Give Thanks to the God of all Blessing

Al Mohler has written an excellent reflection on the topic of thanksgiving. He points out that "giving thanks is one of the most explicitly theological acts any human can contemplate." On Thanksgiving Day in America, who are we giving thanks to, if we don't acknowledge God as the foundation of human blessings?

We may be thankful to one another, but do our friends and family provide us life, health, jobs, food or houses to live in? If God is not behind the universe then who do we thank for such blessings? Ourselves? Luck? Fate?

In my family we have had a tradition in the past few years of writing on little slips of paper those things we are especially thankful for and sharing these with one another. It's a good thing to do and it convicts me of how thank-less I sometimes am for the everyday blessings that come to me through family. Often I take for granted these blessings that come through those close to me. But this year I hope that as I give thanks for all my blessings I'll remember the One behind them all-- for when I bless you or you bless me, we are only ministering back to God the blessing He's given to us.

My friend Rick wishes this Thanksgiving, for himself and others, a thankful heart, one that recognizes God's good and loving hand in all things. I agree-- it's hard, even for Christians, to be thankful for bad circumstances, trials and sufferings unless we really acknowledge God as being in control and working through all things (Romans 8:28).

Someday it will be revealed that our acts of kindness to one another were all done unto God, by His grace alone (Matthew 25:40, 1 Cor 8:6, John 3:21).

Psalm 65: 1-4 reads

Praise is due to you, O God, in Zion,
and to you shall vows be performed.
O you who hear prayer,
to you shall all flesh come.
When iniquities prevail against me,
you atone for our transgressions.
Blessed is the one you choose and bring near,
to dwell in your courts!
We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house,
the holiness of your temple!

Happy Thanksgiving, my friends!

How Christians Really Change the World

I just came upon an excellent and articulate essay titled, RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P. by Cal Thomas that was posted November 5, 2008, just as President Barack Obama had been elected.

Mr. Thomas argues that Christians wanting to make a deep, long-lasting impact upon our culture must not make their primary focus and effort the attainment of political power, but should instead live out truly Christian lives before all, as in the revivals of yesteryear which history proves did bring radical change to our nation. This is a much needed reminder, for though in these days of Obama we rightly are alarmed over the direction this country seems to be headed, it is a mistake to focus all of our energies on political solutions if we neglect the most effective agent of changing the human heart-- the transforming power of the gospel in the life of individuals, which in turn impacts culture at large.

I am not saying Christians should completely extricate themselves from politics; in fact living as faithful Christians means that we as a community must continue to speak out on the moral issues facing this country by defending and applying biblical values and principles. Yet in his essay Mr. Thomas makes the excellent point that even when evangelicals attain the positions of power, this does not and has not of itself transformed the heart of the culture. Only God can do that. He does it by transforming individuals into His likeness, that they might become an example that shines its powerful light in the midst of the prevailing darkness.

I urge you to read his thoughtful essay, which appears below, or click the link to be taken to Mr. Thomas' website.


RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.

Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.

Scripture teaches that God’s power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.

(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

(c) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Tags: Cal Thomas, religious right, Christians and politics, transforming culture

Knowing Revelation: Return to Your First Love

At my church today, pastor Ed Moore preached the first message in what will be a series of messages he plans to teach from the book of Revelation. Our pastor humbly admitted that his knowledge of eschatology (the study of last things) has been a weak area in his preaching ministry. Yet he also said he has been doing his homework in order to remedy this gap in his knowledge, and that he might preach more wisely and effectively in this area. He recognizes that such study is biblically important and will be profitable to the congregation.

Ed began his sermon by pointing out that many who have taught on this book in recent years use the book as a launching pad for their wildly speculative prophetic interpretations. Such persons have read Revelation as pertaining to today's current events and feel free to interpret the figurative language used in much of the book as being about events happening right now or about imminent future events. Some have gone as far as to make exact predictions concerning the date of Christ's return. Ed pointed out that the only consistent thing about such predictions has been one thing --they have all been wrong-- Christ did not return as predicted.

So while fear of getting it wrong and looking foolish before others have been reasons for some of the hesitancy to preach sermons in this area, our pastor seemed to say that this was not a good excuse and that he would no longer neglect this important subject.

I resonate with my pastor as he speaks about eschatology. I too have felt very ignorant in my knowledge in this area, perhaps intimidated by those I've read and heard that seemed to speak so authoritatively on the topic. When I became a Christian in the early 1980's one of the books the Lord happened to use to help me consider the Christian message was the late 1970's bestseller "The Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsay. Lindsay captured my imagination because he wrote that all of what is happening today was predicted in the Bible and is currently being fulfilled. He painted a picture of a God intimately involved in the outworking of current events, One who might return at any moment to rapture His followers. God used this imperfect book to prompt me to consider the Bible more closely and to recognize that the Bible has relevance to life today. Now having been a Christian for more than 25 years, I still believe God is intimately involved in the unfolding of all events, and that He could return at any time (for surely this is what the Bible teaches). But I am today skeptical of the kind of prophetic writing presented in books such as Late Great Planet Earth, which seem more an exercise in human speculation than an accurate interpretation of Scripture.

So here's the thing: God can use what truth is found in books such as Late Great Planet Earth, flawed as they may be, to help a person to come to know Him. Yet as we continue in our Christian lives, God expects our knowledge of Him to mature, our theology to become more accurate, and most of all, our love for Him to deepen.

Ed's message on Revelation reminded me of a wonderful yet fearful truth: God knows my works. He knows whether I am growing in the accuracy of my understanding of Him. He knows the kind of job I am doing at work, whether I represent Him well and with integrity there. He knows whether or not I am a good husband and all of my strengths and weaknesses as head of my household. Yet when He judges me, there's one question of highest priority in His evaluation: is He still my first love? Do I still love God more than I love all other things in this life? Do I have a daily affection and a passion for Him? Do I really know Him in a personal way, or do I just know things about Him?

How easy it is to lose sight of this all-important priority-- that Jesus remains one's first love, and that one continues to rely on Him alone as one's daily Bread, sustenance, and only source of true Life.

So I still think studying eschatology is important-- for we ought to know what the Bible says is happening and is going to happen, that we may live correctly now. And improving my theology is also critical-- God's greatest commandment to the believer, after all, includes loving Him with all of the mind. Which means that the knowledge of God that comes through the mind must be accurate-- lest I be in danger of not serving and worshiping God as He truly is, but rather, a god of my imagination. Yet how easy it is, even as one pursues such good things as proper knowledge of eschatology or theology, to lose one's first love.

It happened to the Ephesian church, in Revelation 2, whom Christ had commended both for being hard-workers and for being theologically astute. Nevertheless, He said, they had lost their "first love" and He told them they must repent, "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first (Rev 2:5)."

As my pastor points out, this exhortation is dealing with something very serious-- the very salvation of one's soul is at stake. For Jesus promises, "To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God (Rev 2:7)"

So we see this is serious business. Allegiance to Christ means to love and obey Him, (John 14:15,23) and to love Him means to value Him more than all other things (John 21:15, Matt 10:37), and what we treasure is (and will be) revealed by our actions (Matt 6:21). And the Lord sees all, and knows our hearts better than we do (John 2:25, Gen 16:13).

