Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Hole in Our Holiness

Posted by Bruce Mills

It’s been quite a while since I posted anything because I’ve been involved in another project which has been taking up all of my available free time.  However, I read this article after Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs tweeted about it.  It is well worth the time to read it.  Kevin DeYoung is a great young pastor who has authored several great books, including titles such as Why We’re Not Emergent, Just Do Something, and Why We Love the Church.  So rather than write an article of my own, here’s one for you to read that I wish I had written.

The Hole in Our Holiness

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

What’s New About the New Calvinism

by Bruce Mills

Three of the sharpest minds in evangelicalism today, Al Mohler, Kevin DeYoung, and Ligon Duncan, are featured in this video produced by The Gospel Coalition.  The subject is the resurgence of Calvinism among young Christians.  These men explain why this movement is rising in strength and power, and make excellent suggestions about where it needs to go from here.  The video is almost 12 1/2 minutes long, but it’s well worth your time if you want to understand what’s behind the New Calvinism and what it means for the church.  Just click on the link below and listen carefully as these three outstanding Christian leaders explain this issue.

The Gospel Coalition video on the New Calvinism

Thursday, October 7, 2010

A Misunderstanding of God

by Bruce Mills
hands_of_god_and_adam-400I read with interest a USA Today article on the results of a new study about Americans' view of God.   You can read it here.  As I considered how the researchers from Baylor University, a private Baptist university, categorized the understanding of God by Americans into four views, I was struck by the absence of biblical terms to describe God.  There was no use of words such as sovereign, holy, righteous, gracious, loving, faithful, or merciful.  Instead, we are left with Authoritative, Benevolent, Critical, and Distant.  Also, as the reader drills down into the description of each category, one finds that there is no category which accurately reflects the biblical description of God.  God, as described from a comprehensive overview of Scripture, is certainly authoritative, benevolent, and critical as the researchers use those terms.  He most certainly isn’t distant, but the fact that almost one out of four Americans see Him as such is not unexpected.  But my point is that God cannot be described accurately if one tries to fit Him into any one of the categories listed in the study.  He is infinite in every aspect and attribute.  Thus, to attempt to fit a biblical Christian’s view of God into one of four categories is questionable at best.
I recognize that one can argue that the researchers are simply reporting the outcome of their surveys, but that would ignore the fact that the researchers are the ones who design the questions and then determine how to describe the categories into which they place the answers of the survey respondents.  Consequently, they describe those who recognize God’s judgment of sinners and His active involvement in our daily lives as believing in an authoritative God.  But that dismisses, or at the very least minimizes, the fact that a biblical Christian also sees God as infinitely gracious, merciful, kind, and loving—all elements which would characterize a benevolent God.  Yet there is no category for those who understand God to be both authoritative and benevolent.  Is that only because the vast majority of survey respondents believe in either an authoritative or a benevolent God, but not a God who infinitely encompasses attributes that are found in both descriptions?  Or is it the result of a questionnaire that is designed to fit the researchers’ preconceived notions?
In conclusion, this survey may, in fact, accurately describe the ways in which the vast majority of Americans see God, given that they are unregenerate and worship a god of their own design.  I am reminded of the apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 1:22 regarding those who alter God’s image to fit their view of what He should be like—”Professing to be wise, they became fools.”  So we should not expect those who do not believe in God as He is revealed in Scripture to respond in any way that accurately describes Him.  However, none of the individual categories described in this survey fully and accurately presents the God which those who are biblical Christians worship.  We need to steadfastly hold to the revealed truth of God’s Word about who God is and what He is like, regardless of how those around us imagine Him to be.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

The Real Jesus

by Bruce Mills
This video is a repost of a video which Frank Turk at the Pyromaniacs blog put on that site.  Frank is one of the foremost Christian bloggers in our country, and is always “spot on” when it comes to theological issues.  This video was originally part of the Nines, an online seminar sponsored by the Leadership Network.  He does a wonderful job of reminding us that the reality of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Christians and Book Burning

by Bruce Mills
harry-potter-book-burningFor the past week, the world has watched with extreme interest as a pastor of a very small church in Gainesville, Florida has garnered international attention for his plans to burn a couple of hundred copies of the Quran on September 11th. In the office where I work, on the radio stations I listen to, and the TV stations I watch, it has been a topic of discussion, with everyone asking the question—What purpose is achieved by burning Islam’s religious book and inciting millions of Muslims to protest, riot, and possibly kill American missionaries and members of the military?  As of the time of this writing, this event has been called off, and the pastor—a previously unknown leader of a cult-like group—has managed to achieve celebrity status, albeit negative in nature.
The pastor, Terry Jones, and his followers have been repeatedly referred to as Christians, because they claim to ascribe to the basic tenets of the Christian faith—that Jesus Christ is God and is the Savior and Lord of the world.  Thus, many have asked, “What would Jesus do in such a situation?  Would He condone the burning of the Quran?” Even though I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of Pastor Jones’ claim to being a Christian in the biblical sense of that term, the question is a legitimate one—Would Jesus condone the burning of the Quran, or for that matter, any other religious symbol in order to show one’s contempt for that religion?
The answer is no, He would not.  I base my answer on Jesus’ behavior during His earthly ministry. While opposing the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders, He did not spend His time attacking the many pagan gods and idol worship that took place throughout the Roman Empire. He simply focused on calling sinners to repent and proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom. I believe we who are believers need to follow the example of our King and spend our time doing the same things He did—calling sinners to repentance and proclaiming the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
I am not in any way diminishing the awfulness of the Islamic religion.  It is a false, works-based religion which ends in eternal judgment for its adherents. But our role as Christians is not to go around destroying the external symbols of other religions, whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other group.  Rather, our role is to be missionaries for our Lord in a very dark world. We are to to follow His example of showing love, mercy, and compassion to the hurting and poor, but we are be unwavering and unapologetic for the message of the gospel—that Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life that leads to eternal life (cf. John 14:6). We must inform people that they are sinners in rebellion against God, that they are doomed to eternal hell apart from faith in Christ, and then call them to repent and trust Christ alone for their eternal salvation. When those who are God’s elect are drawn to saving faith by the Holy Spirit, we are to baptize them in Christ’s name and teach them to follow and obey Him (cf. Matt. 28:19-20).
Those are to be the activities of followers of Christ. When we spend our time burning books or other religious symbols, we play into the hands of the enemy, who uses such opportunities to make us look like the fools we are.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Heresy

by Bruce Mills

The video I have included below definitely is NOT my style of music, but I know that many of the younger generation like it.  However, the style of music isn’t the issue or the reason I have posted it here; the message of the lyrics is the issue.  This video is tremendous in exposing many of the false teachers who are filling the airwaves of our world with their doctrinal heresy, bilking the unsuspecting of their finances, and claiming to do it all in the name of Christ.

I’m sure that some would argue that Rick Warren should not be included in the plethora of individuals which the musician, Jovan Mackenzy, identifies as false teachers and heretics.  I’m not sure that I would agree with branding him a heretic, as I think the jury is still out on that. But I would say that Warren plays fast and loose with the content of the gospel message, watering it down to a very tepid version of “easy-believism.”

Anyone who carefully reads Warren’s mega-bestseller, The Purpose Driven Life, will find that nowhere in the book are readers told that sinners are under the wrath and curse of God unless they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice on the cross. Instead, Warren retools the Gospel message to appeal to the unregenerate. Apparently he does not believe that God's purposes are declared in his revealed Word, but rather teaches that the unsaved should go on a journey of self-discovery in order to locate God's purposes for their lives.

Warren has never publicly affirmed the historic, orthodox, reformed understanding of the gospel; probably because for him to do so would mean that he would immediately lose his power and influence in our society and among its politicians.  A pastor I greatly respect, John Piper, has stated that Warren has privately affirmed to him that he holds to the reformed doctrine of the gospel, but Warren has never stated such himself publicly.  That bothers me greatly, because it seems that he is more concerned about his standing with men than his fidelity to God and His truth.

