Home » Posts tagged 'holiness'
Tag Archives: holiness
The Moral Nature of God (Part 4)
God’s Goodness
Imagine a deer running through the woods at the very time a dead tree falls, trapping the deer helplessly alone. The deer starves to death in solitary confusion. An agnostic might ask and say, “If there is an all powerful, good God, why or how would He allow this to happen? This is immoral.”
In and with His sovereignty, God created and sustains heavens and earth. Everything was perfect and then man sinned against God. God allowed Adam and Eve to sin. Sin is wrong, but allowing them to sin is not. God does not sin and He does not tempt anyone to sin James writes (1:13):
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
James says many other things in chapter one of his epistle that indicate the moral nature of God, that with God is only good. On the other hand, sin ruined men and all men sin. Paul writes in Romans 3:12 that there is no man that does good. Goodness does not characterize man, even as Jesus says in Matthew 19:17: “There is none good, but one, that is God.”
The Nature of the Fall of Man
An agnostic, again elevating himself above God, might question the Fall of man through sin. What did he do? He ate of a tree. It was worse than that. He disobeyed God, rebelled against Him, and put his self and even Satan above God.
God, the Lawgiver and Judge, commanded man not to eat of that tree. God would not have man to know evil. Later in Genesis 3:22, the Father speaking to the other two members of the Godhead, said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” The agnostic again attacks the moral nature of God, as if God selfishly did not want man to become like Him. That’s not what God is saying in Genesis 3:22.
Adam and Eve are God’s creation. With His knowledge of good and evil, God has no ability to sin. Adam and Eve did. They became as God, but this does not mean they became identical to God. No. They knew evil internally and experientially. God is holy and separate from sin. He knows evil, but on the outside, not in a personal experience. The only future plan for eternal life must include redemption from sin and that would not occur with and to everyone.
The Morality of the Curse on Earth
The Single Eye of God
God does not see the heavens and the earth through a dark or evil lens, such as men do. The eye of God is single and He allows only light through it (Luke 11:34-36). The eye of man is by nature evil and so also is full of darkness. This incapacity and ruination disallow man from the same moral judgment as God. With God is no variableness nor shadow of turning (James 1:17). God sees everything in an untainted, single eyed, enlightened manner. He sees everything past, present, and future and with complete moral clarity, unfettered by sin.
As right and good punishment for sin, God cursed the earth that He created. It would no longer be the same until a later date when God would reverse all of this through Jesus Christ. This curse includes the animals.
Cursed Ground and Its Consequences
When God cursed the ground in Genesis 3:17-19, animals received and continue receiving the effects of that. Animals experience the consequences of the Fall, the fact that God has cursed the ground. All animals as a result of the Fall will decay. They get diseases, age, and die in many various fashions. The whole animal kingdom changed. In an uncursed state, Isaiah 11:6 reports:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Furthermore, Isaiah 65:25 says:
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
Natural predators no longer predatory, the lion or the wolf not killing lambs any more. This new condition characterizes the earth with the curse lifted.
Creation Groaning
Romans 8:20-22 say that God’s creation groans under the impact of sin. An agnostic might say, “That’s not fair to the animals.” This is a moral judgment from a fallen creature on a holy God, who knows all things with perfect clarity or light, not impeded by darkness. God expresses the conditions for the animals in Jeremiah 12:4:
How long shall the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein? the beasts are consumed, and the birds; because they said, He, shall not see our last end.
John Gill comments: “Wickedness is the cause not only of the withering of the grass and herbs, but of the consumption of birds and beasts.” In this moral realm where God is Lawgiver and Judge, animals along with the rest of God’s creation suffer under the results of the entrance of sin. The purpose of God is pure in His inclusion of effects on everything. His grace still works in a manner that it is not as bad as it could be. This is the mercy of God. However, God is just in His dealings and judging God is not the right moral reaction to Him.
The Morality of God
The morality of God is morality. His assessment is the right assessment. His judgment is just.