All of this makes me fearful, I must admit, for I know that there is much sin that remains in me. But it makes me all the more cry out to the Lord for help and mercy and grace, that I may become and be what He has chosen me to be.

I also happened today upon a very helpful article, "Notes on Our Ongoing Need of Redemption as Christians" by my friend John Hendryx of Monergism.com. I consider John a friend, though we haven't ever met face-to-face. But we have interacted and chatted occasionally via our mutual involvement in web ministry. In the past, John was also kind enough to link from Monergism.com to some articles here on knowing God's will. He also linked to this blog and to my ReformingChristianity.com Netvibes website. For this I consider him a friend.

His article points out that as one progresses in the Christian life, one's consciousness of the deep sinfulness that remains in the heart becomes ever more acute, and this might cause someone to feel great guilt, to the point of even doubting their salvation. But John points out that such conviction is actually a normal part of Christian growth. He writes,

In light of God’s holy law I saw myself as, not getting better, but increasingly aware of my own sinfulness. But as it turns out, while this “classroom” revealed my own corrupt heart yet it was for my own benefit so the Lord could shine a light on once dark recesses of my being which were not previously exposed. I learned from this that inwardly, as we grow in grace, the greatness of God (and what Christ has done for us) increases in our hearts, while we become less. In fact it is normal that as we grow in the Lord our sense of our own sinfulness and ill-deserving lives may often even become more apparent. However, at the same time, this is in the Lord's plan and He uses it to make us simultaneously more dependent on Christ. And thanks be to God, that in Christ, God does not treat us as our sins justly deserve … and that is something we need to remind ourselves, and praise Him for, daily.

May each of us know our hearts in the light of God's word, and cast ourselves in humility upon the only One who can redeem the corruption we find within, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Tags: Revelation, Ed Moore, eschatology, first love, The Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsay, John Hendryx, Monergism.com

Gary Gilley reviews "The Shack" by William P. Young

Gary Gilley has provided a valuable service to all with his review of the bestselling novel "The Shack" by William P. Young. Analyzing the book's theological message, he demonstrates that while the tale occasionally gets some Christian theology correct, it mostly distorts the biblical message and inaccurately presents the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some would argue that "The Shack" is just a story and as such does not aim to be a theological presentation. It should therefore not be judged on the accuracy of its theology. Gilley acknowledges that "good Christian fiction has the ability to get across a message in an indirect, non-threatening yet powerful, way." Yet he also believes that "what determines the value of fiction is how closely it adheres to Scripture" and sets out to measure "The Shack" by these criteria.

In a sense, every individual has a working "theology". Even if one's theology is not a theistic (or even conscious) theology, human beings are always trying to understand the meaning of their existence. One's "theology" then, describes the beliefs one develops and holds in order to explain and give meaning to reality.

Gilley writes,

The Shack, like many books today, decries theology on the one hand while offering its own brand on the other. A story has the advantage of putting forth doctrine in a livelier manner than a systematic work can do—which is why we find most of Scripture in narrative form. The question is, does Young’s theology agree with God’s as revealed in Scripture? The short answer is “sometimes” but often Young totally misses the mark.

Gilley is quite kind in the tone of his critique, acknowledging that Young portrays some biblical truths accurately. But in my mind this is precisely what makes Young's book all the more deceptive-- it lures one in by getting a few things right, but its overall message is New Age pantheism (and or panentheism) and not Christianity at all.

Friends, if theology describes what one believes about God and the way the world works, let us not make the mistake of saying that all such views and beliefs are equally valid and helpful. The Bible certainly does not present theology that way, but depicts God in a definite way and says: this is God, and this is how you must have a relationship with Him. One can either accept or reject the Bible's presentation, but we must at least acknowledge that the Bible's message is specific. It says Jesus Christ "is the way, the truth and the life" and no one comes to the Father except through Him, rather than "all paths lead to God in the end" (so it doesn't matter what one believes). The Bible contradicts such universalism, as well as the God-is-in-everything message presented in novels such as "The Shack". As for me, I believe the Bible's eternal revelation is true and will stand long after books like "The Shack" are utterly forgotten.

You can read Gilley's full review here:

The Shack by William P. Young

Tags: Gary Gilley, The Shack, William P. Young, book review, discernment, New Age, pantheism, panentheism, theology

Inspiration and Idols

Yesterday it was my birthday. I hung one more year on the line...
Paul Simon

So maybe on my birthday I ought to have been out celebrating, or doing something a little special, but instead I stayed home all day (I had asked for the day off from work). How did I celebrate my birthday? Well, I spent a good deal of time just cleaning around the house and getting things organized in my home office. Also I managed to have an daylong argument with my wife about keeping the house clean. Fun stuff.

Anyway, lately it seems I have lacked inspiration, or to be more accurate, my motivation (for living for Christ and for pursuing certain goals) waxes and wanes. For example, a blog series on reformed theology I was excited to jump back into-- well I just haven't found the energy and focus to keep at it. I haven't been writing new songs either, which is always a bad sign. I mean, usually when I'm in a creative state I have lots of song ideas that come to me spontaneously-- melodies, which I will record. Actually I still have been getting ideas but I haven't been diligent enough to record them. The ideas haven't felt "inspired", so I didn't bother.

And my job. I have a real tough time getting excited about going into the office each day. The work is simply not something I'm motivated by. I know it's not what I am meant to be doing, if you know what I mean.

I know others who are also experiencing spiritual/life doldrums. What is the problem really? Why do I have such a hard time staying excited and motivated about God and about my life path?

Well I think the answer is pretty simple really. It's just putting the simple solution into practice that's the challenge. What is the solution? Well, it's just this: walking closely with God each day, and having a "big picture" life-goal, one that is dynamic and visionary, yet is subdivided into measurable daily objectives.

The key to it all is being connected to the Lord Jesus Christ-- abiding in Him continually, drawing life and inspiration from His life flowing in and though me. Out of this everything else will flow-- vision, goals, energy, motivation.

OK, this sounds simple, yet it's so easy to get distracted by the daily activities of life, isn't it? You get up each day and jump right into whatever it is you have to do next, and before you know it, you're off and running and God is forgotten. But as Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4)." A Christian can't flourish without being in close communion with God through His Word. After a while the soul begins to feel its hunger and its weakness.

I feel as if the Spirit has been reminding me again and again about making God the "one thing" I desire more than anything else, by getting rid of idols that compete with Him for the affection of my heart. Most of my sins-- at their root-- have to do with frustration that I'm not getting something my heart longs after. And that thing I long after functions as my "god" in that moment. But "it" (whatever "it" may be) is not God, but only a substitute for Him. So even if I had/get it, I wouldn't be happy or fulfilled. The things of this world can't satisfy the longings of our soul. They were never meant to.

I'm convinced that all believers struggle, in varying degrees, and in thousands of different forms, with this problem of "idols in the heart". Which is of course why the Bible commands us not to worship other gods (Exodus 20:3, 1 John 5:21). It is a deep sin, a sin that underlies and is at the root of so many others.

