The New Testament Review (3)

This is part 3 of 3 of chapter 7 of my book, Biblical Glasses.

The Great Commission Jesus Christ laid before us as He ascended into heaven is to go into the entire world preaching the Gospel and baptizing new believers into Him. We are to gently and respectfully tell others about the message of the Gospel. We are to serve others so they will see our good deeds and praise God. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves, and we are to stand firm in the faith without being corrupted by this crooked society in which we live. We are to live like Christ lived, loving God the Father with all we are. After all, He made us!

How do we live like Christ? There has got to be more than asking, “What would Jesus do?” Indeed there is! The New Testament letters we just briefly reviewed provide detailed schematics for living like Christ in nearly every situation. It ultimately boils down to our priorities. In all we are, think, say, and do, God should come first. He should be worshipped and praised in, by, and with every moment of our lives. We should engage in Christian fellowship for support, learning with others to live like Christ and for Christ. We should read God’s Word to help us remain strong in faith. We should tell others what Christ is doing in our lives and what He can do in their lives. Perhaps most importantly, we should engage in prayer, conversing with God, talking to Him and listening for Him, constantly throughout each day of our lives. Prayer develops intimacy between us and God.

J.I. Packer mentions several critical aspects of prayer. Through prayer, we approach God in adoration and trust, acknowledge His almighty power with praise, admit sin and seek forgiveness, ask for daily needs to be met, argue with God for blessings, accept God’s will in our lives, and adhere to God’s will in faithfulness.

So then, we do good works, but not for merit, for what would we merit? [We would simply be doing our duty.] Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He Who ‘works in us both to will and do according to His good pleasure’ [Philippians 2:13] thus keeping in mind what is written: ‘When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do’’ [Luke 17:10]. Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works but it is by His grace that He crowns His gifts.

Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.

So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly, if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior. … While sinners are justified by faith alone apart from works, the Bible has no category for a Christian who is justified by faith alone and who is not also in the process of
being sanctified and performing good works, no matter however feeble and unrecognizable the attempt may be.

By following the plans for the Christian lifestyle written in the Bible, there is no doubt persecution is something we will encounter as Christians. Jesus said: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” (Matthew 5:11-12). Persecution, ridicule, scorn, and mockery are certain if we live as Jesus taught us to live, especially in the culture of our day. True Christians are the minority in this world, and as aforementioned, the world is continuing to worsen.

We can avoid persecution by hiding and living as secret Christians, denying that we know Jesus like Peter did when Christ was arrested, but that is not what we are supposed to do. Jesus said: “Whoever acknowledges Me before men, I will also acknowledge him before My Father in heaven. But whoever disowns Me before men, I will disown him before My Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33).

Peter realized his error, repented, was forgiven; he became a dynamic, bold preacher, who proclaimed the Good News about Christ for many years until his death. There have been numerous times in my life when I did not speak up about Christ, and in a sense, that is the same as denying Him. I have been forgiven for those denials, and I hope I can stand firm in faith and represent my Lord with courage and strength.

Many people will ask the question, “Will we still go to heaven if we don’t do good things for God?” While, as long as the faith of the believer is genuine, the answer to that question is affirmative, it is the wrong question to ask. Neither good works, nor lack of good works saves anyone. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

An abundance of God’s grace is revealed in a person by that person’s true faith, which, in turn, is represented and displayed by good works. If a person has true faith, then that person is undergoing the process of sanctification, which enables good things to be done for God. C.S. Lewis said:

We really do not have the slightest notion of the tremendous thing Jesus Christ means to make of us. Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is
getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew
that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He
starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem
to make sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building
quite a different house from the one you thought of—throwing out a new wing
here, putting up an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You
thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage; but He is
building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself—The process will be
long, and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for.

The Bible says: “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1). God is building His home in, with, and through us. True Christians will eventually want to grow and mature in their spiritual and physical lives, allowing God to make them more like Jesus Christ. Ultimately, we will not be perfected until we are in heaven, where, for the rest of eternity, there will be no more sin, no more evil, no more tears or gnashing of teeth, and no more pain and suffering.