Another aspect of the judgment of God is that He knows all possible outcomes. He can even answer the question, “What’s the alternative?” He knows every alternative. The one God chooses in fitting with His nature.
God is pure good with zero variableness. He gives every good and perfect gift. Humans enter and interact with whatever earthly scene with very limited perspective and context. One could ask, “What is the greatest good in every situation?” People don’t know that. God knows what will benefit the most people and He judges evil in an untainted manner related to its past, present, and future. Whatever He allows or causes is the greatest good for the most people.
In a sin-cursed world, no one deserves life according to the morality of God, but even with that outcome of sin, God allows or causes the greatest possible good for the most people. He also knows when no one or even just a few in a particular culture will turn from their wicked ways and He spares those who deserve sparing in this lifetime. God spared Rahab in Jericho, indicating this truth.
Deserved Outcomes
A cycle of life and death resulted from the Fall of sin that impacts all of creation. Everyone and everything suffers because sin is very bad. Sin is deserving of the outcome it receives, even as God governs morality.
A future new heaven and new earth will starkly contrast with this present age of doom and destruction. Why? Sin is gone, so the results of sin are gone.
The same agnostics most often justify immorality in a multitude of ways. They expect God to wink at sin and then continue winking at it. This manifests their immoral nature. They have a different set of expectations than God and for God, skewed by their own depraved nature.
More to Come
The Moral Nature of God (Part 2)
Heaven and Earth Necessitate a Cause
God is holy. God is good. He is righteous. He is love and more. Moral attributes are the essence of God.
We know that the heavens and the earth have a beginning. Since they do, they must have a cause. The cause of the heavens and the earth — space, matter, time, and energy — must arise from an uncaused cause, or else an eternal regression of causes.
Infinite, Powerful, and Personal Creator
To cause the heavens and the earth necessarily requires an infinite and powerful creator. No natural cause could precede as the first cause of the natural world. It must, therefore, exist outside of the natural world.
The natural world also demands a personal creator or else the cause would be just another natural thing. Related to something that begins to exist, causation comprises agency. For something to come into existence at a particular moment, a personal agent chooses to bring it into being. Only a personal cause can make that decision.
Tracing Back the Moral Attributes in Man’s Nature
Mankind is part of what God caused and moral attributes in man’s nature trace back to God in their origination. People accept, recognize, or acknowledge the reality of morals. Men judge between good and evil. A worldwide recognition of moral law points to one that transcends human opinion.
If all that exists is matter, space, and time, like naturalism says, then there is no foundation for objective moral values. The one and only God, Who alone created the heavens and the earth, is a moral being. No standard for morality exists outside of a transcendent God, separate from His creation.
Objective Moral Values
When witnessing a crime such as robbery, the act is not deemed wrong solely based on personal feelings or societal consensus. Robbery is recognized as objectively wrong because it violates a moral standard that exists independently of individual perspectives. Theologian John Frame compares two potential sources for absolute moral authority: impersonal and personal.
According to Frame, if moral authority were to stem from an impersonal source, such as a universal law or fate, it raises questions about obligation. For example, if fate dictates certain outcomes, individuals may feel no inherent obligation to adhere to this impersonal law. In contrast, if moral authority is derived from a personal source — specifically God — then there exists a clear obligation to obey divine commands because God is viewed as a supremely wise and authoritative figure.
Moral Authority from God
Without God, morality would devolve into mere subjective preferences or cultural relativism. This leads to the conclusion that true moral obligations require a grounding in the character and will of a personal God who embodies these absolute standards.
Since moral standards start with God, men should look to God for theirs. This is God’s world. Everything operates according to the confines and scruples of His nature.
Moral authority proceeds from the personal God. This means a clear obligation to obey His words, sayings, and commandments. His will is the basis for which to judge and by which He judges everything.
Genesis 2:9, Aesthetics, and Objective Beauty
When one reads the first few chapters of Genesis, he notices the simple economy of words in revealing foundational truth underlying a biblical worldview. Genesis 2 begins the history of mankind with the toledoth structure in Genesis 2:4.