So while I would not necessarily lump Rick Warren in with the rest of the people in this video whose doctrine is clearly heretical, I understand how Jovan Mackenzy can reach the conclusion that Warren belongs in the mix.  So listen carefully to the lyrics of the music because it has never been more important for us to identify false doctrine and those who are teaching it so that we can both avoid them and warn others who may be deceived into following them to their final destruction.  Enjoy…that is, if you enjoy this style of music!

 

Friday, August 13, 2010

Honor Your Father and Mother

by Bruce Mills
As I write this, I am sitting in a hospital room with my mom and dad.  My dad just went through colon cancer surgery yesterday and is now lying in a hospital bed, still feeling the lingering after-effects of the anesthesia.  It is strange to see him there—helpless, weak, and unable to do anything for himself—because he has always been a man of vigor and strength.  Even though he is 79 years old, he recently spent several months helping another family in their church remodel their home.  He has served his church as sort of a one-man “building and grounds” committee, using his incredible talent with his hands to install, fix, and repair the church facilities.  Now he lies in a bed, having gone through major surgery, unable to even sit up without assistance.  And my dear mother, as desirous as she is to help her husband of almost 60 years, is unable to render much help because of her limited strength and mobility.
So what am I to do?  The Scriptural imperative which keeps ringing in my mind is Exodus 20:12—“Honor your father and mother.”  The same command is repeated in Deut. 5:16 and then quoted six times in the New Testament by Jesus and the apostle Paul (Matt. 15:4, 19:19; Mark 7:10, 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph.6:2).  The thought that has been running through my mind is, how is that command to work itself out in practical ways in my interaction with my parents?
In Mark 7, the Pharisees confronted Jesus about His disciples not following the Jewish religious tradition of ceremonially washing their hands before eating.  Jesus responded by asking them why they violated God’s commandment to honor their parents.  What they were doing was refusing to assist their needy parents by claiming that the possessions they owned which might be used to help their parents were actually dedicated to God.  Jesus condemned such ungodly behavior, stating that it invalidated the word of God (Mark 7:13).
Clearly then, a part of honoring our parents is using our own earthly possessions and finances to assist them when they have needs.  It is not enough to merely say words of respect and honor to them or about them.  Our honor must find its feet in the use of our own resources to physically help them.  The apostle John went so far as to say that those who have this world’s goods yet refuse to assist those around them in need, have no right to claim that God’s love abides in them (1 John 3:17).  And in the context of that passage, he explains that those who are truly born again love others, and those who do not love are still unregenerate (John 3:14).  So anyone who refuses to use his possessions for the benefit of his parents cannot claim to be a genuine Christian.
But possessions are not merely money and physical items.  Rather, they include such things as the physical strength God has given me to help lift my sick father out of bed and help him to the bathroom or to a chair so he can sit up for a while.  It includes doing the daily housework that my mom needs help with since she is physically limited and the stress of this situation is sapping her strength even more.  It includes using the paid vacation leave that my employer gives me so I can spend time at my parents’ home assisting them with their daily needs rather than taking a vacation that I might enjoy much more.
It’s good that I demonstrate my respect for my parents with words that express my love for both of them, but I have not truly fulfilled the requirements of God’s word until I honor them by putting my words into action and do all that I can to assist them both financially and physically.  May God grant me the willingness, desire, and strength to honor my father and mother in a way which brings Him the most glory.  Pray that I will do so during the coming days.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Calvinistic vs. Arminian Gospel

by Robert Fraire

A couple of weeks ago at Lakeside Chapel we had a Q & A with the elders. One of the questions that was asked and answered was: "Is there (or should there be) a marked difference in the way a Calvinist evangelizes the lost as opposed to an Arminian?"
First I will give the briefest of descriptions of some important issues that bear on this question. Both groups understand that all men have sinned and are guilty before God. They also believe that Jesus paid the price for sin and that a person's true faith in the payment of Christ is sufficient for salvation.
Where the differences come to bear in the area of evangelism is first and formost a difference in understanding of the spiritual state of man. The Arminian believes that all men have something within themselves that is able to hear, understand, and respond positively to the gospel message. The Calvinist believes that when Ephesians 2 says that men are dead in their sins, it means that men DO NOT posses the ability to understand and respond positively to the gospel.
This doctrinal difference has many practical ramifications. For the Arminian, the goal of Evangelism is to convince a person of the truth of the gospel. To present the gospel in a way that appeals to a man and causes him to exercise his ability to place his faith in Christ. This has lead to the honing of particular methods to persuade people of their need for Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Calvinist believes that the main purpose of Evangelism is to speak the truth of the gospel as clearly as possible. The Calvinist believes that no man is able to believe the gospel on his own. Instead, the Holy Spirit must do the work of regeneration in the heart of a man in order for that man to believe. And everyone whom the Spirit regenerates WILL believe the gospel message.
A couple of specific areas where we see this difference in belief in action is in the area of altar calls and the grounds of assurance of salvation.
The altar call is a common practice of many/most Arminian churches. I grew up believing that this was "The Way" evangelism was done. After a gospel message was preached, the evangelist would call, and goad, and exhort and persuade as many people as possible to come forward in a service. They would repeat after the evangelist then were told that they had become Christians. At Lakeside we do not do altar calls. The reason is because our understanding that the Spirit will regenerate those whom He has called and they will believe. We are called to plead with men to come but not to attempt to manipulate emotions to gain a "decision".
The second area I will address is the ground of assurance of salvation. Arminian teaching is that when someone prays a prayer of salvation he must write down the date is his Bible, so that whenever he doubted he could look at that date and be sure. I remember a pastor preaching that when he had a rough stretch he would go out to his garden where he had a rock engraved with the date he prayed to receive Christ. At Lakeside we call people to examine their lives to see if the Spirit of God is changing them. Do they love God, love believers and strive to obey Him? These are the tests of 1 John that is the ground for the assurance of salvation.
Finally let me say that another practical ramification of our doctrinal beliefs is in the responsibility of the Christian in evangelism. I read a book from an Arminian author that argued that churches must do everything with professional quality. Why? Because if the unbeliever got a bad impression of Jesus from the church, he may be forever turned off from the gospel. By extension, each believer could be the reason someone spends eternity in hell or heaven. But we believe that since the Spirit regenerates who He wills, our responsibility is to faithfully proclaim the gospel, but understand that salvation is exclusively the work of God.
This is a brief note and much more can be said about this topic. Please let me know if you would like me to continue on this topic.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

The Importance of the Gospel

by Bruce Mills

Apart from the gospel, nothing else matters. 
Don’t read that statement and make the assumption that I am just using hyperbole.  I am not.  No human achievement of any kind will matter when you stand before God.  The only thing that will matter is who is going to pay for your sins.  It will either be you—by spending eternity in the everlasting torment of hell, away from the presence of God—or it will be paid by Jesus Christ, who alone is able to satisfy God’s holy demands and provide the righteousness you so desperately need.  Only He is able to bear both the responsibility of perfect obedience to the Law and the weight of God’s just wrath against you.
Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.  He didn’t come to save the self-righteous and those who don’t consider themselves in need of help.  He didn’t come to save those who believe they can satisfactorily obey His Law through their own ability.  No, He came to save sinners; those who recognize their sin and their own inadequacy to satisfy God’s holy and righteous standards, who place their faith and trust in Him and Him alone for forgiveness of their sins and for eternal life.
Make sure you communicate that truth clearly to your children, your family, your friends, and anyone who will listen to you.  That is the primary responsibility of Christians.  It is our job to boldly go into a dark, hostile, God-hating, Christ-rejecting world and share the good news that Jesus Christ is mankind’s only hope for eternal life. 
There won’t be very many who receive that message.  In fact, most will reject it and will persecute those who proclaim that message.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the truth and the only way by which anyone can have an eternal, personal relationship with God.
Apart from the gospel, nothing else matters.

