condoning polygamy when “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah…” (2Sam. 12:7b-8a) However, God later appears to contradict his own words by saying, “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife…and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) Is this just another example of contradiction in the Bible, as some would say? Or, is this the perfect point to “study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”? (2Tim. 2:15)

One viewpoint on this topic in general is that of Norman Geisler who says:

“There is ample evidence, even within the Old Testament, that polygamy was not God’s ideal for man. That monogamy was His ideal for man is obvious from several perspectives.

1) God made only one wide for Adam, thus settling the ideal precedent for the race.

2) Polygamy is first mentioned as part of the wicked Cainite civilization. (Gen. 4:23)

3) God clearly forbade the kings of Israel (leaders were the persons who became polygamists) saying, “And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away again.” (Deut. 17:17)

4) The saints who became polygamists paid for their sins. 1 Kings 11:1,3 says, Now King Solomon loved many foreign women…and his wives turned away his heart…”

5) Polygamy is usually situated on the context of sin in the O.T. Abraham’s marriage of Hagar was clearly a canal act of unbelief. (Gen. 16:1f) David was not at a spiritual peak when he added Abigail and Ahinoam as his wives (1Sam. 25:42-43), nor was Jacob when he married Leah and Rachel. (Gen. 29:23,28)

6) The polygamous relation was less than ideal. It was one of jealousy among the wives. Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. (Gen. 29:31) Elkanah’s one wife was considered a “rival“ or adversary by the other, who “used to provoke her sorely, to irritate her…” (1Sam. 1:6)

7) When polygamy is referred to, the conditional, not the imperative, is used. “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.” (Exod. 21:10) Polygamy is not the moral ideal, but the polygamist must be moral.

Though this touches on people other than King David, the concepts can still apply on God’s approval of polygamy with David specifically.

Another viewpoint, supporting the idea that polygamy is “Christian” for lack of a better term, and in fact supported by the Word of God.

“Frequently…very first humans found in the Scriptures, Adam and Eve, who are often cited and referenced as a supposed "proof" that polygamy is somehow "not as God intended". That is, Adam's and Eve's APPARENT (but not definitively proven) "monogamous" marriage is cited as the presupposition that that somehow "proves" that "God's Original Plan for Marriage" was only one wife per husband. Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve. This tirelessly-cited presupposition declares, QUOTE, "Because it was only Adam and Eve, it was God's Original Plan that a man only marry one wife." UNQUOTE.

But for Spirit-walking, Scripture believing, intellectually honest Christians, is that a legitimate and sound presupposition for us to conclude? Is it objective reasoning out of the Scriptures for us Christians to pre-suppose, just because the Scriptures only reference Eve as Adam's wife (i.e., in referring to no other wives by name or specific reference), that that somehow means that God therefore opposes any man having more than one wife?

It is that very presupposition on which many Christians rely (and of course outright anti-polygynists rely upon this too) in their resistance (if not outright opposition) to the truth that Christian Polygamy and that the recent modern-day advance thereof among so many Scripture-believing Christians is of God. And they rely upon this presupposition without even considering whether the presupposition has any foundation with which to even begin. …After all, beyond the obvious evidences of all the holy men of God in the Scriptures (e.g., Abraham, Israel, Moses, Gideon, David, etc.) who were openly and visibly polygamous, it is indeed at least reasonable and even important for us to re-consider the presupposition because there ARE reasons that even specifically give cause for questioning the presupposition.

Namely, specifically, that presupposition unwittingly neglects (or fails) to realize some additional very important factors that also applies. These other factors are certainly real and significant enough that they surely warrant our making a deeper investigation into the soundness of that presupposition with regards to whether or not it should or can be legitimately held as a matter of doctrine for us Christians.