Toledoth
Toledoth is the Hebrew word translated “generations” thirteen times in Genesis and divides up the early history of mankind from the perspective of God. It follows the record of the people, of mankind, with God recording what occurred. Genesis 1:1-2:3 record the creation of God, a unique period in history. The earth He created begins then bringing forth as an active partner in “making.” 2:4 heads a new section in the narrative with the first toledoth emphasizing what happened with the beautiful and perfect world that God had created. It connects what precedes with what follows, pushing forward the history with another account.
The first toledoth does not use the name of a person — there was no history of men yet. However, all the history that follows proceeded from God’s creation of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a record of creating not begetting. When we get to Genesis 2, earth is an active partner in making. It sprouts plants (2:5) and the dust of it begets man himself, the product of earthy dust.
In Genesis 2:10-14, Moses wrote a description of the surrounding geography of Eden from a present-tense perspective of a pre-flood observer. It gave the reader in that day a sense of the immensity of the original Garden of Eden. Based on the geographic parallels in a post-flood world, the Garden was 3,500 square miles. God had major possibilities available for a faithful, obedient Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2:9
The few words take on maximum importance in communicating what God wants the reader to know and how and where to focus. Genesis 2:9 says the following:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The LORD God made out of the ground to grow every tree. These trees were the means by which the pre-sin world would live. After sin and then the flood, men would survive based on the sweat of his brow, operating according to tilling a soil with thorns and thistles.
Pleasant to the Sight
The first quality of the trees of Eden God says are “pleasant to the sight” and second, “good for food.” It was important to God that the trees and the Garden looked beautiful. In modern cooking shows, chefs speak of food presentation, the process of arranging food to make it look better on the plate. This started with God and is in fitting with his nature and the nature of man.
If scripture says the tree was “pleasant to the sight,” then something must also be “unpleasant to the sight.” For beauty to exist, ugliness also exists. However, right at the beginning of creation, in the nature of God is the making of something beautiful to see.
For man made in the image of God, what was beautiful for him to see was also beautiful for God to see. God created people who would have the same aesthetic standard as Him. This is the beauty of God’s holiness. Beauty conforms to the perfections of God’s attributes, His glory. This is seen in His creation in its symmetry, order, proportion, harmony, and diversity. God Himself is the standard and everything beautiful conforms to who He is.
The Garden of Eden looked good. This was a first priority and within the nature of God. It wouldn’t be trashy, unkept, disorderly, or messy. These qualities do not conform to God. Any reader should assume that he knows what was pleasant to the eyes of Adam and Eve in their sinless conditions.
The Importance of an Aesthetic Value
My major point in this was the importance of an aesthetic value. God emphasizes the beautiful. True believers should and will judge all forms of art as to its beauty and reject what contradicts the nature of God.
Beauty is a second term issue. By that, I mean that God assumes we know what pleasantness is. The syllogism would read like the following:
The Trees of the Garden Were Pleasant to the Eyes
Symmetry, Order, Proportion, Harmony, and Diversity Are Pleasant to the Eyes
Therefore, the Trees of the Garden Had Symmetry, Order, Proportion, Harmony, and Diversity
You could write a similar syllogism with the adverse qualities of ugliness. The qualities of objective pleasantness must conform to the nature of God. What doesn’t is in fact ugly. Nothing is beautiful in its own way. Everything is beautiful according to the nature of God.
The Recent Olympic Last Supper Controversy: Worse than Weird
The opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics parodied the Leonardo DaVinci painting, The Last Supper, using drag queens to represent Jesus and the twelve disciples. Later answering the criticism, organizers, including artistic director Thomas Jolly, insisted they intended the scene to represent Dionysius, the Greek god of wine, fertility, and revelry. The tableau looked identical to The Last Supper and these woke, reprobate leftists afterwards tried to avoid blame for their mockery of Christianity.