If am not loving God with everything I have and all that is within me (obeying the great commandment, Matt 22:37, Deut 6:5) I need to ask myself-- what is competing for the affection of my heart? This will eventually lead me to identify my specific idols. Living under the sway of false gods ruling in the heart makes one callous to the presence of the true God. These "gods" redirect our attention to the things of this world, rather than the love of the Father (1 John 2:15-17). They demand that we sacrifice unto them-- our time, our money, or energy, our affection, our joy, our life. And the more we give them, the less satisfaction they provide, which in turn causes us to give them even more, hoping to get more, like a person who mindlessly puts all their coins into a slot machine in the hope of winning a big cash payout. Whatever small returns these gods put out, they never satisfy. Their promises are lies.

So I need to learn to see the truth and the love of God everywhere, to keep Him and His truth before me always. I need to know, not just in theory, but to be conscious of, the fact that He is really there for me, that He truly is with me, that He is working all things together for my good because we are in a love relationship that will never be severed (Romans 8:31-38, Matthew 28:20).

How will I know these things, deep in the bowels of my soul? I don't think such knowledge is to be sought in mystical encounter with God, nor necessarily in the hearing of inspired sermons or message. Regarding the former, I'm not sure that Christianity is really about that at all, despite the fact that having experiences with God wherein one feels Him somehow is all the rage these days in many Christian circles. I don't see in Scripture that body of Christ is being instructed to seek after God in this way. As for sermons and good messages, they are helpful when they bring out clearly some particular truth of God's word. The Holy Spirit applies those truths to us specifically, if we're listening.

So I think that true spirituality is found primarily in connecting with God through His word; in the doing of the simple daily acts of obedience that demonstrate trust and faith. Sowing these little seeds will eventually bear good fruit-- I'll sense more the presence of God and His pleasure. He'll become more and more the treasure of my heart, as I learn to savor His good pleasure in me more than I savor anything this world has to offer. It also involves getting together with the the family of God, to encourage one another, pray together and band together, as we live for God in this world that is not our home. And of course, taking the Lord's supper regularly, so that we remember what Christ did and is doing for us-- He is saving our souls through the gospel-- is not to be neglected.

Lord, keep my heart focused on You. Stir within me a hunger for more of You. Give me a hunger for Your word and eyes and ears to understand it. Direct me in your paths, and reign me in when my heart and life begins to go astray-- lead me back into the way everlasting, the way of truth, of peace, and of eternal joys at your right hand.

You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore (Psalm 16:11)

Tags: spiritual motivation, spiritual dryness, motivation, idols, worshiping other gods, abiding in Christ, feeding on God's word, making God the treasure of your heart

Watchblogging Revisited

In a recent post titled Evil as Entertainment, Reformed blogger Tim Challies takes certain watchblogs to task for harping on evil so much that they neglect to point out what is good and true. He feels such blogs may be the equivalent of a "spiritualized form of YouTube", in that they present evil as a form of entertainment. Reading his piece, I found myself convicted that I have indeed sometimes read certain blog articles that way, perhaps finding a bit too much pleasure in the heresies reported. And I agreed with Challies' main point, that believers are to focus on the good and the true, and that we ought to examine our motives if we find ourselves consistently drawn to those who post about nothing but the evils other believers are doing.

But the chief weakness with the article is its non-specificity- Challies doesn't "name names" (probably because he's trying to be gracious and just point out principles to follow), but specific examples would have made it easier to know just what or whom he's critiquing. Also, I'm not entirely sure that Challies is not critiquing a strawman, for I've not personally encountered those watchblogs that only speak of error while never pointing to what is true. Moreover, saying that some watchblogs are posting such things for mere entertainment value is a rather serious charge, and by not being specific as to which blogs he's talking about, Challies' seems to imply that watchblogs by their very nature are guilty of this.

I do find more that is helpful in Phil Johnson's well-written critique of Challies' piece, titled "Turning a Blind Eye to Evil Is Evil, Too". Johnson writes,

"There's quite a lot to applaud in what Tim said, but I don't think he said everything about the subject that needed to be said. As a result, I thought his post was (quite uncharacteristically for Challies, of all people) lacking in balance".

Johnson goes on to make a number of good points, which have the effect of providing balance to the message of Challies' article.

1) Defending the faith is a necessary task for shepherds.
When someone on his blog comments that he thinks Phil "would rather spend his time building up believers and himself in the Word rather than calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith and send[ing] them to hell", Phil agrees with the assessment, but hastens to add that

"calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith" is a shepherd's duty, not an option— and it can be quite edifying if done well.

I heartily concur with Mr. Johnson's point here and it's one I've made frequently here on Jordan's View in previous posts (see below):

Christian Watchbloggers- Good or Bad?
Discerning What Is Truth (Part 2)
Discerning What Is Truth (Part 1)
The Age of Tolerance Calls for Bold Proclamation of Truth

But returning to Phil's article:

2) Blogs are an appropriate forum for calling out doctrinal error publicly.
When preaching a sermon, Johnson states his main concern is to "explain the meaning of specific texts of Scripture and exhort people to apply the truth to their lives in obedience to God." However, when writing a blog, Johnson employs both "humor and criticism" to make certain points. The issue of whether this is appropriate is often debated, but certainly Paul and even our Lord both used humor and even sarcasm in ministry.

Of course, godly satire is challenging for sinners like us to pull off. As people who struggle with sin, Christians must check their hearts (motives) while engaged in any kind of ministry. Steve Camp chimes in on the discussion with an excellent, biblically saturated article, Blogging, Watchblogging, and Ministry, which both challenged and convicted me with these helpful questions to ask oneself:

1. How does my post glorify God and exalt Christ? Or am I seeking to only expand my daily readership by addressing controversial issues just for controversy's sake? (1 Cor. 10:31)

2. How does it equip the body of Christ biblically to be better Bereans on any issue they face? (Acts 17:11)

3. How does it convict and challenge me in my own life before I turn its truths on another? IOW, what do I need to learn, model, obey and repent of first before calling others to do the same? (Psalm 119:10-17)

4. How does it bring truth and foster change to the one I am disagreeing with? (Eph. 4:13-16)

5. How does it edify and encourage - not just exhort? (Eph. 4:1-3; 26-32)

6. How does it communicate real biblical resolve? (Roms. 12:1-2)

7. How does it enable others to live more like Jesus as salt and light in their communities, ready to serve their church and world? (Matt. 5-7)

8. Am I filled with the Holy Spirit as I write and unfold God's Word, or am I only giving knee-jerk reactions to what is the hot potato of the moment? (Eph. 5:17-21)

9. And lastly, in what I have just written and confronted caused me to focus more clearly on the person of our Lord Jesus Christ and something He would find pleasure, delight and honor in? (Heb. 12:1-3)

Camp offers gracious critique of Challies' article, and at the same time complements Tim for his writing and blog ministry. Camp writes about Challies, "He is thoughtful, circumspect, kind and generous. He is obviously very well read, reformed, insightful, and we are all the better for his contribution on many issues he addresses in the blogosphere."