For one factor, the entire book of Genesis (and hence, the entire story of Adam and Eve) was ALL written by Moses, a spirit-filled (Num. 11:17) polygamist (Exod. 2:21 &15:1-6, and Num 12:1). Yet, if one follows the presupposition about "God's Original Plan" as it was in the "beginning", then surely Moses, the very mortal author of that story itself, would have known "the Original Plan" too! And with that realized, yet we also see that Moses had two wives.

Another factor is about all the questions pertaining to wondering who were the parents of the wives which Adam's and Eve's sons married, of which we do not have a definitive answer in any regard. Yet, if one follows that presupposition about "God's Original Plan", then that presupposition would therefore likewise be mandating incestuous relationships in one way or another, as well, it would appear.

So, clearly, as these two factors immediately demonstrate, there is at least some reasonableness in now questioning the legitimacy of any of us Christians relying upon that presupposition (about supposedly following "God's Original Plan For Marriage" as being defined by the perceived example of Adam and Eve as at the "beginning") as a matter of doctrine for us Christians to follow even unto today.

That is to say, at least, these two factors do provide us at least some reasonableness to question the validity and soundness of that presupposition about "God's Original Plan for Marriage". And with such reasonableness thus established, we Christians then surely have warrant to investigate and analyze the issue more deeply, to see if we Christians should indeed be following a different presupposition, instead, regarding this matter.

Man is made in the image of God, while the woman is the glory of the man. And so, just as Christ so selflessly and lovingly gave of Himself for the Churches in His love for all of us in the Churches, so likewise are men to so profoundly love their wives. That is the Christian Marriage Model of Ephesians 5:22-25…

"And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [i.e., Christ] was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit THAT WAS NOT FIRST THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL, but [instead it was] that which is natural [i.e., of nature, earth, flesh]; and [then came ] AFTERWARD THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." (1Cor 15:45-47)

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1Cor. 15:49)

And that is God's Plan for us Christians NOW, without any regard for any inaccurately 'perceived' presupposition of God's supposed "original" plan for marriage.“

There is a lot more on from this person, but this excerpt catches the mindset and lack of any real biblical proof as support for the doctrine.

I believe, that while it was wrong in the eyes of God, it was tolerated like many other sins in life, but man has a free will that God will not interfere with. It also makes sense to conclude that polygamy died out as a result of a better understanding of God’s word. There is no reference of polygamy from the time of the return from Babylonian exile forward throughout the Old Testament. Romans 8 sums it up very well for me, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit…” (Vs. 3-5) We are those “which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1:13) yet we too still choose to sin. It is in our flesh, as polygamy was for the reasons of sexual desire, need for a power trip or right to brag, or to go along with the culture irrelevant of our beliefs. The instance of King David is slightly different, therefore leaving me still stumped at the reasoning behind the event, but not the intent.

The very first reference to polygamy in the Bible is in Genesis with Lamech (Gen. 4:23-24), and is portrayed as a boasting by him. There is no mention again of plural marriages until the time on Abraham. It appears that King David was “given” these wives by God along with a lot of other things. In this case, it was not his sin that put him in this situation, but God. Why did God do this? I do not think that we ever will have an answer to that, but the point is to follow the written word, the Bible. God gave it to us, we need to use it, rely on it, take it to be 100% truthful (in light of seemingly contradictory passages) and put our faith in Him and His Word. We should not give into the flesh, or the cultures of the world that we live in to satisfy the wrong needs. Remember, when you stand to be judged, your culture won’t be there to back up your wrong doings. Ephesians 5:23 states, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church…” The implication here is that there is one church, the Body of Christ, which God is the Head of. Just like the husband is the head over the ‘body’ of marriage between a man and woman. How can a man be the head over more bodies, i.e. more women? Verses such as these create the need for each of us to be a Berean and find out what God has to say through his word to you!

1 - All Bible verse references from: The Scofield Study Bible Most current Copyright  1945 by Oxford University Press, Inc. previously published as The Scofield Reference Bible

4 - See note 2, pg. 123

5 - See note 2, pg. 122

__________________________________________

Pages

Friday, September 03, 2010