Messianic Prophecy Hidden in Psalm 107

The other night, as I was reading and praying through some of the Psalms, something jumped out at me that I hadn't particularly noticed before: Psalm 107 contains a foreshadowing of Jesus calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee. In context, Psalm 107 is re-capping the inglorious history of Israel, and God's repeated rescue and healing of their nation after periods of backsliding. When we reach verse 23, the psalmist uses maritime imagery and attributes the power of the seas and "...tempest, that lifted high the waves" to the works of the Lord.

Verses 28-30 are where it gets really interesting:

Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble,
and he brought them out of their distress.

²⁹ He stilled the storm to a whisper;
the waves of the sea were hushed.

³⁰ They were glad when it grew calm,
and he guided them to their desired haven.

Does this remind you of a certain scene from the Gospels? Matthew's account in chapter 8 reads:

²³Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. ²⁴Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. ²⁵The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!"

²⁶He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.

²⁷The men were amazed and asked, "What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!"

(The other Gospel accounts are in Mark 4 and Luke 8, but I'll assume you're all familiar with the story). Not an earth-shaking revelation or new-fangled doctrine by any means, but just a point of interest that caught my attention. While none of the accounts cross-reference Psalm 107 in my study Bible, I can't help but speculating that the Messiah "stilled the storm to a whisper; the waves of the sea were hushed" in fulfillment of Scripture that day out on the lake. The disciples in the boat with Him most definitely were glad when it grew calm, and they wondered aloud who Christ was as He guided them to their desired haven. Reflecting on His life and ministry later on, I wonder if they saw Jesus in the Psalm - which specifically credits God with these wonders (thereby again affirming Christ's deity).

Admittedly, I have never seen the events of Psalm 107 in the account of Jesus calming the storm before. However, every time I read the account in one of the Gospels, a certain detail distracts me: I hope that someone in the boat had the good sense to cover Jesus with a blanket when He fell asleep. I can't help it; that is always the first thing that comes to mind (maybe because I am a mom)? You can catch a terrible cold out on the water that way, and when you fall asleep your body temperature drops. The hypostatic union in no way negates that fact. The One Who stilled the storm and calmed the waves still allowed Himself to be susceptible to our infirmities - presumably including catching chills. I will give those rugged fishermen the benefit of the doubt.

Interesting parallel to the Psalm of thanksgiving, in any event.

R.C. Sproul Weighs In on "Manhattan Declaration"

From Ligonier Ministries, the best summary of the document's issues I've seen yet:

"On November 20, 2009, a document called the Manhattan Declaration was presented to the public by a coalition of cobelligerents. The document is concerned primarily with three very important biblical and cultural issues: the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. Without question, these issues are up for grabs in our nation.

As anyone familiar with my ministry will know, I share the document’s concern for defending the unborn, defining heterosexual marriage biblically, and preserving a proper relationship between church and state. However, when the document was sent to me and my signature was requested a few weeks ago, I declined to sign it.

In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.

The framers of the Manhattan Declaration seem to have calculated this objection into the language of the document itself. Likewise, some signers have stated that this is not a theological document. However, to make that statement accurate requires a redefinition of “theology” and serious equivocation on the biblical meaning of “the gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4).

The drafters of the document, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, used deliberate language that is on par with the ecumenical language of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement that began in the 1990s. The Manhattan Declaration states, “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word,” and it identifies “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelicals” as “Christians.” The document calls Christians to unite in “the Gospel,” “the Gospel of costly grace,” and “the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Moreover, the document says, “it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”

See rest of article here. Well put, Dr. Sproul.

Riddle Me This

Help me out here. How, exactly, does the following passage jibe with Eternal Security of the Believer? I'm just sayin'.


Mark 9:43-50

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. ⁴⁵And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. ⁴⁷And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, ⁴⁸where
" 'their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.' ⁴⁹Everyone will be salted with fire.

⁵⁰"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

Explain it to me as if I were four. Bonus points if you can do it without quoting Calvin.

Gracias.

UPDATE: Yesterday, I read a great sermon from John Piper's archives that deals in some depth with the question I raise here. He has preached on this several times, and is always questioned, "Are you saying a person can lose his salvation?" That's not what he's saying, (if you know John Piper, you know he's like a 23-point Calvinist), but the subject of saving faith and sanctification cannot be done justice by taking a small, sound-bite quote out of context.