Monday, July 19, 2010

The Lamb Who Would Be King

My son and daughter-in-law recently attended the Resolved Conference in Palm Springs, California.  The 3.000+ attendees heard great Bible teachers such as John MacArthur, Steve Lawson, C. J. Mahaney, and Rick Holland.  The conference theme was Jesus Christ, and each speaker gave messages on various aspects of the person and work of Christ.  But the message which stood out to them above all the others was from Al Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.  The title is The Lamb Who Would Be King and it deals with Christ’s return.  I listened to it today and I agree…it is an incredible message.  So click on the link below and listen for yourself.  It’s just under an hour in length, but it’s worth your time.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Martin Luther on the Purpose of the Law

martin-luther “As long as a person is not a murderer, adulterer, or thief he would swear that he is righteous. How is God going to humble such a person except by Law? The Law is the hammer of death, the thunder of hell, and the thunder of God’s wrath to bring down the proud and shameless hypocrites. When the Law was instituted on Mount Sinai, it was accompanied by lightening, by storms, by the sounds of trumpets to tear to pieces that monster called Self-Righteousness. As long as a person thinks he’s right, he’s going to be incomprehensibly proud and presumptuous. He’s going to hate God, despise His grace and mercy, and ignore the promises in Christ. The Gospel, the free forgiveness of sins through Christ, will never appeal to the self-righteous. This monster of self-righteousness, this stiff-necked beast needs a big axe, and that’s what the Law is, a big axe.” 
From his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Limited or Unlimited Atonement? A Restatement

by Bruce Mills

I have recently been involved in examining the teachings of the Church of the Nazarene denomination because of the decision of a family member to join that church.  That denomination is, as are many others, blatantly Arminian in its doctrine, even stating such in its Statement of Faith.  As I thought about the implications of that denomination's position, I decided to re-post the following article which I originally wrote and posted in November 2007.  Perhaps it can clarify some things for anyone who is confused about the debate on this issue.
*****************************************************
I want to write about the most difficult issue I have ever wrestled with in the development of my theology and doctrinal position. For many years I have made no apology for being a Calvinist in my understanding of Scripture. It is clearly the most biblically consistent and logical theological position. However, until a few years ago if you asked me to what degree I was a Calvinist, I would have told you that I was a “Four Point Calvinist.” The point on which I balked is what is known as “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption.” I couldn’t see how John Calvin arrived at such a conclusion when the Scriptures contained statements such as “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
But a few years ago, a close pastor friend informed me that he had become a “Five Point Calvinist.” I began studying the issue to try to prove to him that he had made a mistake. As I began to read and think about the issue, I upgraded my response to say that I was a “Four-and-a-half Point Calvinist.” By that, I didn’t mean that I only half-way believed in Particular Redemption; rather, what I meant was that I believed that the Scriptures taught both Limited and Unlimited Atonement, and so it was sort of a paradox. I thought both viewpoints were true, so I called it “Four-and-a-half Point Calvinism” to indicate my acceptance of both views.
Finally, my son-in-law, a pastor in Kansas, challenged me to study the issue in depth. I remember him telling me, “There simply is no other way logically that it can be anything but Limited Atonement.” I set out to read all I could from both sides of the issue in an attempt to settle, once and for all, what I believed about that issue. After spending about a year in study—sometimes very intense, sometimes superficial—I finally concluded that the correct understanding is that of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. So I would like to explain why I believe that this is the correct biblical position.
Now, I understand that it is somewhat dangerous to venture into this territory because it is quite controversial among evangelical Christians. In fact, some friends of mine left our church because we were just “too Calvinistic” for them. But studying this issue is necessitated by the many texts of Scripture that we read which cause us to wonder which is correct. I just finished studying 2 Peter 2:1, in which Peter comments that false teachers who secretly introduce destructive heresies into the church also deny “the Master who bought them.” For years, I understood that passage as many other people do. I took it to mean that Christ actually has purchased redemption in full for all people, even false teachers. It is commonly thought by many (if not most) people that Christ died to pay in full the penalty for everyone’s sins, whether they ever believe or not. The popular notion is that God loves everyone, wants everyone saved, so Christ died for everyone.
This means that His death was only a potential sacrifice or atonement that becomes an actual atonement when a sinner repents and believes the gospel. In this view, the believer’s role in evangelism is to convince sinners to receive what has already been done for them. All can believe and be saved if they will, since no one is excluded in the atonement.
However, if you take that viewpoint to its logical conclusion, it ends with hell being populated with people whose salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross. Thus, the lake of fire is filled with damned people whose sin Christ fully atoned for by bearing the punishment they deserved to receive under God’s wrath.
On the other hand, in the Unlimited Atonement view, heaven will be populated by people who had the same atonement provided for them, but they are there because they received it. In this view, Christ died on the cross for the damned in hell the same as He did for the redeemed in heaven. The only difference between the fate of the redeemed and that of the damned is the sinner’s choice.
This perspective says that the Lord Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible, but not actual. He did not absolutely purchase salvation for anyone. He only removed a barrier for everyone, which merely makes salvation potential. The sinner ultimately determines the nature of the atonement and its application by what he does. As one Bible teacher has stated, according to this perspective, when Jesus cried, “It is finished,” it really should be rendered, “It is stated.”
But the interpretational difficulties and fallacies arising from that view stem from the misunderstanding of two very important biblical teachings: the doctrine of total depravity (perhaps absolute inability would be a better term) and the doctrine of the atonement itself.
Correctly understood, the doctrine of total depravity says that all people are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), separated and alienated from the life of God (Rom. 1:21-22), doing only evil from desperately wicked, deceitful hearts (Jer. 17:9), completely incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14), blinded by the love of sin and by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), doing only the will of their father the devil, unable to seek God, and unwilling to repent (Rom. 3:10-23). So, since that is the condition of mankind, answer me this: How is the sinner going to make the right choice to activate the atonement on his behalf?
Clearly, salvation comes wholly and only from God. He must give light, life, understanding, repentance, and faith. Salvation comes to the sinner from God by His will and power. Since that is true, when coupled with the doctrine of sovereign election, the conclusion must be that God determined the extent of the atonement.
So then, for whom did Christ die? He died for all who would believe because they were chosen, called, justified, and granted repentance and faith by the Father. The atonement is limited to those who believe, who are the elect of God. Unless an individual believes in universal salvation, he must believe that Christ’s atonement is limited to some degree—either limited by the sinner who is sovereign, or by God who is sovereign.
Those who hold to an unlimited atonement position are simply mistaken. If one asserts that sinners have the power to limit the application of the atonement, then the atonement by its nature is limited in actual power and effectiveness. With that understanding, it is less than a real atonement and is, in fact, merely potential and restricted by the choice of fallen human beings. But in truth, only God can set the atonement’s limits, and He extends the atonement to all who will believe because they have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Those who hold to the unlimited view must affirm that Christ actually atoned for no one in particular but potentially for everyone without exception. Whatever He did on the cross was not a full and complete payment for sin, because sinners for whom He died are still damned. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for by Christ—sin paid for, yet punished forever.
Of course, such thinking is completely unacceptable. God limits the atonement to the elect, for whom it was not a potential atonement, but an actual and real satisfaction for sin. God provided the sacrifice of His Son, which actually paid for the sins for all who would ever believe, who are those chosen by Him for salvation.
It was that issue that finally convinced me of the necessity of a limited atonement. This question kept going through my mind: “To what degree do you believe Christ’s death was propitiatory?” The conclusion that I came to was, if I believe that Christ’s death was satisfactory and sufficient to propitiate God’s holy demand for the punishment of sin, then either all men will be saved because God’s wrath against their sin has been satisfied, or else Christ must have died only for the elect. I could not get around that conclusion with any other satisfactory answer, and thus I came to believe in Particular Redemption.
David Clotfelter has written a wonderful book titled Sinners in the Hands of a Good God. He makes these observations:
From the Calvinist point of view, it is Arminianism that presents logical impossibilities. Arminianism tells us that Jesus died for multitudes that will never be saved, including millions who never so much as heard of Him. It tells us that in the case of those who are lost, the death of Jesus, represented in Scripture as an act whereby He took upon Himself the punishment that should have been ours (Isa. 53:5), was ineffective. Christ has suffered once for their sins, but they will now have to suffer for those same sins in hell.
The Arminian atonement has the initial appearance of being very generous, but the more closely we look at it, the less we are impressed. Does it guarantee the salvation of any person? No. Does it guarantee that those for whom Christ died will have the opportunity to hear of Him and respond to Him? No. Does it in any way remove or even lessen the sufferings of the lost? No. In reality, the Arminian atonement does not atone. It merely clears the way for God to accept those who are able to lift themselves by their own bootstraps. The Calvinist does not believe that any fallen person has such power and so he views the Arminian atonement as unsuited to the salvation of sinners and insulting to Christ.
So how do we deal with the matter of the many passages in Scripture (such as John 3:16) which speak of God’s love for the world? First of all, we must understand that words such as “all” and “world” are not always used in their comprehensive sense. We don’t even use them that way in our speech, so why do we expect such in the Bible? Rather, they often refer to a particular class of people rather than to people universally. Several verses in Scripture use the words “all” and “world” in that sense; specifically, John 1:29, John 12:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and Romans 5:18. And every other verse which does use the word “world” in regard to Christ’s atonement has a reasonable explanation for how it does not necessarily carry the universal sense of the term. If you are interested in further reading on this specific issue, I recommend James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken’s book, The Doctrines of Grace. They give a wonderful explanation of this issue, relating it to specific verses.
Now, I do not believe, as some Calvinists seem to imply, that God hates sinners. Rather, the Scriptures tell us that God does love all men, but that He has set His affection on some, electing them before the foundation of the world for salvation. But His wrath does abide on those who reject Him. Just as one of my children’s disobedience may have incurred my wrath, at the same time, their rebellious actions did not remove or diminish my love for them. I still had to punish their sin, but I still loved them. So too, while God’s wrath abides on unbelievers and those who reject His Son will be eternally punished in hell for their sin, He demonstrates His love toward mankind through His wonderful gifts of health, food, sunshine and rain, and countless other blessings. A god who hated unrighteous man would not be so benevolent, kind, and gracious as is our loving heavenly Father.
Now some people’s objection to limited atonement comes at the point of the presentation of the Gospel. This was the point of concern of one of the couples who left our church. They objected to the Calvinist positions on election and particular redemption and said, “But how do you present the Gospel to someone if you can’t tell them that ‘Christ died for your sins’?”
I believe J. I. Packer has given the best response to that issue. He points out that the phrase “Christ died for you,” which has become so common in today’s presentations of the Gospel, simply cannot be found in any of the sermons recorded in the Bible. In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, he writes these words:
The fact is that the New Testament never calls on any man to repent on the ground that Christ died specifically and particularly for him. The basis on which the New Testament invites sinners to put faith in Christ is simply that they need Him, and that He offers Himself to them, and that those who receive Him are promised all the benefits that His death secured for His people. What is universal and all-inclusive in the New Testament is the invitation to faith, and the promise of salvation to all who believe…. The gospel is not “believe that Christ died for everybody’s sins, and therefore for yours,” any more than it is, “believe that Christ died only for certain people’s sins, and so perhaps not for yours.” The gospel is, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for sins, and now offers you Himself as your Saviour.” This is the message which we are to take to the world. We have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement; our job is to point them to the living Christ and summon them to trust in Him.
Well said. We only need to present the Gospel and then allow God, in His sovereignty, to draw to Himself as many as [have] been appointed to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). Calvinists have often been accused (and sometimes justifiably) of showing little concern for the lost. But it should never be that way. We have no idea who the elect are, and Christ has left us with the responsibility to share the Gospel and then trust Him to call those to Himself whomever He chooses to call. We must be obedient in doing so.
Also, we must be gracious and kind to our Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on these matters. Truth divides, but we must not be harsh, unfriendly, or unloving, even though we disagree with them. We should pray for them to study the Word, think seriously about such matters, and hopefully they will gain greater understanding of the truth; just as happened in my own situation.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Adopted by God’s Grace