I would like to stop at this point and also commend Tim Challies for his consistent promotion of reformed teaching and his steadfast output of helpful, well-written articles. As a fellow blogger I appreciate (and envy, in a good way) Challies' prodigious flow of writing. I know that hard work and discipline is involved in this and is probably a big reason his blog has become a great resource to so many.

So my chief concern with Challies' post is the fact that, because it doesn't also point out the value of the watchblogger's task, some may try to use it to justify writing off completely those who engage in the kind of ministry/critique watchbloggers do. But as Phil Johnson and Steve Camp point out in their articles and even I have also tried to do here on my blog, the defense of sound doctrine, together with rebuke of erroneous teaching, is an absolutely vital aspect of Christian ministry (1 Tim 1:3, 8, Titus 1:9, 2 Peter 3:16-18). And good watchblogs are doing this, not as a replacement for pastoral teaching but in response to the marketplace of ideas. And perhaps this task has become more necessary than ever in an age when false ideologies and aberrant teachings proliferate so readily via the Internet, and so may turn to the INternet for information. As Challies suggests, some watchblogs and ministries need more balance as they perform this vital task, but again I have not encountered the kind of watchblogs Tim is writing about. For example, he says:

But if a pastor of a church in Kalamazoo preaches a sermon in which he says something scandalous, it has no effect on my life and, beyond its draw as entertainment, I can think of few good reasons for me to even know about it. Multiply this by hundreds of new stories a week (or even just tens of stories a week) and I end up with a huge amount of negative information that stays in my head and heart, but which has no bearing on my life.

But those blogs I personally follow which write about bad teachings (or even this blog) are not singling out the errors of obscure pastors, but rather, pointing out false teachings infiltrating the evangelical church at large by persons whose names are well-known. So again it would have been helpful to know precisely what/whom Challies was criticizing.

Again, returning to Phil Johnson's article:

3) The role of the critic is just as necessary as the role of the encourager.

Phil writes:

I think what Tim Challies is saying is that it's unhealthy to fix one's attention on error full time rather than spending most of our time dwelling on things that edify. If that's all he is saying, I say (as heartily as possible) AMEN! (Philippians 4:8). But if someone wants to seize that point in order to suggest that it's always better to be an encourager than a critic, my reply is: That very attitude is largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.

And again:

I understand Challies' central concern. There is a vocal segment of the fundamentalist/evangelical community for whom an obsession with sensational exposés and nattering negativity has proved seriously unhealthy. It has given them a sour attitude, a perpetually angry tone, and a really bad reputation. I don't enjoy reading what they write, either, and I don't hang around their blogs.

But the mentality that dominates the evangelical culture today— and the far greater problem, in my judgment— is exactly the opposite. The overwhelming majority of today's evangelical sophisticates would clearly prefer it if no one ever criticized evangelical Golden Calves. Rampant error doesn't unsettle them in the least. They are quite happy to live with it and even actively make peace with it.

But let someone dare to voice an objection to a troubling doctrine in the latest best-seller making the rounds on campus—even a denial of the Trinity or some other soul-destroying soteriological or Christological novelty—and the very people who profess to hate criticism (and who work so hard to seem agreeable in their dealings with with the unorthodox) will heap the nastiest kinds of vituperation on the soul of the one who has dared to criticize unorthodoxy and thereby threaten the "unity" evangelicals think their timid silence has won them.

Exactly-- the real danger in evangelicalism these days is not the relatively few unbalanced heresy-hunters but rather the many for whom heresy seems to be a non-issue, and who, in the name of a unity that is misguided and unbiblical, ignore the biblical injunction of defending sound doctrine and rebuking false teaching.

[Defending the above rather strong statement would require another post, but those of you who regularly read such blogs as Pyromaniacs know what I'm referring to].

And we so badly need truth to be boldly proclaimed by strong leaders who are also godly men, men who have applied the truth first to themselves, as Steve Camp helpfully reminds us.

Of course, we are all at different points in our walk with God and each of us struggles with particular sins (1 John 1:9, Romans 7:14-25). Owning up to this ongoing battle with the flesh does not (necessarily) disqualify us from service, but we need ongoing accountability and confessing of our sins to one another (Proverbs 7:17, Hebrews 10:25, James 5:16). This of course necessitates humility and submission and relationships with others in the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 5:5-6, Phil 2:1-8).

I am truly grateful for men like Tim Challies, Phil Johnson, Steve Camp and others who are blogging about great reformed truths passionately, consistently and intelligently, and more important, trying to live out these truths by the grace of God in their own lives. I am glad too that, as Scripture says, "iron sharpens iron" and that some key biblical truths were shared by others that helped to balance out the point of the article by Mr. Challies.

Happy Resurrection Sunday and may the truth of Jesus Christ and His resurrection fill us with all joy, power and boldness! Let us live and proclaim His truth.

Tags: watchbloggers, watchblogs, Tim Challies, Phil Johnson, Steve Camp

Bible Reading Plans- Read Through the Bible in 2009

At the beginning of a new year, many set the goal of reading through the Bible in a year. Reading according to a plan can help make this challenging task more manageable and accomplishable. And now, more than ever, there are so many excellent resources and plans available, especially on-line, for reading and study of the Bible.

But if you're like me, you may have often started a reading plan but not completed it. Rather than feel guilty, you may want to try an alternative approach. If reading the Bible according to a yearly plan doesn't appeal to you, check out Noel Piper's or Dan Edelen's articles below.

The important thing, really, is to read the Bible consistently and to get something out of what you read-- to encounter the Lord in your time in the Word, so that your life is changed as you take it to heart and apply it to your life. Find the reading approach that helps you as an individual to best accomplish this.

For those who do want to attempt a yearly plan, much assistance is available. Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds has written a useful article in which he directs readers to resources for reading through the Bible in a year. He especially likes the ESV Bible reading plans (I do too), and particularly recommends these plans: ESV Study Bible, Daily Reading Bible and the M’Cheyne One-Year Reading Plan.

Here on Jordan's View, I always have on my sidebar numerous Bible Study Resources, including links to Devotionals, Bible Reading Plans, Scholarly Sites and Audio Resources.

But with the New Year now here (wow, 2008 went by in a flash!), I want to highlight the many available resources on the web.

May 2009 be a great Bible reading year for you (and me too)!

Bible Reading Resources

Effective Bible Reading

How to Use a Study Bible by Al Mohler

Tips for Effective Bible Reading

Reading Between the Trees: The Bible from Beginning to End

Profitable Bible Study by R.A. Torrey


Bible Reading Plans

ESV Bible RSS Feeds

Bible Reading Plans from BibleGateway.com

Bible Reading Schedules from Realms of Faith

M'CHEYNE Daily Bible Reading Plan (19th Century Scottish minister, Robert Murray M'Cheyne's popular plan takes readers through the New Testament and Psalms twice a year, and through the rest of the Bible once each year.

How to Study the Bible by Mike Aldridge

Bile Reading Plan through Christianity.com (requires a login; you can track your progress)

OneYearBibleOnline.com

Never in January by Noel Piper (A different approach, for those who don't like regimented plans)

The World's Best Bible Reading Program by Dan Edelen (alternative approach that focuses more on what you get of or your Bible reading than reading through the Bible in a year but not really getting much out of it).