The New York Post reported: “The Olympic drag performance comes just one day after Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris became the first sitting vice president to appear on an episode of ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race,’” RuPaul himself a notorious drag queen. Online Encyclopedia Britannica says “drag queen” is “a man who dresses in women’s clothes and performs before an audience, . . . typically staged in nightclubs and Gay Pride festivals.” Yet, what’s wrong with drag queens lampooning The Last Supper painting? What’s the point of outrage over such action?
Images of Christ
London Baptist Confession
Before I even start giving reasons for strong opposition to The Last Supper mockery, I should consider whether true believers should accept The Last Supper either. The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 says:
The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. (Chapter 22:1)
Westminster Larger Catechism
I draw your attention to the last sentence: “God. . . . may not be worshipped. . . . under any visible representations.” The Westminster Larger Catechism says:
The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God..
In the attempt to rid the church of the evils of idolatry, and icon-worship that they believed plagued the Roman Catholic church, some English Reformers attacked cathedrals to remove painted icons of saints, vandalize religious statues, break windows bearing images of Jesus and saints. This occurred because of the belief represented by the Westminster Larger Catechism and other historical documents.
Nevertheless, no matter what position a believer may take on images of Christ themselves, they can and should also oppose The Last Supper parody. Why?
Blaspheming Christ
For the same reason Christians rejected images of Christ, they should reject His blasphemy in the parody of a painting of Him. It provides a reason for rejecting the imagery itself. This is what people can do through an image. They can and do blaspheme Christ.
The Last Supper parody profanes Him, who is God. It mocks and sullies Him, treats Him like He’s nothing, just a fable, easily warped by a comic portrayal because of His meaninglessness.
Profaning God’s Holiness
This parody takes something that exemplifies holiness, this attribute of God, and turns it into something morally despicable. It debases and besmirches it, eliminates the reverence or sacredness of it. Does that offend you, professing Christian?
Christians have been doing something similar or the same as the parody for decades now both out of and in churches. Historically churches didn’t do that, but especially in the last thirty years, churches turn their worship into the perversity of rock music. They put Christian words to foul, fleshly, carnal, worldly music, associating that with God.
In so many ways churches made it acceptable to profane God. They make common the things of God, especially through church growth practices. In order to get bigger, churches make it more and more convenient for the “worshipper,” much like Jeroboam did when he put places of worship at Dan and Bethel.
Distort Sex or Gender Distinctions
The drag queen parody confuses the distinctions between sexes that God designed. God calls that an abomination, which is a personal offense to Him. Men wearing women’s apparel and vice versa violate God’s created design (Deuteronomy 22:5).
When men reject God as Creator and replace the literal Genesis account with naturalistic explanations for origins, they open the door to all rejection of God’s design. Why should Christians oppose men wearing female items of clothing? Long ago that ship sailed in Christianity. Professing New Testament churches don’t protect the physical symbols of masculinity and those of femininity. They have erased those distinctions for something closer to a unisex appearance.
Churches themselves signaled to the world the permission to blur distinctions between sexes. If Christians won’t take a stand on God’s design, why should the world? Whatever Christians think is a perversion in the portrayal of The Last Supper, they should apply it consistently.
Weirdness
You may have caught the latest attack by the left everywhere, calling their opposition, “Weird.” In essence, they label what is biblical and traditional, weird, and then what is perverse and profane, normal. It is akin to calling good, evil, and evil, good (Isaiah 5:20). They think they will get some traction with the United States with this approach. Will they?
It’s hard to think that The Lord’s Supper parody today might find more acceptance than respect and true worship of Jesus Christ. What was once weird in churches is also now normal. Practices no one would have accepted are now received in the mainstream. Anyone speaking against them is already considered weird. I’ve watched this happening myself.