"Our response: the battle for obedience is absolutely necessary for salvation because it IS the fight of faith. The battle against lust is absolutely necessary for salvation because it is the battle against unbelief. Faith alone delivers from hell and the faith that delivers from hell delivers from lust."

The righteous shall live by faith, basically.

Now go read the whole sermon, and a whole bunch of other ones he has at "Desiring God" that are similar. Good stuff.

Avoid Sound Doctrine Ministries Like the Plague!

Beware.

You've been warned.






Before becoming enmeshed last week in a lordship salvation debate with a confused soul who doesn't really understand the premise of regeneration, I had come across a website purporting to be pro-lordship which was offering free books entitled "Even the Demons Believe". Who can argue with a title like that? Said book has been sitting in my basement bookcase for over a month, whilst I resolved to get around to it one day.

This morning I had to get my brake pads changed (ground themselves right into the rotors, the blasted things) so I read it while drinking swanky coffee in the dealership's Customer Appreciation Department. I already understand that true conversion will always result in fruit, but I figured this book would give me a more concise explanation of the lordship of Christ for future discussions. I tend to go off on tangents, in case you haven't noticed, and that's not a virtue when you're explaining doctrine.

So.....even the demons believe. We all agree so far. The introduction sounded like an even-handed reaction on the part of sincere Christians to emotion-based appeals and easy believism. "Sound Doctrine Ministries" evidently was started to combat the "cheap grace" so rampant in post-modern evangelicalism, and the foreword sounded legitimate enough. I was about 7 or 8 pages in before I started to get the willies. The overall tone of the book is severe - completely joyless. No doubt, the first thing that made me raise my eyebrows (although certainly not heresy) was the following sentence: "Jesus hated His life while He walked on this earth." Really, now? No context for that whatsoever. The Gospels several times mention His joy (Luke 10:21; Luke 15:5; John 15:11; John 17:13) and complete submission to the will of the Father -- which was for Him to live as fully man. Nothing in the Gospels indicates Jesus "hated" His life - there was no sin in Him, and He delighted in doing the Father's will.

Moving on...on the next page, I encounter this gem:

"In the first place, Jesus did not come to make Christians, but disciples. This is an important distinction, mainly because when someone refers to themselves as a Christian they consider it a done deal. But Jesus looked at it differently. He sought to make disciples, and a disciple is someone in the act of continually learning from God...becoming a disciple demands a degree of humility and teachability that being a Christian does not require. A Christian sounds like a finished deal.....a disciple is in the process of being saved and waits for God's "coming of salvation," "revealed in the last time."

(emphasis mine).

"Aha!" said I. "They're confusing justification with sanctification. This could get interesting." Reading on, I learn that being born again is a lengthy process, much like becoming a medical doctor, and we will not really be Christians until we "graduate" and see Christ face to face. "Disciples are individuals that were saved, are being saved and will be saved. Salvation, like discipleship, is a process. God has given us free choice and we can stop this process of saving grace and thus fall away."

Haven't heard that line since Catholic school. Raw deal for that guy on the cross who believed Christ was who He said He was in his last moments, huh? To continue, I learn that if a man then hardens his heart, he cuts off the power of grace and will forfeit eternal life - therefore he must "simply say "yes" to the grace of God every day" in order for God to keep him from falling. So then....who is the one controlling our salvation? Certainly not God, if we can gain it on Monday, lose it on Tuesday....gain it back on Wednesday...only to lose it again on Friday.

Guess what? There's not a Christian alive who hasn't "said no" to God's grace at least one day of his life. That's what makes grace "grace" (def.: undeserved gift; unmerited favor). A true child of God will not stay in a hardened or unrepentant state (Luke 15) - God knows His own. After myriad warnings of all the ways I can lose my salvation, I'm told that I must "make every effort to be saved" and pay the price (after an undetermined amount of time contemplating and counting the cost).

What does that cost entail, you ask? Well, Williams has included a 31-point bullet list of "a few things to consider before [I] make [my] decision to follow Jesus. I'm cautioned to "please keep in mind these are only a few things that [I] should consider long before calling [myself] a Christian."