by Bruce Mills
This past Sunday, I preached on Romans 8:14-17a, which is one of the great passages in Scripture on the believer’s spiritual adoption.  It says, “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.” 
This passage is rich in theological truth, but it becomes even more incredibly rich to us when we understand what Paul’s Roman readers would have understood when they heard those words.  I am convinced that an understanding of the historical setting into which Scripture was written will greatly aid in our understanding of what the author was communicating to his readers, and this passage is a perfect illustration of that.  Specifically in regard to this passage, understanding the Roman adoption process sheds tremendous light on these few precious verses.  I know that many of those who heard my sermon on Sunday expressed to me that learning the procedures and consequences of an adoption in ancient Rome brought them fresh understanding regarding this biblical expression of our relationship to God.
In the first century when Paul was writing this, adopted children were, in many cases, more honored than natural children.  In virtually all cases, it was seen as an act of honor to be adopted, because that child—who was born into a world filled with illegitimate children and orphaned children—that child could say, “I was chosen by someone.  I wasn’t just born into a family where what you get is what you get…I was chosen.” 
So being adopted was a noble thing.  An adopted son was deliberately chosen by the adopting father to perpetuate that father’s name and to inherit that father’s estate.  And when a father in the Roman world didn’t have a son, he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him and give him all the rights and privileges of a natural born son. 
The adopted son was in no way inferior. In fact, he may have been chosen because he was deemed to be superior to the natural born son.  There were many Roman fathers who had sons who, in their eyes, didn’t measure up to their qualifications to inherit their estate, so they went out and found one that did.  So an adopted son may have received more affection from his father than a naturally born son and he may well have represented his father’s moral standards more perfectly than that man’s natural sons.
And that’s the whole point of biblical adoption, which is that we become children of God by sovereign divine choice.  We are the preferred choice of God.  On the basis of free and voluntary election, God has chosen us to be adopted as His sons.  We will never be condemned because God has chosen us to be His children forever by His free grace and His uninfluenced sovereignty.  He will never disinherit us. We have been lifted to this place of honor and He will fulfill in us His good purposes.
Let me explain some more about adoption in the Roman world. The process of adoption was far more serious and more difficult due to the Roman law known as Patria Potestas, a Latin phrase meaning “the father’s power.”  And under Roman law, the father had absolute power over his family, including the power of life and death.  When a child was born, if the father did not want the child, he would abandon the infant outside, to be exposed to the weather, which, depending on the time of the year, may kill the child within a few hours. In fact, the early church took to heart the biblical instruction about caring for orphans in their distress (James 1:27) and began to take in the abandoned babies from around the city—a large number of which were girls because every Roman father wanted a son to whom he would pass on his inheritance.
But please don’t think that all Roman fathers were so callous and heartless. Most female babies were raised in their own homes by their natural parents, but among those babies who were abandoned, virtually all of them were females or were deformed in some way. So Roman fathers had the absolute power of disposal and control within their family, and there was absolutely no recourse that could be taken against him.
Also, in regard to his father, a Roman son never came to age.  No matter how old he was, he was still under Patria Potestas, as were the daughters also.  No matter how old they were, they were still under the absolute control of the father. 
This made adoption into a family a very difficult and very serious matter unless the person was an illegitimate child or an orphan, because Roman law provided that a man could adopt the son of another man only if the natural father agreed to allow that to occur. And because the father maintained his Patria Potestas over his son for life, he could give up his son for adoption at any age—even well into adulthood.
For example, if a wealthy man saw a boy or young man that, for whatever reason, he wanted to adopt as his own son, and that son belonged to another father (usually a poor man), he had to go through a very formidable operation to get that person to pass out from under the Patria Potestas of the natural father into the Patria Potestas of the adoptive father.
There were two steps.  The first one was called Emancipatus, from which we get our English word “emancipation.”  It is a compound word consisting of the Latin prefix ex- meaning “out of” and the Latin word mancipium meaning “ownership” or “slavery.” In other words, “out of ownership” or “out of slavery.” And Emancipatus was carried out as a symbolic sale of sorts.  If the natural father would agree to let his son be adopted by another man, there was a ceremony in which there was a symbolic sale of the son to the other man. They used scales and coins in the process, and they went through the ceremony three times.  Twice the father symbolically sold the son and twice he bought him back, and then the third time he didn’t buy him back and the natural father’s Patria Potestas over that son was broken. 
After the sale there was ceremony called Vindacatus, which is a Latin word meaning “to lay claim to.” The adopting father went to the Roman magistrate and presented a case for the actual legal transference of the person to be adopted into his own Patria Potestas.  And when all of this was complete, the adoption was official. 
Now there were four main consequences to a Roman adoption:
1. The adopted person lost all rights in his own family and gained all rights in his new family.  He gained all the rights of a fully legitimate son in his new family. 
2. He became full heir to his new father’s estate even if there were other natural sons. If there were no other sons at the time of his adoption, but other natural sons were born afterward into the family, it did not affect his right as the primary son.  He could not be disinherited; his rights were inalienable.
3. According to Roman law, the old life of the adopted person was completely wiped out.  If he had any debts, they were cancelled. If he had any record of crime it was abolished.  They wiped out all the records as if that person had never existed; as if he had never been born.  And the adopted person was regarded as a new person entering a new life with no past. 
4. In the eyes of Roman law, the adopted person was literally and absolutely the son of his new father in every sense.
Now, when we think of our adoption into God’s family in those terms, it’s a marvelously wonderful thing.  We have lost all the rights and all the claims of our past and we’ve gained all the rights and privileges of our new family.  We have become heir to our Father’s estate.  Our past life is obliterated, blotted out, and wiped away and we are literally, absolutely, and permanently the sons of God. 
Throughout the New Testament we see this imagery over and over again that when a person becomes a Christian, he enters into the family of God.  He did nothing to earn it, he did nothing to deserve it, he did nothing to choose it. God the Father, in His amazing love and mercy, has taken the initiative to reach out to him and to draw him into His family and wipe out his past and give him a new life. 
I think the reason that the New Testament uses this imagery of adoption as an illustration of what has happened to us in salvation is because adoption was such a remarkably lofty thing.  To say that you have been born into the family of God is very special, but to say that out of all the people in the world, God Himself chose you, wiped away the record of all of your sin, and gave you full status as a son and joint heir with His Son Jesus Christ, and you will be permanently and forever in that status…that is special beyond our ability to express it.  Praise God for His unsearchable riches in Christ Jesus!