If a woman as a lifestyle wears only skirts and dresses, Christians consider her weird. Earrings on men, tattoos on men and women, piercings all over, and women wearing their underwear in public aren’t weird anymore. That’s all also accepted by professing Christians. Christians see churches as weird that accept only sacred worship of God. Any church or Christian that takes a stand against worldliness is weird. I contend that the left understands that the culture reached a tipping point. The controversy over The Last Supper parody will calm down and become nothing very soon.
Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley
I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019). I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link. They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.) I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on. I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way. Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)
Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:
1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical. While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life. The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man. As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life. The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:
This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.
Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.
This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.
2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology. While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat. There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation). While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture. I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.
3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version. I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions. On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.
4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist. I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.
5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509). It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!
6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them. (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity? If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)
7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.
Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems). Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed. One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.
2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is at the bottom of this blog post (please see down there).
You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there. However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.
3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology. I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization. If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book. Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.
–TDR
Here is the outline of the section on the doctrine of revelation. I did not take the time to re-introduce all the tabination, so please pardon the fact that everything is just in a straight line.
X. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation
Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.
Street Preaching in San Francisco by Ghirardelli Square
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ on the street in San Francisco, near Ghiradelli Square by Fisherman’s Wharf, where one of the cable car lines ends. (Perhaps by the time this post goes live I will have done it again.) I had wanted to start engaging in open-air preaching for a while. We had prayed for wisdom about where to go, and this spot by Ghiradelli Square seemed like a good one. I had a significant audience of people who could not really go away because they were waiting for the cable car, as well as a goodly amount of foot traffic. Also, there are fewer crazies by Ghiradelli Square then there are on the other side of the cable car line on Market Street, so people might not instinctively assume that someone who was speaking loudly was nuts or high on drugs. My wife was distributing gospel tracts and testimony tracts while I was preaching, and we got to have a good conversation with a man and his family afterwards. Many people got to hear the glorious truth about God’s Son and the salvation that is in Him.
I have wanted to start preaching on the street (again) for a number of reasons. First, we now live in a city where there are good locations to do it. It does not make sense to preach on the street if one is in a rural or suburban area where there is no foot traffic. In a large city there are good places where open air gospel proclamation can take place. Second, street preaching is extremely Biblical. The Lord Jesus Christ preached in the open air, as did His Apostles, John the Baptist, and many first-century Christians. The Old Testament is also full of open air preaching. Third, street preaching shows love for the lost. People who will not take a gospel tract are confronted with orally proclaimed truth. Fourth, street preaching is good for the Christian who does it. It helps him to trust in the Lord and do something that the world is going to strongly dislike. It helps him to grow in humble trust in Christ and holy boldness in His cause. It is unpleasant to the flesh but a great blessing to the spirit. I think it is good for “preacher boys” to preach on the street. It is good practice. If someone is afraid to tell the truth to total strangers who 99.9% of the time are going to have no impact on one’s life other than, perhaps, some insults or disrespect, how will he have the boldness to tell unpopular truth to a congregation of people who have the ability to remove him from his spiritual office? Has the Lord given you a strong desire (1 Timothy 3:1) to preach His gospel? Don’t think that you can’t preach unless you have an invitation from a pulpit. Go out into the highways and hedges and preach to the sinners there.
I recorded the message both so that I could post it online afterwards, so more people could hear the gospel, because it could encourage God’s people, and because I think that having a recording is a wise safety precaution. You can watch how things went here:
I also have the video on Rumble and on YouTube.
Nobody bothered us except for a street musician who did not like that I was there and wanted me to stop preaching. I gave him a soft answer (Proverbs 15:1) and that was the end of that. There were numbers of people who were paying attention to the preaching, including some who were paying attention but were trying to pretend that they were not paying attention. Sometimes I have seen people preach on the street and just ramble on. Some others do not actually preach the gospel but just repeat a few bullet points over and over again. Other people seem to just want to make people angry and show no compassion, while others can sound like wimps (although usually true wimps don’t preach the gospel on the street). While someone who is not preaching anything to anyone should be careful before finding fault with ramblers, bullet-point people, crowd-whipper-uppers, and wimpy-sounders, it looks clear to me from the examples of Christ and the apostles and prophets that it is most Biblical to actually preach a coherent message, namely, the gospel. I addressed the listeners as “friends” because we see the repeated “men and brethren” in Acts–a respectful address to those listening. If someone is going to be offended by the gospel I am preaching, that is fine–if the Spirit pricks their hearts or cuts them to the heart, that is something good that we want. I want to be bold and unashamed as I proclaim my King and Father’s message as His servant and son. However, if people are offended because I am just being rude and nasty, that does not help anything. So that is why I sought to preach the gospel in the way that I did it.