• A despising and hating of money [spoiler alert: turns out this group, which is based in Washington, means by this that I should fork it all over to them].
• A hatred of my time, rest, comfort, fun, and joys [lots of hating going on here already, dontcha think?)
• A realization that God regrets making me [Wowzers! Don't think I've ever seen Genesis 6:6 taken QUITE that far out of context...my Bible also says He takes great delight in me and rejoices over me with singing - Zeph. 3:17]
• To work out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing I could lose it [I swear I am not making this up - do I really need to post all the references that promise the Christian eternal security, assurance of salvation, and perseverance?]
• To pray all of the time [even while I'm asleep, I gather]
• To be prepared to stop associating with anyone who claims to be a Christian but is a hypocrite [So I really don't have to deal with my parents! I'm off da hook! I KNEW there had to be a loophole to that pesky 5th Commandment thingy!]
• Come into the Light where my whole life is open before God and the church [Hmm. Based in what I've read so far, that sounds like a thin veneer for a high control group. Starting to smell like ICOC, me thinks. Spoiler alert: founders were once involved in ICOC. I can smell cults a mile away, I tell you...I'm getting good.]

In conclusion, we learn that "....we cannot hope for a resurrected life without first carrying the cross the Holy Spirit gives us." Shaking head and blinking here. That gives the expression "putting the cart before the horse" new meaning. How can one hope to carry a cross before conversion (becoming a child of God?) Why would the Holy Spirit expect us to "prove" ourselves by cross-bearing prior to being placed in Christ, and where would we get the strength (let alone the desire) apart from a vital union with our Savior?

One thing I learned while writing my own book was that when discussing doctrine and applied theology, your wording must be very, very precise.

The one doctrine of grace that "Even the Demons Believe" handled accurately was Total Depravity. However, even there, Williams says more than the Bible does (in regards to the elect): "God's grace requires full surrender of all pride and self-justification, [true] for God is "grieved" that he (sic) made you. [patently untrue]. As He looks at your life and what you have become "pain" fills His heart." Again, the author is taking Genesis 6:6 out of context and overlooking the fact of God's omniscience - He knows the end from the beginning and rejoices over His elect. He does not wish any to perish, but repeatedly out of love calls men to repentance. This mixing of truth with error is typical throughout the book, and it grieves me that younger Christians might read this and believe it is an accurate representation of lordship (or, worse, an accurate picture of God's view of them).

Williams writes:

"When a man or woman stops carrying the cross, the new life God created starts to die because the old you begins to take over again. If this situation continues long enough, the new life God started totally dies and the person becomes more fit for hell than when God first started. Better that he never even started trying to be a Christian."

#1. 1 Peter 1:23 says "you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." If God creates a new life, it cannot die. (John 11:26; John 3:36) and no one can snatch that life out of God's hand (John 10:28) because that life is now hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3). See why it's important to read your Bible, and not let pious-sounding purveyors of man-made doctrine confuse you?

#2. Let's look at Matthew 23:15 in context, shall we? "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." Jesus here was addressing the Pharisees, who were lost and blinded in their own hypocrisy. The warning of being "twice as fit for hell" was not addressed to Christians who had momentarily dropped their "cross"; it was addressed to apostate Judaic teachers who refused to bend the knee to Him as the Messiah. (Ever notice Jesus never threatened Peter with hell, even after his denial?)

#3. Salvation is a work of God. No one "tries" to be a Christian; God draws him (John 6:44). In fact, the Bible repeatedly affirms that man does not seek God on his own initiative (Romans 3:11) because the heart is inherently deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9).

Next, an entire chapter is devoted to "proving" baptism is the "next step" in the process of salvation. Acts 2:36-40 is used as a proof text, and the actual water is declared to be salvific.

(Whew...this is getting complicated! I wonder if that Samaritan woman or the adulteress Jesus forgave...or Zacheus the wee little man or the Extraordinarily Sinful Woman of Luke 7 knew any of this, or that repentance is a threefold process. I think they just came to Christ, broken but in faith.)

On it continues in this vein. If I may state the obvious: This is NOT Lordship. Trust me. I love John Macarthur. I like Paul Washer. Sometimes, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I can even tolerate Tim Conway (wonderfully balanced message on God's love and holiness can be seen here). All "Lordship Salvation" is, is a recognition that if Christ is our Savior, He is fully our Lord and if we call ourselves disciples, we'll walk in obedience. There will always be some evidence of a changed life in one who has been reborn - sometimes sooner; sometimes later. As I wrote in my own book recently, once you know that love and that unfathomable mercy, you can't help but be changed by it. Obedience is birthed out of gratitude - there's a desire to die to self and to live for Christ. (If living for self were working for us, why would we have become Christians in the first place?) Lordship does not mean you will never struggle with sin, nor is it works-based salvation (the epitome of pride).