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Recognizing a Savage Wolf

by Bruce Mills

wolfIn Acts 20:29-30, the apostle Paul warned the elders of the church at Ephesus—and by extension, churches through the years since—with these words: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”  Those are extremely serious words, because they inform us that there are those men whose desires are to ravage the church.  They seek to divide and destroy. 

Jesus also warned about such men in Matthew 7:15 when He said, “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”  The spiritual leaders of His day wore wool robes (“sheep’s clothing”), so this warning concerned those men who would come, offering spiritual direction and guidance, appearing to be one thing on the outside, when they are actually seeking to devour the flock of God.

So how do we recognize such men so that we can guard the church from their destructive activities and teachings?  Let me give you some guidelines that are helpful in identifying them.

1) First of all, Jesus said we can recognize them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16, 20).  In other words, do they produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) in their lives, or do they produce the fruit of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21)?  They may not display every one of the fruit of the flesh, but they will produce certain ones; particularly such characteristics as “strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions” (Gal. 5:20).

2) They put great effort into promoting themselves.  Like Diotrophes (3 John 9), they desire to gain a position of prominence and power in the church and will do whatever it takes to do so (3 John 10).

3) They handle the Word of God deceitfully, adulterating its truth to match their own message (2 Cor. 4:2-3).  They invariably reinterpret the Scriptures to justify their fleshly desires and ungodly teaching.

4) They see the Word of God as a means of financial gain (2 Cor. 2:17, 1Tim. 6:5).  Rather than focusing on teaching people the Word in order that the Holy Spirit might apply it to their hearts and they are changed into the image of Christ, these men continually focus on money.  They press their listeners (many of them financially strapped) to give to their ministry, promising that God will grant special miracles to those who have sufficient faith.

5) They reject sound doctrine which promotes godliness (1 Tim. 6:3), choosing rather to promote what Scripture calls “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).  That doesn’t mean that they knowingly promote beliefs which are demonic in origin.  In fact, they would be appalled if someone suggested that their doctrines originate from Satanic forces, but in reality, that is the source of anything they teach which does not concur with Scripture.  Their teachings promote self, and encourage their followers to engage in activities which characterize the fallen flesh.

6) They will exploit their followers with destructive heresies and sensuality to such a degree that the way of the truth is maligned (2 Peter 2:1-3).  The watching world loves to criticize Christians as a bunch of hypocrites and these evil men provide the perfect means for the world to paint all believers with the label of hypocrisy.

7) They use smooth, flattering speech to deceive the hearts of those who are naive and unsuspecting (Rom. 16:18).  In other words, they are smooth talkers.  They sound convincing.  So how is a believer to know whether or not what they are saying is true?  By following the pattern of the Berean Christians in Acts 17:11, who examined the Scriptures daily to see if the things which Paul and Silas were teaching them matched up with God’s Word.  If a man’s doctrine does not match up with Scripture, he is to be rejected.

There are a lot of savage wolves who are ravaging the flock of God.  Be on guard!  Never assume that because a man is or claims to be a pastor or an evangelist that he is a man of God.  He may be one of Satan’s agents, seeking to destroy God’s people.  Study the Word, and if what that man teaches does not concur with sound doctrine, turn away from him.  Listen and follow only those men whose doctrine matches up with Scripture, and thus promotes holy and godly behavior.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

The Pastor’s Continual Struggle

By Bruce Mills
Leaking Hands
I can honestly say from experience that Spurgeon was absolutely correct.  There is never a time when the faithful pastor who desires to impart the truth of God’s Word feels that he has an adequate grasp of the overwhelming sea of living water which it contains.  Rather he feels that because of his own sinfulness and limitations, he can hold only a few small droplets that he has gathered from his studies.  But even then, God’s Spirit compels him to share those miniscule drops with those who listen.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Marketing the Church

by Bruce Mills
One of my significant concerns about the American evangelical church is that it has no idea what the purpose of the church as a body is to be.  It has largely abandoned the method which Jesus and the apostles used; namely, preaching the truth of the gospel, teaching the Scriptures, and exhorting believers to obedience.  Instead, it has chosen to adopt the world’s marketing methods to determine what its message will be and how it will be presented.
Afraid to offend the listeners and choosing rather to entertain them, many pastors have decided that preaching in a lecture-listener format is too old fashioned and boring for the educated, erudite American ear.  Thus, they believe it is necessary to use drama, skits, movie and television clips, popular secular musicians, and a watered down presentation of the gospel which is devoid of any serious mention of sin, judgment, repentance, or the lordship of Christ. 
Going to church is now supposed to be entertaining and, seemingly, only superficially enlightening about one’s human interpersonal relationships, rather than instructive on what God has to say in His word about who He is, what He commands, how we are to relate to Him, and what we need to do in order to grow and change to be more like Christ.  Moral absolutes are out; subjective recommendations on how to live are in.
I am now re-reading John MacArthur’s book, Ashamed of the Gospel, which has just been updated and released in a third edition.  The following is an excerpt which I found particularly pertinent regarding today’s American church culture and I decided to share it with you.
Having absorbed the world’s values, Christianity in our society is now dying.  Subtly but surely, worldliness and self-indulgence are eating away the heart of the church.  The gospel usually proclaimed today is so convoluted that it offers believing in Christ as nothing more than a means to contentment and prosperity.  The offense of the cross (cf. Gal. 5:11) has been systematically removed so that the message might be made more acceptable to unbelievers.  The church somehow got the idea it could declare peace with the enemies of God.
When on top of that punk rockers, ventriloquists’ dummies, clowns, knife-throwers, professional wrestlers, weight lifters, bodybuilders, comedians, dancers, jugglers, ringmasters, rap artists, actors, and show-business celebrities take the place of the preacher, the gospel message is dealt a catastrophic blow.  “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom. 10:14).
I do believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gospel, but we have to be careful to harmonize our methods with the profound spiritual truth we are trying to convey.  It is too easy to trivialize the sacred message.  And we must make the message, not the medium, the heart of what we want to convey to the audience.
Don’t be quick to embrace the trends of the high-tech megachurches.  And don’t sneer at conventional worship and preaching.  We don’t need clever approaches to get people saved (1 Cor. 1:21).  We simply need to get back to preaching the truth and planting the seed.  If we’re faithful in that, the soil God has prepared will bear fruit.
I don’t think anyone could have said it any better.  Many within the American evangelical culture have decided that it takes a skit and a slick, market-driven “conversation” to win Christ-followers.  Such a view completely ignores the fact that no one ever comes to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws that person, and when He does, His effectual call will result in that individual coming to Christ in saving faith, no matter how “out-dated” the method of sharing the gospel may be.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Responding to Our Enemies