We are not supposed to just wait for that day to come; instead, we are to allow the purification and sanctification process to begin here on earth. That process can begin by reading the Bible, praying continuously, worshipping God, enjoying relationships with other Christians, serving others, and telling others about the message of the Gospel, the Good News of what God has done for us through His Son Jesus Christ.

The New Testament Review (2)

This is part 2 of 3 of chapter 7 of my book, Biblical Glasses.

What can we learn?

Today, many people avoid the Christian life, because they think they will have to change who they are or give up a lot of fun stuff they like to do. What they often do not realize is that the fun stuff may become not so fun, and new fun stuff will be more fun than they ever could have imagined! Perhaps the greatest Christian to ever live was Paul, whose life we briefly examined in the previous chapter. Paul said, “‘Everything is permissible for me’—but not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is permissible for me’—but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23).

Paul had to neither behave in a certain way, nor do certain things, nor abstain from certain things in order to be saved. He was saved by God’s grace alone! That said, Paul allowed the Holy Spirit, upon understanding God’s grace, to change him from within, conforming him into the image of Christ. Paul learned to live for Christ out of gratitude for God’s gift of amazing grace. Paul realized he was no longer bound by laws and rules and regulations. Rather, he was free to do all things for the glory of God. Anything done not for the glory of God was worthless; everything done for the glory of God was priceless.

The same experience Paul had should happen to the new Christian, all by God’s grace. Can you substitute your name for Paul’s throughout the above paragraph? The new Christian may slowly realize, when his or her actions are not glorifying God, he or she must change (or be changed). Once people become aware of sin in their lives, they should do everything to rid themselves of that sin.

Paul experienced one of the greatest conversions to Christianity of anyone; he recognized that sin does not belong in the life of the Christian. Despite the fact that grace through faith saves us, we should still live according to God’s law. Paul said: “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that [God’s] grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer” (Romans 6:2)?

When we accept Christ’s death as a substitutionary death—He died in our place for our sins—we receive an abundance of God’s grace. The more sin we carry to God, the more sin Christ nailed to the cross, the more grace we receive in being forgiven. Jesus explained to Simon the Pharisee that the person with the larger debt is more gracious when his debt is forgiven than the person with a smaller debt whose debt is also forgiven (see Luke 7:36-47).

We should not take advantage of God’s grace as if each little bit was worthless. Jesus paid a great price to offer us forgiveness. He gave all He had—His life. We do not show Him much appreciation or gratitude when we continue to sin. Paul said: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, Who is in you, Whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

When we accept by grace the gifts of forgiveness and eternal life, we are born again! Paul said, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). Once we become Christians, we should no longer live for ourselves, but for Him Who died for us.

Take the following example: Say you are outside digging in the garden all day in the pouring rain. Upon completing your work, you are covered with mud and soaking wet. What next? Do you take a bath and put the same clothes back on? No! You take a bath and change clothes! Sin sticks to us like wet, muddy clothes. When we become Christians, we must make every effort to get rid of sin, those nasty clothes. We do not put them back on after we become Christians. We publicly demonstrate our faith, as well as our having been cleansed of sin, in baptism and by putting on clean, dry clothes; we are clothed with Christ. Days, weeks, months, and years down the road, we can look back at ourselves when we were in sin, in those dirty garments, and praise God for making us clean.

J.I. Packer mentions several critical aspects of baptism. Baptism is a sign of our faith, that we understand the Gospel. Baptism symbolizes our marriage to Christ through burial with Him in death to the world and resurrection with Him to new, eternal life. Baptism is like a spiritual birthday celebration, though not necessarily our actual spiritual day of rebirth; it is like an admission ceremony into God’s adopted family and a commissioning service to be under Christ’s Lordship as a servant.