Usually, but not always, when a ministry labeling itself Christian gives away books free on the internet, it's a safe bet they're a cult. (Gospel for Asia is one notable exception). A few years ago, an "evangelical" group e-mailed me asking me to translate one of their books into Bulgarian. They turned out to be an esoteric cult based in Korea. (For the price they were offering, I wouldn't have done it even if it had been for Billy Graham!) About 10 minutes of research turned up that these purveyors of the "true gospel", Sound Doctrine Ministries, is a pseudo--Christian cult (their publisher is Carried Cross Books). Many people have shared their testimonies of deceit, manipulation and destroyed lives in online forums; Moriel Ministries discussed the group's red flags as well.

You've been warned. Beware of them. Be Bereans.

Where's The Beef?

Two dueling Puritans

You all thought I was going to embed another Wendy's commercial from the '80's, didn't you? (That's not what this post is about, but the commercial was still funny - check it out here.)

No, actually the "beef" to which I refer is an escalating tension between two camps in Christiandom: Dispensational and Covenant Theology.

UPDATE: If you're really interested in the differences between the two 'systems' but can't afford to go to seminary, here's a very readable discussion from the gotquestions.org site:
http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/covenant-theology.html

Although I have studied a reasonable amount of systematic theology, (enough to grasp the basic differences, which mainly fall under ecclesiology and eschatology), I was unaware until a week ago that there was any real animosity between respective proponents over doctrinal differences. This may be somewhat surprising to you, as I spend a fair amount of time in the Calvinist-leaning Christian blogosphere. I also attend a Calvinist-leaning church, which also happens to lean dispensationalist. (Confused yet?) We uphold both God's sovereign election and man's responsibility in conversion, which makes us less Calvinistic than, say, John Macarthur or R.C. Sproul, but a great deal more than (for instance) Bill Bright.

Salvation is by grace through faith. Justification is by grace alone, includes repentance, and regeneration results in progressive sanctification. That's a fancy way of saying the Gospel is preached, and I don't know a Reformed, Baptist, dispensationalist or Covenant Theologian alive who would disagree on any of those points.

Recently, however, two women ministry leaders at church brought to my attention the fact that here in New England, in particular, there is a real growing hostility between the two groups - most of it coming from the Covenant side. "There is a real 'hardness'," my pastor's wife said. Some Covenant churches (presumably 5-point Calvinists) are even telling their members not to associate with dispensationalist congregations, as we are theologically aberrant. Come again?

A few months ago, I commented half-jokingly to my PW that I strive to be a 5-point Calvinist, but I just can't seem to go the whole hog. The cyber-Christian "intelligentsia" seems to be made up almost exclusively of such, and I like to think of myself as a bit of an intellectual. She replied that it was probably better that I'm not, as she's noted a real lack of joy among the 5-pointers she's known. There seems to be a correlation between hyper-Calvinism and Covenant Theology, but I can't quite seem to define it.

In any event, I follow Jesus Christ; not John Calvin.

Surprised to hear that dispies were shunned by Covs, I did what any theo-geek with a pressing query would do: I e-mailed the Pyro Dudes. Here is a response I received from Dan:

I think everything you say is accurate, and have observed and experienced the same things.

Dispensationalism has been made a friendly "off-limits" focus for Pyromaniacs.

I have however written about it a number of times on my own blog, and am about to publish a review of a book on dispensationalism, probably later this week (Lord willing).

You can see my main posts on the subject here and here and here and here.

Another site you might find amazingly useful is Michael Vlach's site. He is a doctor, a theology professor, and a dispensationalist Calvinist.

(I particularly enjoyed the second link, "25 Stupid Reasons to Diss Dispensationalism"). So this Cov. Theo/disp has really become an official Big Woop among Bible-believing Christians. I admit, I'm surprised. Covenant Theology, in a nutshell, sees all OT law as being in effect unless abrogated by the NT. I know that they are okay with infant baptism, seeing it as a continuation of a covenant - specifically, baptism becomes the NT version of circumcision. (Given all the verses that link personal faith and repentance to baptism, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly not rank heresy). The Church and Old Testament Israel are essentially seen as one Body - unlike dispensationalism, which views Pentecost as the birthday of the Church. Covenant Theologians generally take an amillenial or post-millenial view of eschatology, (as opposed to the pre-trib/pre-millenial dispensationalist view), and use a more symbolic hermeneutic to interpret parts of Scripture than the grammatical-literal principal common to dispensationalists. There are a few other distinctives along these lines, with some variance.