by Bruce Mills
At the request of a special friend who was unable to attend my class on Sunday, I am posting the basics of my lesson on Romans 12:17-21 which dealt with the Christian’s response toward those who are his enemies.  This is a subject which I predict will become more and more important to those who desire to live faithfully for our Lord in a culture which is increasingly hostile toward believers.
It is quite characteristic of the American culture for people to feel like they are in the right to take vengeance upon their enemies. Movies and television shows glorify striking back at those who unjustly attack others and consequently, many Christians think such behavior is acceptable and right.  It is a classic case of adopting the culture’s viewpoint rather than a biblical viewpoint.
But that is not what Paul teaches in this passage to be the standard for believers. First of all, he says, ”never pay back evil for evil to anyone.”  Now, someone is bound to think, “But what about the OT law that said ‘eye for an eye, tooth for tooth’ (Ex. 21:24)? Isn’t that authorizing revenge?” No, it isn’t. That law pertained to civil justice, not personal revenge. Not only that, but its major purpose was to prevent the severity of punishment from exceeding the severity of the offense. In other words, someone guilty of destroying another person’s eye could not be punished with any greater penalty than that of forfeiting one of his own eyes.
A few verses later, in Rom. 13:4, Paul declares that civil authority “is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”  But that authority, which is not only divinely permitted but divinely mandated for civil government, is divinely forbidden for personal purposes.
Paul gave this same instruction to the Thessalonian believers in 1 Thess. 5:15—See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.
Peter echoes this same truth in 1 Peter 3:8-9—To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.
So that old adage, “I don’t get mad, I get even,” isn’t biblical. Be very careful about your attitude in seeking revenge toward those who harm you.
Closely related to not returning evil for evil is the second exhortation about how to behave toward our enemies. Paul says, “Respect what is right in the sight of all men.” If we genuinely respect others, including our enemies, we will have a “built in” protection against angrily repaying them evil for evil and will be predisposed to doing what is right toward them.
The word “respect” literally means “to think beforehand.” Louw-Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, a highly respected lexicon of biblical Greek, says that the idea is “to think about something ahead of time, with the implication that one can then respond appropriately.”  And because “respect” is in the present tense, the idea is that of continually thinking ahead of time.”  So it is valid to translate this word as “be preoccupied with thinking about that which is right.”
That kind of respect will help us develop the self-discipline necessary to prepare ourselves beforehand for responding to evil with what is good instead of with what is bad. Believers should respond instinctively and spontaneously with what is pleasing to God and beneficial to others.
The word “right” is the word kalos, which refers to that which is intrinsically and morally good, proper, and honest. It also carries the idea of being visibly, obviously right “in the sight of all men.” Paul is not speaking of hidden feelings but of outwardly expressed goodness. Our forgiving, gracious behavior toward our enemies should commend us to them and to others who witness that behavior.
One problem we face in our culture is that there has been a redefining of “right” and “wrong” so that many people struggle to know what things are inherently right and what is inherently wrong. For the believer, that’s easy. If the Bible commends something, it is right; if it condemns something, it is wrong. So we do what the Scriptures say and trust that the internal moral law which God has placed in the hearts of all mankind will be challenged by our behavior and acknowledge its “rightness.”
The next of Paul’s exhortations is conditional in terms of its fulfillment, in that it partly depends on the attitudes and responses of our enemies. In verse 18 he writes: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”
By definition, a peaceful relationship cannot be one-sided. But our responsibility as believers is to make sure that our side of the relationship is right, that our inner desire is genuinely to “be at peace with all men,” even the meanest and most undeserving.
From the perspective of the believer, there is to be no breach of peace. Short of compromising God’s truth and standards, we should be willing to go to great lengths to build peaceful bridges to those who hate us and harm us. We must forsake any grudge or settled bitterness and fully forgive from the heart all who harm us.
But this must also be qualified by the fact that the Christian is to bear witness to the truth and to live by Christian principles. Peace at the price of sacrificing the truth or compromising principle is never to be done. This means that there will be times, in our sin-fallen world, when it will be impossible because the unbelievers in our lost world will be unwilling to live in peace with us. But there must never be a reason why they can legitimately place the blame on us for being unwilling to be at peace with them.
Keep in mind that the principle of being at peace with others does not just mean that we only tolerate them on the outside and endure being around them, but rather that we are truly at peace with them as far as it is possible to be so. Now, I’ll admit that that isn’t always easy, but that is what this verse calls us to do. So we must guard our hearts against any kind of internal feelings of bitterness, hate, or disrespect toward them. If there is any kind of problem between us and those who oppose us, it must be entirely of them and none of our doing.
The last two characteristics Paul lists here are both reiterations. He again denounces returning evil for evil, stating, “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God.” If a wrong has been done to us, no matter how serious and harmful it may have been, we are never qualified for or have a right to render punishment for the offense ourselves.
Why aren’t we allowed to take revenge for ourselves? Because, Paul says, “leave room for the wrath of God.” Now you may have noticed in your Bible (if you have an NASB) that the words “of God” are italicized, meaning that they are not found in the original language. This has caused some to interpret this as referring to the wrath of our evil persecutors, or to our own wrath, or to the wrath of the government in executing judgment on our behalf. But most interpreters, including virtually all modern Bible translations, see that it is clearly God’s wrath that is in view here because Paul then quotes Deut. 32:35, saying, “for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
It is not our job to execute justice on evil people; that is God’s prerogative, and He will visit His wrath on such people when He deems it right to do so. In his commentary on Romans, Bible teacher Gerald Cragg says that when we try to take the law into our own hands, “we are inept bunglers in a region where we do not belong.”
Perhaps the best biblical example we have of not taking our own revenge is David, who had two opportunities (1 Sam. 24, 26) in which it seemed like God had delivered Saul into his hands and it would have been easy for him to kill Saul. But instead David refused to take advantage of his enemy, recognizing that God had sovereignly placed Saul upon the throne of Israel, and decreed that he would not be the one who stretched forth his hand against him. He even said, “As the Lord lives, surely the Lord will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish” (1 Sam. 26:10). He allowed the Lord to execute justice on his behalf rather than taking things into his own hands.
Another example is Jesus Himself, when the authorities came to arrest Him in the garden, and Peter had his moment of bravado and cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear. Jesus stopped Peter and said, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:52-53). But instead of defending Himself and taking His own revenge on them, He willingly submitted to the Father’s will and let them take Him into custody. And throughout His trial before Herod and Pilate, He refused to defend Himself or fight against them.
So then, if we are not to take our own revenge, and must wait for the Lord to take revenge—which may not even take place in this lifetime—how then are we to respond to the evil things that our enemies do to us? Well, the answer is in verses 20 and 21, where Paul says overcome evil with good.
You see, merely not returning evil for evil does not fulfill our responsibility. And sometimes doing the positive thing that honors the Lord is the more difficult thing to do. To withhold vengeance is one thing; it requires only doing nothing. But to actually return good for evil is quite another.  Yet that is our obligation if we desire to be godly in our behavior. In verse 20 Paul quotes from Prov. 25:21-22, “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Now the question which arises from everyone is, what does it mean to “heap burning coals on his head”? Well, this has been debated for many years, and several interpretations have been offered. Perhaps one of the more common interpretations is that this statement figuratively describes doing good that results in the conviction and shame of the enemy.
The expression supposedly alludes to the old custom of carrying burning coals in a pan. When one’s fire went out at home, a person would have to go to a neighbor and request hot coals that he or she would then carry home in a pan on the head. Carrying the coals demonstrated to others in the community that the individual who had to get coals from his neighbor was irresponsible (in that he let his fire go out) and thus he was shamed for his irresponsibility. At the same time, they were the evidence of his neighbor’s kindness and goodness.
In the same way, the person who receives good for evil demonstrates to others around them that he has behaved badly and he is shamed by the kindness of his enemy who was willing to do good to him even when it was not deserved.
That’s one interpretation and perhaps it is the most common interpretation. But I think there is a better interpretation. I take the burning coals as a figure of God’s judgment that will come on the enemy if he persists in his antagonism. The figure of “coals of fire” is used consistently in the OT to refer to God’s anger and judgment (cf. 2 Sam. 22:9, 13; Ps. 11:6; 18:13; 140:9-10; Prov. 25:21-22). Thus the meaning would be that the Christian can return good for evil with the assurance that God will eventually punish his or her enemy if he continues in his unrepentant behavior.
So what Paul is saying here is, “Keep doing what is good and kind, even to your enemies. Let God handle the business of executing vengeance. Your responsibility is to keep doing good to them, and if you keep on doing that, God will take care of executing judgment on them, and it won’t be pretty for them in the end. In fact, if you respond the way you should—with kindness and goodness to them—but they keep up their evil actions toward you, their judgment will heap up to an even greater degree.”
Paul concludes with these words in verse 21: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” The first part of this verse—“do not be overcome by evil”—has two meanings and applications. First, we must not allow the evil done to us by other people to overcome and overwhelm us. We must rest in the fact that “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4), and we need to remember that “Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:12).
Second, and even more important, we must not allow ourselves to be overcome by our own evil responses. An evil response to an evil action only brings about more evil. Evil can overcome us when we allow the pressure put on us by a hostile world to force us into attitudes and actions that are out of keeping with the transformed life of God’s children. And our own evil is infinitely more detrimental to us than is the evil done to us by others. In each case, it is the evil itself that must be overcome, and that can be accomplished only with good. That is what Christ did, and we must do the same. When we display Christ-like character to a watching and skeptical world, we “overcome evil with good.”