Lord willing, we will make this a regular event. I want to preach the gospel on the street at least once a month in addition to our weekly house-to-house evangelism. Writing it like this on the blog will help me to be encouraged to keep it up. I would like you to also to be encouraged to start following the example of Christ and His Apostles by preaching on the street, or if you are already doing it, to keep it up!
If you are an experienced street preacher and you have any thoughts on it, feel free to share them. I have done some street preaching in the past–it was a blast to go to large conventions of the Watchtower Society in our area which that cult holds around the country and offer Christ to thousands of members of that false religion–but it has been a while (if they have conventions in your area, and you can find a “free speech zone” or other place near where they are meeting where you can preach without getting kicked out, I would encourage you to do that). I am much more interested in hearing comments from people who are members of Biblical Baptist churches than I am in hearing from people who are part of strange false religions that go street preaching. One thing I already know I want to to do is get a sign with church information and a website. There were people who were listening to the preaching but did not come by and take a tract, and I want them to know how to find out more when they are not in a situation where, because of peer pressure or for other reasons, they are not willing to come up and take gospel literature with contact information from one of the Lord’s churches. I am thankful for those who pray for us and pray for the gospel to get out in the very needy San Francisco Bay Area. Thank you!
–TDR
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Four)
Being Intentional
When you intend to do something — some people today call that “being intentional” — you might plan it or schedule it. Does scripture regulate or legislate intentionality? This thing of being intentional even has a definition: “making deliberate choices to reflect what is most important to us.” King David begins Psalm 101 with intentionality:
1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.
2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
When you intend to do it, you might schedule it. That’s good. It’s how you ‘redeem the time’ (Eph 5:16). How do you seek something first? You’ve got to move it up in priority on purpose. You will and then do of God’s good pleasure. This is sanctification. It’s how you keep something holy.
If I want to ensure I do something, I put it on a “to-do” list. For the year, I write those actions on a calendar. For an entire church, as a church leader, I have a church calendar. What goes on that calendar? I could put a “Jumper Day” on the calendar with intentionality. Jumpers are those inflatable fun houses, serving as a kind of trampoline. Let’s say instead, I intentionally schedule into the year of the church a spiritual emphasis. Let’s call it a “liturgical calendar.” Every year the church emphasizes scriptural events in the life of Christ and other biblical themes.
Using the Calendar
The Psalms are a guide for writing hymns. The prayers of the Bible are a guide for what to pray. In the Old Testament, God weaves into the year a means by which Israel will remember what God did. This included the weekly Sabbath and then festivals. This is a model, not for continuing to follow a Hebrew calendar, but for what to do with a calendar.
Israel began to observe also an event the occurred after the completion of the Old Testament, the Feast of Dedication. It celebrated an event in the intertestamental period. Israel then added that Feast to the Hebrew calendar. Jesus too observed the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22ff). Like the other Feasts, the Feast of Dedication helped Israel remember what God did in saving Israel during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Macccabees.
The New Testament church schedules services on Sunday. Scripture doesn’t say how many, but many churches meet three times on Sunday: Sunday School, Sunday morning, and then Sunday evening. They might hold a midweek time too. Through example, scripture regulates a Sunday gathering for the elements of New Testament worship. It does not regulate how many meetings.
Keeping Holy
A believer can keep his speech holy. He can keep his deeds holy. A true Christian can keep his thoughts holy. He can also keep his motives holy.