When we choose to be baptized, we are obeying the command of Jesus Christ and giving others a sign of our genuine faith. Is baptism required for salvation? No. Jesus said: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Notice He only condemned those who do not believe! We can look further at the words of Christ as He spoke to the thief crucified next to Him. Their dialogue follows:

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at Him: ‘Aren’t you the
Christ? Save yourself and us!’ But the other criminal rebuked him. ‘Don’t you
fear God,’ he said, ‘since you are under the same sentence? We are punished
justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this Man has done nothing
wrong.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.’
Jesus answered him, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with Me in
paradise’ (Luke 23:39-43).

The thief made a last-minute confession of faith in Christ, and Jesus said he would be in heaven. The thief had no good works to rely on, no baptism to show others as a sign of his faith, but God knew his heart. God graciously gave him faith in Christ. This criminal was guilty on earth and rightly condemned to death, and apart from God’s grace, he would have also been rightly condemned to the second death, a spiritual death that would have destined him to hell for eternity, permanently separating him from God. By grace, he was forgiven of his sins and declared innocent of wrongdoing. He still died that day on the cross next to Christ, but he lives now with Christ in heaven for all eternity. He never had a chance to come down off that cross and do good works or be baptized, but we do have the opportunity to serve God through good works and obey Him in baptism.

As I mentioned earlier, baptism is a point of disagreement among Christians today, but that disagreement is based primarily on the who or when and the how, not so much the what and why, of baptism. When we read the Bible, examining the passages where believers are baptized—see the Book of Acts for the majority of cases—it is clear that immersion was the how; the who consisted of those who were of the age to decide for themselves whether or not to be baptized; immediately upon realizing the need to be baptized, generally after confession of and repentance from sin, was the when.

In the Bible, the faithful were often asked to give a sign of their faith, usually in baptism. As mentioned earlier, the original New Testament was written primarily in Greek. “The Greek for the word ‘baptizo’ means to immerse, plunge, dip, or bury in water.” Because of these cases in Scripture, many Christian churches trying to follow the Bible as closely as possible will demand baptism by immersion as a requirement for membership. Some even go too far by declaring that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Of course, in many other Christian churches today, sprinkling is the how, infants are the who, and within a couple months after birth is the when of baptism. Perhaps an oxymoron, a sprinkling baptism for infants did not become prevalent until the twelfth century A.D. and even then only as a matter of convenience. While there are Scriptural references to being cleansed by sprinkling (see Ezekiel 36:24-29; Numbers 8:5-7, 19:20; Hebrews 10:15-22)12, they neither mention nor associate with a physical baptism. Instead, they relate with more of a spiritual baptism, which is, without objection, more critical than the physical baptism anyway. I think if we make the effort to obey Jesus Christ in our walk with Him, then we will allow ourselves to be baptized both physically and spiritually, just as the Bible illustrates.

Libertarian Free Will Flaws

Those who affirm the libertarian "free will" of man often teach the doctrine of ELECTION as follows: God, before He created the world, foreknew, from eternity, who would yield to the Spirit, and therefore elected to salvation all those whom He foresaw would do so. In other words, God looks down the corridors of time to see who will believe and then "predestines" them based on the exercise of their autonomous free will to choose Him. In this system of belief the absolute free will of the natural man is necessary to preserve human responsibility. But this concept of foreknowledge ironically ends up destroying itself. There is no person who believes in free will that can consistently believe this theory of foreknowledge, and still go around teaching his views as to God's salvation. Why so? Consider the following:

1. No Libertarian free will theist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then also teach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows who will be saved and who won't be saved, then how could anyone argue that He is trying to save more? Certainly, it is foolish to assert that God is trying to do something which He knew never could be accomplished. Some embracing the free will or foreseen faith position charge Augustinians that preaching the gospel to the non-elect is mockery since God has not elected them. If there is any validity in that objection, then it equally applies to them as well who preach to those who God knows will never be saved. To the Augustinian, God commands that the Gospel be preached to all, because, when we indiscriminately cast forth the seed of the gospel, the Spirit germinates the seed of those He came to save (1 Thess 1:4, 5 John 6:63-65). People are not saved in a void but under the preaching of the Gospel and the Spirit brings forth life through the word of truth.