Monday, May 10, 2010

Partiality and Our Ministry to Outcasts

by Bruce Mills
I just taught through Romans 12:16 in my adult Sunday School class. The first half of that verse reads: “Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.”  As I studied and prepared to teach my class, the implications of this particular verse had a significant impact on me personally.
The virtue which is expressed in the words “be of the same mind toward one another” is that of impartiality. The original Greek text literally says, “Thinking the same things toward one another.”  So it isn’t saying that we have to all have the same viewpoint on every issue, but rather that we are to display the same attitude toward all other people, whatever their social, ethnic, or economic status.
The most explicit New Testament teaching on impartiality is given in James 2:1-4. It says, “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?” And then James 2:9: “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”
I recently had an illustration in my own life of how easy it is to fall into this sin. I had just read this passage in my own personal quiet time and so it was fresh in my mind. I was serving communion one Sunday evening at my church and there was a man sitting at the end of a pew as I was serving who was wearing filthy clothes and had strong body odor. I almost had to hold my breath as I passed by him. My first thought was so sinful. I thought, “Oh my, why is he here? Couldn’t he take a bath?” And then I realized where I was, what I was doing, and what God’s Word had to say about this situation. Here I was, an elder in the church, serving communion, and at that very moment, I was guilty of the sin of partiality which James condemned. I immediately confessed my sin and repented, and when I went by him again, I looked at him as a man who was there to remember the Lord’s death and I mentally thanked the Lord for that.
We are to think the same things toward one another. Our attitude toward others should be the same regardless of their skin color, their economic status, or their social status. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to set up our own mental caste system, such as exists in India. We are to recognize that every human being who exists, exists because of the grace of God and therefore, He cares about them. So we need to care about them too and look at them as He looks at them. And according to Scripture, “there is no partiality with God” (Rom. 2:11). So since He is impartial, we are to be impartial.
That means no prejudice, no bias, no hatred. Not against blacks, not against whites, not against yellow, red, or any other color. Not against rich, not against poor, not against uneducated, not against highly educated. There is to be no partiality among believers.
Closely related to not being partial is Paul’s next prohibition in Rom. 12:16 about not being “haughty in mind.”  It translates a Greek phrase which literally says, “do not think highly” (or “arrogantly”).
Partiality is closely related to a reluctance to show respect for, or even to “associate with the lowly,” such as the “poor man in dirty clothes” in the James passage. The idea is not that we should avoid associating with those in high positions of wealth or influence. But as far as our service to them is concerned, we typically have more obligation to “associate with the lowly,” not because they are more important, but because they are more needy.
And the word translated “lowly” refers to that which is really low; down in the dirt lowly. We are to get down in the gutter with the lowly. It doesn’t mean you ignore those who are the high and mighty; that is, the wealthy, the politically powerful, the influential, the highly educated and erudite. Rather, it means you don’t pursue, chase after, or concentrate on that.
I thank the Lord for those genuine believers who are friends of mine who are highly regarded professional people of wealth and achievement, who are both significant in the world of men and significant in the Kingdom of God. But I also praise the Lord for friends of mine who live right down on the ground level, who seek to please the Lord in their lives, ministering to me, and enriching my life. Believe me, there are a lot more of them than there are of the powerful, mighty, and wealthy. And what Paul is saying is that we are to not be ashamed to identify with those who are poor and needy.
Our feelings are to be so much in line with those who are lowly that we are perfectly at home with people who never rise above ground level. Paul’s point is that there’s no place for aristocracy in the church. There’s no place for an upper crust. We are to be at home with the lowly as well as the rest.
This principle is marvelously illustrated for us in Luke 14:12-14.  Jesus is at a dinner and He sees how the guests are seeking after places of honor at which to sit.  Apparently the host had invited the wealthy and powerful to attend, so look at what Jesus tells him, beginning in the middle of verse 12: “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
He says, “You want to know something? You invite the rich, the rich will pay you back. But if you bring over the poor, guess who will pay you back? The Lord will pay you back.”  So the question is, who do you want your reward from? From the rich or from God? It’s nice when you have folks over and they respond and have you over or give you a gift. But their gift can’t match what the Lord will give, so next time you have a dinner, call the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind who could never have you over, who could never pay you back. And learn to be at home, to be carried away with those people who are of low status by the world’s standards.
The truth of the matter is the idea of low estate has nothing to do with spirituality. It is not to say they are low-level spiritually; it is to say that on the social scale they’re at the bottom rung. And I have found from experience that very often some of those people who are low on the social scale are very, very high on the spiritual scale.
If you are to treat everyone equally, there are two things you’re going to have to realize. First, in the church there is to be no social aristocracy, and second, there is to be no intellectual aristocracy. Don’t say to yourself, “Well, I’m so wise I wouldn’t want to have a whole house of fools over, what would I say to them? After all, I need to have people who are at my level.” No, that’s the wrong attitude. There is no social aristocracy and there is no intellectual aristocracy. There is no caste system in the body of Christ. That’s the way it ought to be.
Never, ever get caught up in the trap of saying, “I’m want to attend the church where the rich and powerful people in town go; where there are no money problems, where everyone else looks like me, wears the same quality of clothes I wear, drives the same fancy car I drive, and where I can rub elbows with the movers and shakers of the community.” That is such an ungodly attitude. It runs counter to what Paul is saying here in this verse. Yet I have heard believers who expressed exactly such desires.
Now let’s extend this out further to the unbelieving world. Don’t be afraid to get your hands dirty by ministering to the poor, the lowly, and the needy. They need someone who will show them the love and compassion of Jesus.
In biblical times, leprosy was the worst of all diseases. When a man was diagnosed with leprosy, he was immediately isolated from everyone else in society. He became an outcast. Unless he was someone like King Uzziah who could live in a separate house, apart from everyone else, most lepers were doomed to living in the local trash dumps, scavenging for food scraps, banned from going near to anyone else. When they walked down the road and someone approached, they were required to call out, “Unclean, unclean, unclean,” so that the other people would turn away and avoid contact with them.
But look at what Jesus did. In Matthew 8:1-3 we have the story of Jesus and a leper, and it was such an amazing incident that all three of the synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke—record this event. The text says, “When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him. And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him (incidentally, Luke tells us this man was covered with leprosy; he had a very severe case), and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.”
Did you notice what happened? Jesus didn’t have to touch this man to heal him. In fact, later on Luke tells us that He healed ten lepers at one time and didn’t touch any of them. But here, in front of this large crowd, while everyone is watching, “He stretched out His hand and touched him.” Why did Jesus do that? Because He wanted everyone to see. He didn’t move in close to the guy so that no one else could see and just sort of brush up against him. He didn’t just speak to him like He did with many others whom He healed. Instead, He stretched out His hand and He placed it right on that man who was covered with that horrible disease and He healed him. He was demonstrating His love and compassion for those who were the worst of all outcasts in Israel. He was willing to touch them. He was willing to “associate with the lowly.”
You say, “But Jesus was God; He wouldn’t catch that man’s leprosy. If others had touched him, they may have caught it. So if I start ministering to people who are lowly and have diseases, I might catch something terrible.” Well, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t take reasonable precautions, such as wearing gloves when necessary, and using hand sanitizers and a surgical mask, and washing your hands regularly. But don’t let the excuse of potentially catching something be the reason you refuse to obey Christ and follow His example in ministering to those who are infected with terrible diseases.
Let me just add, that if that is a problem for you, then you also have a problem with the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Because I will admit that there is always the possibility that even if you take steps to prevent yourself from catching some terrible disease, you might still catch something that will leave you very sick or even kill you. But that’s where God’s sovereignty comes in. He is the One who determines how and when you will die, and until then, He wants your obedience in serving Him and those who are in need. He is sovereign over your life and your death, so until He calls you home, be obedient in ministering to those who are the lowly, the poor, the needy, the outcasts.
One more thing—you will never have a problem sharing the gospel with the downtrodden and the outcasts. Generally they are very willing to listen. They understand that they are sinners; they know they’ve blown it. The rich and the wealthy and the powerful—they are all consumed with themselves and believe that they have gotten their power, wealth, and fame by their own strength, and so they are almost impossible to reach. Jesus even said that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:25). But the lowly, the downcast—they know what rotten sinners they are; they know they deserve judgment. So they are usually very willing to listen to the gospel of God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ, and they are far more willing to receive it. So go “associate with the lowly” and bear fruit for the kingdom of God.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Suffering, Pain, & God’s Sovereignty