Yearly Bible Read Through (lets you custom-design your own, track-able plan)

Daily Bile Readings from Crosswalk (lots of versions, but not the ESV/includes audio)

Daily Bile Readings from Crosswalk (with tracking/needs registration)

Miscellaneous Bible reading plan links

Bible Reading Plans for the New Year: A Resource Guide for Pastors

Bible Readings sent via email (customizable)

52 Week Bible Reading Plan(PDF file)

TableTalk (Ligonier Ministries) Bible in a Year (PDF file)

BibleReading.com

Advice on choosing a Bible reading plan

A Chronological Bible Reading Plan

Tags: Bible reading plans, ESV Bible reading plans, M’Cheyne One-Year Reading Plan, Read through the Bible in 2009, Bible reading resources

Don't Rock the Vote?

One keeps hearing/seeing all the ads by celebrities (especially from RocktheVote.com) advising people, particularly youth, to get out and vote. But in "A Duty Not To Vote?", John Stossel raises a politically incorrect position when he says, "when people don't know anything, maybe it's their civic duty not to vote." Stossel isn't against voting, he just doesn't think that uninformed voters who haven't educated themselves on why they are voting for whomever they choose to vote for should necessarily be encouraged. I agree.

A more on-target message to young voters would be "Get informed, then vote!" Any idiot can pull the lever in a ballot box; it demonstrates no great, admirable civic virtue merely to cast a vote, not knowing whom or what you are supporting by your vote.

Don't get me wrong, I do hope many young people will vote, but only after they have informed themselves about the issues and the positions of the candidates they will vote for. Along these lines, a resource for young voters that is an alternative to RocktheVote.com is RedeemTheVote.com, a group which aims to "register people of faith regardless of party affiliation, or personal political beliefs, but as a matter of Christian principle, that people of faith must be engaged in the political debate and vote as a matter of moral imperative... It also "reach[es] out to both parties to find the best in both, and find solutions to the debate, not trump or destroy one person or party."

Also, please see my previous three posts, for many links to resources on Election 2008.

Resources for Christian Voters- Election 2008

More Resources for Election 2008: The Issues

A Critical Election 2008 Issue: Supreme Court Justices

Tags: RocktheVote.com, RedeemTheVote.com, John Stossel, voting as a civic duty, Presidential Election 2008, election 2008 resources

Sickness, Healing and the Christian, Pt 2 (Biblical Analysis)

In part 1 of this series, I presented an overview of the healing message touted by many of today's "faith healers" (e.g., Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, Reinhard Bonnke and numerous others), a message that claims support from Scripture and asserts that extraordinary healing miracles, equal to or more amazing than those of Jesus and the apostles, are being restored today in these ministries through the power of God. It also teaches that because of God's unchanging nature as Healer and the finished work of Jesus on the cross, that physical healing is included in salvation and is the birthright of the Christian who has faith to lay hold of it. In this continuing series, our aim is to weigh this healing message against Scripture. There are a number of related issues we will also explore, such as the purpose of suffering in the Christian life, and whether spiritual gifts are meant to be a sign that validates the message today, in the same way that signs and wonders authenticated the message of Jesus and the apostles. But in this article we will primarily focus on a biblical critique of the "healing in the atonement" teaching as popularly understood.

We also explored in the previous article how the Word-Faith and Signs and Wonders Movement (a.k.a. Vineyard, Third Wave, Apostolic-Prophetic) have in common the idea that healing miracles and other supernatural signs give evidence to the reality of God-- by showing He still works wonders among us, so long as we exercise our faith to tap into His available power. We examined Todd Bentley (formerly associated with Fresh Fire Ministries, as he has now been relieved of his duties in the wake of his separation from his wife), as an example of how strains of Word-Faith and Signs and Wonders teachings overlap. Finally, I sounded various cautions against this healing doctrine that is common to both movements.

The following statements summarize my conclusions thus far:

• The presence of miracles or signs and wonders in a ministry does not, in and of itself, validate the truth of that ministry's teachings, for such signs may be false, that is, they may be produced by means other than the power of God (Matthew 24:24).
• Healings claimed by those who teach this message, though supposedly large in number, have not been verified by presentation of medical evidence. Such proof is needed because the kinds of "miracles" witnessed during the "revival" meetings are not actual healings as they take place, but rather people provide testimonies of having been healed. In light of the fact that healing miracles claims are often extravagant (e.g., Bentley has claimed 33 people have been raised from the dead) it ought not to be so difficult to corroborate at least one of these cases medically.  
• The miracles of Jesus and the apostles, in contrast to those of contemporary faith healers, were so extraordinary that corroboration was hardly necessary; anyone present could verify they had really happened. Even the enemies of Jesus could not refute His miracles, for they were so clear and obvious.
• Those who proclaim healing for today almost always also espouse other incorrect doctrines (prosperity, receiving new revelations and doctrine directly from Jesus or angels, commanding miracles, deification of man, etc.). This is quite revealing, for it indicates that the healing for today message is part of a pattern of error.
• Taken together, this pattern of incorrect teachings among certain charismatics constitutes an approach to spirituality and to pursuing relationship with God that dangerously emphasizes experience over Scripture (I recognize this is a generalization I won't have time to expound upon in this article, but will try to address in a future post).
• The teaching on healing in these ministries seems at first plausible, because it is speaks of certain biblical truths-- God is unchanging in His essence; He is our Healer (Jehovah Rapha); redemption is for the body as well as the soul.  However the teaching ultimately misinterprets and misapplies Scripture, because it does not take into account the full biblical picture on the subject of sickness, suffering and healing in the life of the Christian.  Healing for the body in this life is simply not guaranteed, and it seems that God may use sickness just as much as other circumstances in life to fashion His children in Christ-likeness.  There is no biblical reason to place physical sickness in a special category of suffering that God may not use to discipline believers (Job, for example).
• Though some may be healed as they attend a healing campaign or apply these teachings, there are just as many who are not healed.  These exceptions must be explained, and it is neither satisfying biblically nor compassionate to sufferers to explain the non-healings as a lack of faith or lack of persevering in faith.  
• Because the teaching is so rigid in claiming that everyone can be healed since healing provision has already been made-- guilt and shame is added to the physical suffering of those not healed.  Deep disappointment, hurt and confusion may ensue for those relying on promises of healing held out by the faith healers. If not healed as expected, these poor folks can't understand why, and are compelled to blame themselves, since the teaching states that God has already healed them. Certainly, God can and often does heal in answer to prayer, but He does not guarantee healing in the way that is implied by this teaching.

Background of the Faith Healing Message
This message of healing is by no means new, having been proclaimed since the nineteenth century.  However, such dating marks the teaching as relatively new in terms of church history. This view on healing apparently was not shared by the apostles or the early church. Some believe that the faith healing formulation derives from "New Thought" ideas, such as those of Phineas Parkhurst Quimby. The writings of E.W. Kenyon, known to have had a strong influence on Kenneth Hagin (who in turn is called the "granddaddy" of the Word-Faith movement and has been highly influential within it) is said to bear similarity to these New Thought concepts. Determining whether the teaching has these influences, and what is its exact origin, are certainly relevant to our study. But the key question we will consider right now is whether or not the doctrine, as taught by contemporary proponents, is supported by Scripture. Perhaps in a future article we will investigate the origin question more thoroughly. I do want however to briefly show the continuity between the message of faith healers of the recent past and those who preach faith healing today.