Call me crazy, but I thought it was the Gospel that matters. It's not that I'm not familiar with the two systems' variances. I just don't care.

Last week, I spent several hours perusing websites devoted to diagramming, parsing and debating the distinctives of each camp. Trouble was, most of them were from the Covenant Theology side and they misrepresented dispensationalist belief. We were called anti-nomian on one (Really? Ever met Macarthur?).

Part of the reason it surprises and dismays me that there would be controversy about these matters among Christians is that I have sat in the churches of very godly pastors of both streams. When I lived in Bulgaria and attended First Evangelical Church of Sofia, my pastor, Rev. Hristo Kulichev (about whom I've written before) preached the Gospel unfailingly. A veteran of Communist prisons and labor camps, he taught his congregation to stand strong in the face of both persecution and carnal temptation. After reading his books "Salvation and Predestination" and "The Existence of the Church" last summer, I realized he is a Covenant Theologian. (In case I cared. Which I don't.) My current pastor preaches the same Gospel as he did; the same love for Christ; the same no-compromise approach to faithful obedience. Although he happens to believe the Church will be Raptured before the Tribulation. (I hope he's right. But if he's not, no biggie. I just want to focus on being ready).

If we were to lock these two humble men of God in a room with me to interpret, they would disagree on the finer points of theology. However, I simply cannot imagine them arguing or having a chip on their shoulders over these doctrinal distinctives - their hearts are too focused on the Gospel itself to get side-tracked by what most would consider non-essentials.

I am the first to assert that sound doctrine does matter. Although I abhor argument for argument's sake, most of the heated debates I've found myself embroiled in have been over theological matters crucial to the Gospel. There are, in fact, certain fundamentals of Christianity. Failure to adhere to certain key doctrines means that, by definition, you are not a Christian. I simply don't see ecclesiology as falling into that category, and there is probably no branch of theology more open to debate than eschatology. Hence my question: "Where's the beef?"

I may have met my match with systematic theology. It's giving me a headache.

I wonder if our Heavenly Father ever feels that way...?

Jay Adams - More Debunking Transubstantiation

Yesterday's blog post over at The Institute for Nouthetic Studies dealt with, ironically enough, the aberrant doctrine of transubstantiation. Recently, I posted a two-part series examining how the early Church saw the ordinance of the Lord's Supper - as a memorial to the crucified and risen Lord.

Dr. Jay Adams, in typical concise fashion, sums it up nicely in yesterday's post (I even fixed his spelling typos):

"What about transubstantiation? Were the bread and wine actually changed into the body and blood of Christ? Millions of people claim to believe they were. If it were true, it would be a continuous miracle—totally unlike any other in the Bible.

But consider the facts.

First, notice that Jesus said to eat and drink in remembrance of Him. What goes on at the supper has mnemonic value.

Secondly, He said that eating was a means of declaring (literally, “preaching”) His death until returns. There is not a whisper about the cannibalistic act of actually eating Him.

“Ah. But He said ‘this is My body’ and ‘this is My blood.’ How do you get around that fact?”

We don’t have to get around it, as you put it. We simply do regular exegesis. When Jesus said I am the Bread of life, the Water of life or the Door to the sheepfold, for instance, we don’t say He is a fluid, or a board hanging on hinges, or a loaf of bread. Thank God that there is a meaningful and important purpose of proclaiming the Lord’s death for sinners that comports with rather than contradicts, the way of salvation. The once-for-all death of Christ (Hebrews 9:28; 10:1,2; 11-14) must be maintained rather than the opposing doctrine of Jesus dying in un-bloody sacrifices again and again on Roman Catholic altars, as is presupposed in transubstantiation.

How foolish to think that the apostles understood something more than what Jesus said—that the supper was an act of remembrance and proclamation. After all, there He was sitting before them in His living flesh and blood. If I hold up a picture of myself and say, “See, this is me,” what do you suppose–that the picture is somehow morphed into me? Of course not! Friend, if you are caught up in this sophistry of the scholastics, think again."

(There's an SAT word of the day for you - 'sophistry'. I'm going to figure out a way to use that in a sentence this weekend.)