Paul says the believer can yield his members, his body parts, as instruments of righteousness unto God or yield them as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin (Romans 6:13). Yielding his body parts as instruments of righteousness unto God is how he presents his body holy unto God (Romans 12:1). Someone can “worship God in the spirit” (Philippians 3:3) or not do that.
Sanctification in the Truth
Sanctification in the truth starts with thinking and understanding what God says in His Word. More than a hearer, he must also be a doer. This requires volition, a readiness of will. It also means a delight in what God said, a holy affection.
Sanctification in the New Testament follows the example of Jesus. In John 17:19, Jesus prayed to God the Father:
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Jesus provided the perfect example to follow, and the Apostle John writes in his first epistle (2:6):
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
Walking as Jesus walked is not arbitrary. It is looking to the scriptural example of Jesus. Also as John Owen wrote:
To see the Glory of Christ is the grand blessing which our Lord solicits and demands for his disciples in his last solemn intercession, John 17: 24.
The Glory of Christ
In 2 Corinthians 4:6, regarding sanctification, the Apostle Paul writes:
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
A church centers on the Person of Jesus Christ and Christ changes the church by its seeing of Him. To conform to the image of the Son a church must see the image of the Son.
I’m contending for purposeful, intentional seeing, thinking, and understanding the glory of Christ. The New Testament emphasizes certain events in Christ’s life. To be sanctified by the example of Jesus, to walk as He walked, and to see His glory, you must focus on Him. Jesus appeared on earth in real history in real time. He was here. In His time here, He accumulated important events in His life. The gospels, Acts, the epistles, and Revelation talk all about them. Put those on the calendar.
Keep Your Year Holy
Validity and Value
Don’t emphasize the events of Christ’s life according to their traditional dates on the calendar. Do emphasize them on their traditional dates. I like my emphasis on the calendar better than your no emphasis.
Putting the events of Christ’s life and other important biblical themes on your calendar is a way to keep your year holy. I’m saying there is a value to it. It is a means by which to accomplish many requirements for the believer from the New Testament. It’s not the putting it on a calendar that accomplishes the seeing, thinking, and understanding of the truth. It is the actual doing of seeing, thinking, and understanding.
Words mean things. The keeping in keeping something holy means something. This year I handed out a Bible reading calendar. Scripture doesn’t regulate the calendar I handed out. The calendar is how someone might keep things holy. Someone can have a calendar and remain unholy. I’m saying a calendar is valid and of value.
Remember and Emphasize
I didn’t hand out a fun-time-a-day calendar to our church. Our calendar did have one verse for each week for scripture memory. Scripture doesn’t regulate that. Does scripture regulate scripture memory? I’m guessing people won’t be arguing over a Bible reading calendar and a scripture memory calendar. Neither are in the Bible.
Believers should assume that they can keep something holy. They are told to keep things holy. Yes, in the Old Testament God instructs Israel to keep the Sabbath holy (Exodus 20:8). By what I read some people write, you might think that I’m writing this series for the purpose of keeping the word “Christmas” holy or keeping a date for Christ’s birth holy. I’ve not written anything like that.
I believe it’s been clear what I’m advocating. Some argue against it with what seems to be red herrings and straw men. I say, let’s be purposeful about remembering or emphasizing the events of Christ’s life during the year. A church can schedule more than that, but I support the use of a liturgical calendar to keep the church year holy.
Shaping a Jesus In Your Own Image and then Believing in Him for Salvation
Contrasting Christianity
Have you talked in public to an evangelical woman with a cross hanging down into her revealed cleavage? You see the cross juxtapositioned with the other as a backdrop. Not a fit, is it? Maybe you, like me, wonder about the vast differences in professing Christianity. They both claim to believe in Jesus Christ. What’s going on?
One church you attend uses superficial, short preaching that centers on men’s felt needs. They do series on self-interest topics that will attract people. They keep it short with lots of humor. The other opens the Bible and explains and applies exactly what it says, word for word.