Prominent figures who developed and practiced an essentially identical message on healing, from the late 19th through the 20th century, included John Alexander Dowie, John G. Lake, Maria Woodworth-Etter, Smith Wigglesworth, F.F. Bosworth, A.B. Simpson, A.J. Gordon, A.A. Allen, Aimee Semple McPherson, Jack Coe, William Branham, Kathryn Kuhlman, T.L. Osborn and Oral Roberts. Among these teachers, there are some differences in details over how the believer should act upon their faith to receive God's healing. For example, many in this movement have taught that going to doctors or taking medicines negates reliant faith on God, while others advise that medicine and doctors are fine, so long as we look past them to God as our true Healer. Some really stress the positive "confession" of healing, while others underline building faith for healing from reading certain Scriptures. Yet the theological foundation of the healing message-- the doctrine that "healing in the atonement" makes divine health and physical healing in this lifetime the believer's birthright-- is the core teaching that all these "faith healers", past and present, advocate.

To demonstrate the correspondence between the teaching of "healing in the atonement" between previous generations of faith healers and contemporary ones, I present the following sampling of quotes:

Quotes of the Faith Healers

John Alexander Dowie
Question: Then, if that is so, the atonement which He made on the Cross must have been for our sicknesses as well as our sins. Can you prove that is the fact from the Scriptures?

Answer: Yes, I can, and the passages are very numerous. I need quote two only. In Isaiah 53:4,5 it is written of Him, "Surely He hath borne our griefs (Hebrew sicknesses), and carried our sorrows:…. And with his stripes we are healed.” Then in the Gospel according to Matthew, this passage is quoted and directly applied to the work of bodily healing, in chapter 8, 17th verse, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases."

John G. Lake
The Lord Jesus Christ is still the healer. He can not change, for "He is the same yesterday, today, and forever," and He is still with us, for He said, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Hebrews 13:8 and Matthew 28:20.) Because He is unchangeable, and because He is present, in Spirit, just as when in the flesh. He is the healer of His people.

Divine Healing rests on Christ's Atonement. It was prophesied of Him, "Surely He hath borne our grief, (Hebrew, sicknesses) and carried our sorrows, and with His stripes we are healed," and it is expressly declared that this was fulfilled in His ministry of Healing, which still continues. (Isaiah 53:4-5 Matt. 8:17)

Diseases can never be God's will. It is the Devil's work consequent on sin, and it is impossible for the work of the Devil ever to be the will of God. Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil and when He was on earth He, "healed every sickness and every disease," and all these diseases are expressly declared to have been the "oppression of the Devil." (1 John 3:8 Matt. 4:23 and Acts 10:38.)

Smith Wigglesworth
In the world they are always having new diseases and the doctors cannot locate them. A doctor said to me, "The science of medicine is in its infancy, and really we doctors have no confidence in our medicine. We are always experimenting." But the man of God does not experiment. He knows, or ought to know, redemption in its fullness. He knows, or ought to know, the mightiness of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is not, or should not be, moved by outward observation, but should get divine revelation of the mightiness of the name of Jesus and the power of His blood. If we exercise our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ He will come forth and get glory over all the powers of darkness.

At eventide they brought unto Him many that were possessed with devils; and He cast out the spirits with His word and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." The work is done if you only believe it. It is done. Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses.

A.B. Simpson
Jesus Christ has SURELY BORNE AWAY and CARRIED OFF our sicknesses; yes, and even our PAINS, so that abiding in Him, we may be fully delivered from both sickness and pain. Thus "by His stripes we are healed." Blessed and glorious Gospel! Blessed and glorious Burden Bearer.

Benny Hinn Ministries Faith Statement
Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement and is the privilege of all believers (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:16-17).

In this video Benny Hinn declares, I have come to remind you that he was wounded for transgressions, bruised for iniquities, chastised for peace-- that's the front of the cross, but I have come to remind you-- there's the backside of the cross-- with His stripes we are healed! That's definite, that's the Bible!

Todd Bentley
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

Surely! If you have ever wanted to know anything about healing, it is a sure thing that He carried away sickness. It is a sure thing that He suffered and died and shed His blood just as much for sickness and disease as He did sin. Surely He has carried away our pain. This passage of Scripture talks about healing more than it does forgiveness of sin.

He suffered for our peace, our prosperity in wholeness of body, soul and spirit. Three times it mentions in Isaiah 53:3-5, about divine healing, only once it says He was bruised for our iniquity. “Surely He has carried away our grief, and by His stripes we are healed.

Do you know what Isaiah is saying? Isaiah was saying, “He was beaten, wounded, suffered, shed His blood, was rejected, in pain, torment. He carried away sickness, He carried away disease, but we saw Him as afflicted. We saw Him as the suffering, wounded Messiah. Yes, He was smitten and stricken. Yes, we see the realities of the suffering of the Cross of Jesus in Isaiah 53. He carried away sickness and disease. He was wounded for transgressions and sin. He was rejected. He was mocked. He was spit on. He suffered. He was tormented. Yet, we cannot esteem Him as stricken. We must see Him as the one who has conquered sin, sickness, disease, death and the grave. We must see Him as the victorious Christ who rose up on the third day with resurrection power, sin, sickness, disease, and death. He took the curse of the law and redeemed us so we could once again come under the blessing of Abraham and be whole in our body, soul, and spirit.

We do not understand all of the mysteries of healing. But I do know one thing; God wants to heal you. And when you do not get healed and die with your sickness, I do not understand it any more than I understand why people died in sin and did not get saved. But He is an all-powerful God. And my job is to preach the gospel, win souls, and put my hands on sick bodies and let God do the rest; let God be God. Regardless of what I feel and see, I must believe the gospel. I must believe the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe in the doctor. I believe God wants to heal all. And if God wants to use a doctor, God can do that. He gave them the gift. He gave them medicine and science. Some of it is from the pits of hell, but God has blessed it. I am not against doctors and nurses. I am free to go to the doctor. Healing and freedom from sickness and disease is the same as forgiveness of sins. I have come to a place in my life and my relationship with Jesus that I no longer wonder if it is God’s will to heal. I do not even think about that anymore. I can lay hands on a man in a wheelchair with just as much confidence as I can with somebody with a back condition. Because I know that He is the healer. And all I have to do is put my hand on the sick, and God does the rest.

So we observe remarkable continuity in the healing message (particularly the healing in the atonement aspect) that has been preached. This view has been primarily held by charismatic denominations: Pentecostals, Assembly of God, Christian Missionary Alliance, Foursquare Gospel and others, groups that strongly emphasize the active role that man's faith plays in securing the healing God has provided.

Biblical Analysis
Let us now turn to biblical analysis.