2. No Libertarian who embraces the foreseen faith position can consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the libertarian freewill theist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would "freely" choose to go to Hell. He knew where they were going before He created them. Since He went ahead and created them with full knowledge that they would be lost, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners actually be lost, even in the libertarian scheme. He, therefore, has some purpose in it which human beings cannot fully discern. The libertarian freewill theist can complain against the truth that God chose to allow some men a final destiny of Hell all they want, but it is as much a problem for them as for anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a problem which libertarians must face. If he faces it, he will have to admit either the error of his theology or deny foreknowledge all together. But he might say that God had to create those that perish, even against His will. This would make God subject to Fate.

3. No Libertarian freewiller can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of redeeming every single man that ever lived. Surely we should credit God with having as much sense as a human being. What human being would make a great but useless and needless sacrifice for persons He already knows with certainty would reject Him? Libertarians say that God punished Christ for the sins of those whom He knew would go to Hell. This theory of the atonement--although synergists do not mention this--involves the matter of Christ's suffering exclusively for the purpose of man's salvation--the substitutionary aspect. They fail to have any appreciation for the aspect of propitiation.

4. No Libertarian can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Synergists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Synergist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead. Can God be taken by surprise?

More Evolutionary Silliness

Once again, presuppositional analysis of genuine evidence results in the declaration of "false truth." Just note the language used in this article, and let me point out my observations:

Fossil Suggests Snakes Evolved on Land
By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Wed Apr 19, 7:53 PM ET

NEW YORK - A fossil find in Argentina has revealed a two-legged creature that's the most primitive snake known, a discovery that promises to fire up the scientific debate about whether snakes evolved on land or in the sea.

The "fossil find has revealed a two-legged creature..." That's a fact. "...That's the most primitive snake known..." That's an opinion, not a fact. All the fossil shows (see picture) is a two-legged creature. Where is the evidence that it was a snake? There is none. Yet, this fossil "promises to fire up the debate about whether snakes evolved on land or in the sea." Notice the assumptions that snakes actually evolved rather than were created by God as snakes.


This undated photo provided by the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil shows a newly discovered fossil of the most primitive snake known, a crawling creature with two legs, and it provides new evidence that snakes evolved on land rather than in the sea. (AP Photo/University of Sao Paulo, Hussam Zaher)

There is "a crawling creature with two legs," and this SUPPOSEDLY "provides new evidence that snakes evolved on land rather than in the sea." Again, all we have is a two-legged creature, not necessarily even a snake. We might as well suggest that this is a creature God made on the 5th day of creation, which has since become extinct. There's certainly no evidence suggesting otherwise in this particular fossil!

The snake's anatomy and the location of the fossil show it lived on land, researchers said, adding evidence to the argument that snakes evolved on land. Snakes are thought to have evolved from four-legged lizards, losing their legs over time. But scientists have long debated whether those ancestral lizards were land-based or marine creatures.

Yes, let's rely on what the "researchers" said! What do they know? Are they presuppositionally biased to be looking for "proof" of evolution? Why can't they see this fossil for what it is: a two-legged creature. "Creature" simply means, of course, "created being." Created by whom? God! Well, the reason they can't see it is that they have suppressed the truth by their wickedness and darkened their hearts and became futile in their thinking; professing themselves to be wise, they have offered evidence for their foolishness (See Romans 1:18-32).

Notice still, "snakes are thought to have evolved...but scientists have longe debated..." There is always a little bit of truth in these articles that reveals the truth of presuppositional bias.