Some churches use rock or pop music and call it praise. Others use sacred music, saying that God rejects and hates rock or pop music and doesn’t want to hear it. The former accepts worldly and even sinful dress or apparel. The latter preaches against that in a practical way.
A church that calls itself Christian uses world amusements that target every demographic with alluring activities. The other does exactly what the Bible presents as an obedient practice.
I could go on and on with varied descriptions of these two extremes, both calling themselves Christian. Both of them say they believe in Jesus. The modern or postmodern form of a professing Christian church wants toleration from the church with strict conformity to scripture. When the biblical church, a true one, rejects the belief and practice of the false one, the false one calls this unloving, even unChristian.
Similar Doctrinal Statement, But….
Very often I’ve said that two indistinguishable churches have a very similar doctrinal statement. The drastic incongruence between the two does not relate to their doctrinal statement. The contradiction relates to a true or false or a beautiful or ugly imagination of God. One fashions a god made after lust and the other after reverence. God and all associated with Him stays sacred in a true church. That church turns off a lot of people, not the aesthetic or feeling many professing Christians want.
Changing the God in the imagination changes everything about believing in Him, obeying Him, and worshiping Him. It distorts everything. Let me give you a simple illustration.
Scripture commands not to use corrupt communication. It does not say what that is. What was corrupt at one time and with the different imagination of God becomes uncorrupt. It’s fine now. Are you using corrupt communication? No, because the meaning changed. You have a different God that allows for that communication, so it’s fine.
The Beauty of Holiness
Psalm 96:9 says, “Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.” That’s a command that one might obey or disobey. Let’s say someone does something he calls worship and it is not in the beauty of holiness. That isn’t worship. Here is a person claiming to worship, but not worshiping and in reality disobeying God. People also do not know who God is because of the false portrayal of God presented.
The false god in the imagination that might have a pretty good doctrinal statement still completely misses. This is how two professing Christianities portray such vast difference between the other. The true presents something according to true churches through most of history. The false presents a counterfeit, calling itself authentic or genuine.
Most of the false Christianity deemphasizes repentance. Some of it will hold to repentance as an entrance unto salvation in Christ. However, it’s just the word repentance used. It isn’t repentance, because it doesn’t turn from these worldly things that dishonor God. It hangs on to them.
False Repentance
What does the false repentance turn from? It can be the superficial turning of not believing to believing. However, at the same time holding to an impostor belief. A person still has not turned from unbelief, because he distorts belief too. Other forms of false repentance occur. The Apostle Paul showed how that people replace true repentance with something short of it in 2 Corinthians 7.
I don’t think what I’m writing is beyond comprehension for people. They know that two things that are different are not the same. Only one of these turns from the belief and practice of historic Christianity. That’s the false one.
Many, many people have shaped Jesus into their own image and then received the false one. They read their chosen version of the Bible, which says, believe in Jesus. They do. Now they think they’re saved. He must be Jesus. If He isn’t, they haven’t believed in Him. They are lost.
What’s different about those believing in the false Jesus? Jesus is immanent. He comes down and close in His manner as described in scripture. He’s also transcendent. 1 Peter 1:16 says, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” Jesus is holy. Their Jesus is not. He isn’t sacred and He does not require holiness like Peter says.
Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View
According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)
A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:
39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)
The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It
Luke 16:18 reads:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.
The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.
Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.
–TDR
Sanctification: Bible, Keswick, Wesleyan, Pentecostal Views
Confusion on the nature of progressive sanctification is widespread today. What are the basic differences between the views on sanctification taught in the Bible and the views of sanctification promoted by the Wesleyan (Methodist, Holiness), Keswick (Higher Life), Pentecostal (Assemblies of God), and what I call the Weak on Repentance (“free grace,” anti-Lordship) movements?
As part of the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study (the studies themselves are here), I provide an overview of these five different positions (one true, four false) in the video below, which can also be watched and commented on YouTube here.
–TDR
Recent Comments