by Bruce Mills
As I write these words, I am sitting in a recliner with my left leg locked in a brace, unable to move it.  I suffered a serious fracture of my patella (knee cap) and had to undergo surgery to repair it.  Now I am living with pain almost every moment of every day, and I am faced with many months of rehabilitation before I will ever be able to walk on it again without a brace and either a wheelchair, crutches, or a walker.  I am dependent upon my family members to help me bathe, go to the bathroom, and get dressed.  It will be about eight weeks before I am able to return to work in a limited capacity.  There is much about my situation that is humbling and humiliating. 
I have already experienced the depression that comes periodically in such situations, as Satan tempts me to despair that my circumstances will never get better, that my pain will never go away, that my rehab will be too much for me to bear.  I admit that it is a daily struggle.  So when those dark times of depression and anxiety come, I have decided to follow my own counsel; the advice that I have given many other believers through the years who were going through some difficult time of suffering in their lives, and that is to rest in the sovereignty and trustworthiness of God.
I really don’t think there is a more comforting doctrine in times of suffering, pain, and physical limitation than God’s sovereign control over such matters.  When I contemplate the fact that He has absolute control over everything in the universe, and foreordained from before the world began that I would go through this experience in order that His glory might be magnified, it brings a sense of purpose and comfort to my soul. 
Ephesians 1:11 declares that God in Christ “works all things after the counsel of His will.”  The Greek word for “works” is energeĊ, which indicates that God does not merely carry all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends, but that He actually brings about all things in accordance with His will.  In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil, harmful, and hurtful aspects and events of our world to good for those who love Him (Rom. 8:28); rather, it is that He Himself ordains and orchestrates these terrible, painful, difficult events for His glory and His people’s good.
Consider that He proclaimed to the Pharaoh of Egypt that the only reason God had brought him to the place he was and allowed him to remain in power was so that as God rained down plague after plague upon the Egyptian people, God’s name and power and glory would be proclaimed throughout all the earth (Exodus 9:13-16).
Consider the man in John 9 who was born blind—who lived perhaps 20-25-30 years in darkness—forced to beg in order to survive.  Yet Jesus said that the reason those awful events took place in that man’s life were “so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3).
So when I consider that Scripture teaches that God goes to such lengths to bring pain and misery upon His creation in order to display His glory, the fact that He will cause me to suffer a serious injury to my knee and leave me dependent on others for the most basic functions of daily life means that He is working to accomplish His glory through me and my situation.  That is a marvelously encouraging thought, especially when I am hurting and weak and incapable.  Because when I recognize that He is accomplishing His purposes in me and magnifying His glory through me, it is staggering to my feeble mind.  Ultimately, my injury is not about me; it is about God’s glory.
But since God has called me to this purpose, what might He be doing in my life?  Well, as I said at the beginning of this post, there is much about my circumstances that are both humbling and humiliating, and since God knows my sinfully prideful heart, He knows that I need to be broken of that pride.  One way is to forcibly rid me of my own self-sufficiency by making me completely dependent upon others.  In the wonderful book, Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, a collection of essays on the subject of suffering in the life of the believer, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor, Joni Eareckson Tada writes:
Do you know who the truly handicapped people are?  They are the ones—and many of them are Christians—who hear the alarm clock go off at 7:30 in the morning, throw back the covers, jump out of bed, take a quick shower, choke down breakfast, and zoom out the front door.  They do all this on automatic pilot without stopping once to acknowledge their Creator, their great God who gives them life and strength each day.  Christian, if you live that way, do you know that James 4:6 says God opposes you?  “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
And who are the humble?  They are people who are humiliated by their weaknesses.  Catheterized people whose leg bags spring leaks on somebody else’s brand-new carpet.  Immobilized people who must be fed, cleansed, and taken care of like infants.  Once-active people crippled by chronic aches and pains.  God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble, so then submit yourselves to God.  Resist the devil, who loves nothing more than to discourage you and corrode your joy.  Resist him and he will flee you.  Draw near to God in your affliction, and he will draw near to you (James 4:6-8).
It’s too early to know what all the lessons are that God wants me to learn over the next several months, but one obvious one is to rip away some of my pride and teach me humility.  And as I learn that lesson, God is glorified.  So it looks like the next several months will be an adventure, albeit a painful one, as God works through my disabling circumstances to bring about His glory and my good.  I pray that I will “consider it all joy…knowing that the testing of [my] faith produces endurance” (James 1:2-3).