The newly found snake lived in Patagonia some 90 million years ago. Its size is unknown, but it wasn't more than 3 feet long, said Hussam Zaher of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil. He and an Argentine colleague report the find in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

I suppose they "know" where "the snake" (no longer "the creature," as defined earlier) lived, because of where they found the fossil... And I'd love to hear more about how they determined this 90 million year age. Most likely, they are dating the fossil based on the supposed age of the rock bed in which in was found. They'll claim the geologic column as supporting this date claim, but they overlook the assumptions used in that method. I talk more about this in chapter 2 of my book, Biblical Glasses.

It's the first time scientists have found a snake with a sacrum, a bony feature supporting the pelvis, Zaher said. That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards, he said, and since this is the only known snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known. The creature clearly lived on land, both because its anatomy suggests it lived in burrows and because the deposits where the fossils were found came from a terrestrial environment, said Zaher. So, if the earliest known snake lived on land, that suggests snakes evolved on land, he said.

Why do they think this is a snake? It has features that snakes don't have, like legs and a sacrum. Ah, here is the reason: PRESUPPOSITIONAL BIAS - "That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards." There's simply NO evidence for this claim, and yet, look at the logic and reason, also biased, that they use: "since this is the only snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known." Well sure it must, if it evolved. But it didn't evolve! It was created after its kind. Oh and then, "the creature CLEARLY lived on land" (emphasis added). Now it's back to the "creature" definition, rather than the "snake" definition. "It's anatomy SUGGESTS it lived in burrows..." Love the loaded language.

There has been little new evidence in recent years in the land-versus-sea debate, and "we needed something new," said Zaher. "We needed a new start. And this snake is definitely a new start for this debate."

And here's the motive for the explanation of the fossil: "We needed something new... a new start." So let's just find something that's not really what we want, and call it what we want so that it fits our view. Great. Nice. Smart. Professing to be wise, they showed their foolishness.

He said that although the creature had two small rear legs, it crawled like a modern-day snake and probably used its legs only on occasion, though for what purpose is unclear. The creature, named Najash rionegrina, is "a fantastic animal," said Jack Conrad, a researcher at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and co-curator of an upcoming exhibit on lizards and snakes. "It's really going to help put to rest some of the controversy that's been going around snake evolution and origins," he said. Conrad said he never took sides in the land-versus-sea debate, but "but this is starting to convince me."

I'm sorry that you're convinced, Mr. Conrad. There's absolutely nothing convincing here, except that this is foolishness. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should stop studying fossils. Fossils go a long way in proving creation, as well as Noah's flood. But it makes no sense to look at a fossil of "a two-legged creature" and call it a snake that proves that snakes evolved on land and not in the sea. Ridiculous.

Olivier Rieppel, a fossil reptile expert at the Field Museum in Chicago, called the find important and said Najash is clearly the most primitive known snake.

Once again, a so-called "fossil reptile expert" is brought in to offer his thoughts that the fossil "is clearly the most primitive known snake." We've already been told that. But we have been told how anybody arrived at the conclusion that the thing was a snake. Why not? Because they know that there's no reason to think such a thing. They've just come with it out of thin air to support what they believe, instead of seeing it for what it is: a fossil of a creature that God made and has since died.

If snakes did evolve on land rather than the sea, their fossil record might be less complete because early fossils would have been better preserved in a marine environment, he said. That, in turn, suggests "we may not know all the lineages of early snake evolution," he said. Maybe several snake lineages lost the legs of their lizard ancestors independently, he said.

And here's the motive behind the motive. "If snakes did evolve...their fossil record might be less complete." Picture them saying, "We have no proof of our position, so let's come up with a reason for having no proof. Ah, let's take this fossil of a creature that is not a snake and call it a snake and say that it CLEARLY evolved in such a way and in such a place that there is not much evidence of it having done such. That will get us where we WANT to go, without having to have true evidence of it!" Professing to be wise, they became foolish.

The creature's name comes from a Hebrew word for snake and the Rio Negro province of Argentina, where the discovery was made.