Healing in the Atonement?
The teaching on "healing in the atonement" undergirds the contemporary healing message and we have seen that the content of this teaching has been remarkably consistent as preached by faith healers from previous generations until now. The view that healing in the atonement ensures divine health and physical healing for the believer in this life is perhaps the critical theological foundation of the healing movement. But can it be demonstrated biblically that the death of Christ on the cross accomplished not only reconciliation of man to God by forgiveness of sins (through Christ our sin-bearer), but also removal of sickness and disease in this life, through Christ who bears our sicknesses? Does the teaching of the New Testament on sickness/healing support the notion that believers have already been healed of their sicknesses through the cross, and need only have faith that their healing is accomplished for this healing provision to become manifested in their ailing bodies?

Some believe the prophetic words of Isaiah justify this idea:

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:4-5

All have traditionally agreed that this famous passage is a prophetic description of what Jesus Christ accomplished for believers on the cross. We observe Isaiah saying that he (Jesus) has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows (although we will find in Matthew 8:17 that this is said to be fulfilled in the earthly ministry of Jesus and not on the cross).

We observe Isaiah speaking of the physical sufferings and stripes of Jesus as the means by which our transgressions and our iniquities, which stood between us and peace with God, were punished-- Jesus was chastised on our behalf-- and through his chastisement we have been forgiven and healed of our "sin-sickness". This clearly is a reference to Jesus on the cross. Yet there is nothing being said about physical healing here. The fact that Jesus suffered bodily does not mean that our physical sufferings today are being substituted for. Isaiah is saying that because God smote Jesus, placing His wrath for human sin upon Christ Jesus, who suffered in our place, the one who takes refuge in Jesus obtains peace with God and "healing" for their soul.

But the "healing for today" teachers claim that this passage in Isaiah was quoted by New Testament writers (Matthew 8:16-17, 1 Peter 2:24) to prove Christ died not only for sins, but also, that we might always obtain physical healing during our lives on earth.  Let us examine these two New Testament passages more closely, to see if this is the correct interpretation. We'll begin with the Matthew passage, starting at verse 14:

And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.” Matthew 8:14-17

On first reading, this passage seems to lend credence to the healing in the atonement argument, for it shows (so it may seem) a connection between Jesus' work on the cross and supernatural, physical healing.  Matthew points us to Isaiah 53, a passage which looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and pictured Jesus dying on the cross, and then declares that Jesus' works of physical healing were done in to fulfill Isaiah's prophetic words. 

It is important to remember however that Isaiah 53 is not only about Jesus' suffering on the cross, but makes references to various aspects and times of Jesus' ministry. For example, verses 1-3 speak of Jesus in relation to humanity during His earthly life prior to the cross. Therefore Matthew quoting from Isaiah 53 in regard to the healing ministry of Jesus does not in and of itself draw a connection between the work of the cross and Jesus' healing people.

Looking carefully, we see that Matthew 8:14-17 is not referring to Jesus' work on the cross, but rather, to the healing ministry Jesus had among people. And it is these works of Jesus, Matthew tells us, that fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, and not Jesus' death on the cross.  Matthew 8:17 then, does not link Christ's death on the cross (the atonement) with physical healing in a direct way.  It might be said from this verse that Jesus took illnesses and bore diseases through His miraculous healing ministry among people, thereby proving that He was/is the Messiah Isaiah prophesied about.

Some will object, however, that since Jesus' healing ministry on earth included both spiritual (forgiving sins) and physical (healing the body) aspects, these must have as their basis Jesus' atoning work on the cross.  For Jesus is the "the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8), this argument continues, and so the healing authority issuing from His death does not depend upon a fixed point in time (i.e., the moment in which Jesus the God-Man actually died for sin on the cross).  In other words, Jesus' earthly ministry anticipated His atonement and drew authority from His future work on the cross.

This argument is not without merit since the atonement does seem to be the means by which ultimate healing from sin and all its attending consequences (which include physical disease and death) is provided.  Also, it is true that the atonement has timeless application, for God is not bound by time and had the plan of salvation in mind even before mankind fell.  However, this argument fails to convince that healing for the body for this life is therefore something we may claim from the atonement, because scriptural teaching concerning the meaning and significance of the cross does not corroborate this.

Let's look at 1 Peter 2:24, for example, in its context.  The verse is often used to argue for an atonement-based right to healing.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (1 Peter 2:18-25)

In these verses Peter speaks on the calling of the Christian, which may include, if it is God's will, to suffer unjustly.  He emphasizes that Jesus set an example for us of how to act under such circumstances-- we are not to return evil for evil, nor threaten our oppressors, but instead, entrust ourselves to God.  Peter goes on to explain the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross was that "we might die to sin and live to righteousness." He explains that we believers were straying like sheep (a reference to Isaiah 53:6) but "have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (Jesus Christ).

We find in this passage Peter speaking of the Christian life as one in which sometimes believers suffer unjustly, but that if called to do so, we have our Savior's example to follow.  We see that when Peter says "by his wounds you have been healed" (a reference to Isaiah 53:5), he refers to the healing of sin by the cross of Christ which returns us to the "Shepherd of our souls". He is not speaking here of physical healing, but of the spiritual healing of the soul. This passage then, rather than confirming the concept that Christ suffered sickness so that we don't have to, in fact mentions nothing at all about physical healing.  It does tell us that Christ suffered as our example of how to suffer in a godly way.   But, it may be asked, why does Peter use the language of healing ("by his wounds you are healed") when talking about sin?

In this, Peter echoes Isaiah, who uses this same figurative language when talking about the "sin-sickness" that Israel was afflicted with and needed healing for:

Ah, sinful nation,
a people laden with iniquity,
offspring of evildoers,
children who deal corruptly!
They have forsaken the Lord,
they have despised the Holy One of Israel,
they are utterly estranged.

Why will you still be struck down?
Why will you continue to rebel?
The whole head is sick,
and the whole heart faint.
From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there is no soundness in it,
but bruises and sores
and raw wounds;
they are not pressed out or bound up
or softened with oil (Isaiah 1:4-6)

The language of Isaiah shows that sin biblically may be described as "sickness" of the human soul. Isaiah and Peter both say that Christ's death on the cross atoned for the sin that causes this soul-sickness. It brings healing to those who place their faith in Him and what He has done for them. Healing for the soul and the body are indeed joined in the ministry of Christ (as we see in His earthly healing miracles), with complete healing for body and soul found through what Christ accomplished for us by His death and resurrection.

Yet healing is ours only in part at this present time. Just as we find sin still present within us as Christians (Romans 7:15-25, 1 John 1:8), causing us always to wrestle with the flesh even as we pursue God by the Spirit He has placed in us, so also we find that our bodies are not yet fully redeemed, and that we may suffer with sickness in this life. All believers in this life, despite looking forward to the promise of the new, imperishable body (1 Corinthians 15:42), will die (Heb 9:27) as the body wears down physically (2 Cor 4:16).

Paul's teaching on redemption of the body
Referring in part to the redemption (God's complete healing) of the body, Paul writes,

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience (Romans 8:22-25); and also,

But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.

Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, "I believed, and so I spoke," we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:7-16)

These Pauline passages refer to the bodies of believers as "jars of clay", "mortal flesh", "wasting away", and states that we believers are waiting for something we do not yet have-- the redemption of our bodies. In harmony with this teaching, we find that Paul (though extraordinary healing miracles had been accomplished through him) did not himself always walk in perfect health, nor was he always able to heal others. We know that Paul suffered with an ailment at some point in his ministry (Galatians 4:13-14). We know that at least on occasion, he did not heal either Timothy or Trophimus, partners in his ministry. But despite his physical weaknesses and that of others, Paul reminds believers that we have been "sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory (Ephesians 3:13-14)." He understood and taught that afflictions in this life are but temporary, and that we have a glorious future ahead that includes new bodies that won't suffer with infirmities nor grow old and die. He counsels us to place hope is in this future promise and does not tell anyone to claim immediate healing based on a supposed redemption right to do so.

Paul's Thorn in the Flesh and Sick Servants
Many that argue both for and against the popular healing teaching have thought that the famous "thorn in the flesh" Paul speaks about in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, most likely refers to a physical ailment. It is possible that this is referring to a physical ailment. However, when one compares the same expression as used in various Old Testament passages (Numbers 33:55, Judges 2:3, Joshua 23:13, Ezekiel 2:6), it seems that "thorns in your sides" or "thorns in your eyes" signifies the enemies of God attacking His people from without. This seems consistent with Paul describing his "thorn in the flesh" as "a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited." Therefore, though the term "flesh" is used, we see from these OT cross references that this phrase is possibly not referring to a physical ailment, but to attacks coming from without, from enemies. So I don't think one can definitively argue from this passage that Paul's thorn was necessarily a physical illness. One does not need to make this argument, for as we noted, we see elsewhere in Scripture that Paul did indeed suffer from a physical ailment during his ministry.

Divine Health our Privilege?
Besides Paul, other New Testament saints suffered with illness:

• Timothy (1 Tim 5:23)
  
• Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20)
  
• Epaphroditis (Phil 2:25-30)
  

What does this mean? If it is the believer's privilege and right to walk in divine health, as the faith healing message argues, why were these saints sick? It would seem these early saints somehow missed out on a blessing that was theirs to have. How can this be? Were they ignorant of their privileges? Were they unfaithful somehow, or sinning?

Examining these passages we note that these men were ministering during a period in church history when healing miracles were not infrequent. Yet in their own sicknesses, in certain instances, no miracle cures were being provided by God.

As far as the character of these servants, we find nothing to indicate these men were anything but faithful, hard workers in ministry. If anything, they probably possessed greater faith and were more mature than the average believer-- after all they were Spirit-filled leaders in ministry and the Scriptures testify to their faithfulness. It's difficult then to argue they would lack faith to believe in healing for themselves, if such a provision was available. To surmise that they were sick due to some sin in their lives is also unwarranted speculation.

Paul was privileged to receive such incredibly great revelations from God that some kind of trouble (satanic opposition to his ministry) was visited on Him by God for the purpose of keeping him humble (2 Cor 12:7). And of course, a good deal of the New Testament was written by Paul through inspiration of the Spirit. Can it be that this Paul, who through the Spirit has provided the Church with the most profound insights we have in Scripture concerning the meaning and significance of the cross of Jesus Christ, somehow missed the revelation that physical healing is ours right now through the atonement?! Would the Holy Spirit neglect to inspire Paul and other New Testament writers to teach the church how to obtain physical healing through the atonement, if such is our right and privilege? Why did Paul not counsel Timothy or Trophimus to simply believe God for their healing?

Paul did not teach that physical healing is immediately available for this life and is to be claimed from Christ's atonement; the Spirit did not lead Him to do so as no such provision exists. And we have seen that Peter also does not, in quoting Isaiah, endorse the notion that the atonement provides immediate physical healing. Echoing Isaiah, he teaches very specifically and clearly that by the stripes of Jesus we are healed of sins and transgressions that had led us astray from God, but mentions nothing at all about physical healing.

So we have seen that in the most critical passages "healing for today" advocates use to justify their teaching (Isaiah 53: 4-5, Matthew 8:16-17, 1 Peter 2:24), it is spiritual not physical healing that is being emphasized. When the Spirit gives His interpretation of the meaning of Isaiah, through Matthew and through Peter, it is twofold. We see Jesus is the promised Messiah who walked among us without beauty or majesty to attract us and who was acquainted with human grief, sickness and suffering, sufferings which He relieved, in part, through His earthly ministry. Then on the cross He bears our sin, and reconciles us to the God from whom we were separated, like sheep who in their sins had gone astray from their Shepherd. The physical healings Christ provided on earth offer a wonderful foretaste of the complete redemption we are promised. His death on the cross which takes away sin is the means by which the curse of sin in our bodies will someday be entirely removed; we'll receive new bodies that have no pain or disease in them and won't "waste away".

I appreciate very much Bob DeWaay's implications and applications from his article on this same subject. In "Physical Healing and the Atonement- Is it Always God's Will to Heal Now?," he writes,

It is clear that Matthew cited Isaiah 53:4 to show that Jesus the Messiah fulfilled this prophecy when He healed sick people during His earthly ministry. This has further implications because of the nature of Isaiah 53 and its reference to Messiah's atoning work. Yet it does not, as far as the Matthew passage itself goes, directly address the modern questions that many are trying to answer. For example, Matthew was not answering the question, "should every believer whose sins have been cleansed by the blood of Christ expect not to become sick?" Neither does he answer the question, "Should all believers who have become sick consider themselves having fallen short of the will of God for their lives through neglect, sin, or unbelief?" There is a relationship between these questions and Matthew 8:16,17 but it is an indirect one.

Because it is clear that there is promised total deliverance from disease and death through the resurrection and because our resurrection is assured because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (a part of the atoning work of the Cross) it is clear that our healing is in the atonement. It is not clear to what extent that, because of the atonement, we can expect to experience physical healings of the illnesses that afflict, in differing degrees, all human beings. Can God promise healing to His people even in this life, without the converse being true - that those Christians who are not healed from some physical maladies are falling short of the will and plan of God for their lives?

Because the atonement of Christ is applied to sin and not primarily or directly to the various effects of sin, and because the New Testament does not indicate that the absence of sickness and weakness is to be the norm for Christians, and because of the obvious fact that all humans, including faithful Christians, have some degree of "sickness" or departure from perfect health in their bodies, the physical healing in the atonement theory as popularly understood is not true.

Healing is in the atonement in the sense that all the benefits of Christ's substitutionary death apply to all believers and will find their complete fulfillment at the return of Christ and the resurrection. It is because of the atonement that Christians have been healed, are being healed and will be healed. This does not mean that we should expect never to suffer with an illness in this life or that God has guaranteed to remove any illness that might come into one's life.

If a Christian becomes sick, he or she should faithfully and obediently ask God for healing according to the instructions of James 5:14-16. God's promise to "raise up" the sick person does not have to be absolute to be valid. We should teach the saints about this matter and have the elders of the church available to anoint the sick with oil and pray for them, with confession of sins as is appropriate. Calling upon the Lord in faith and in obedience to Scripture is clearly the right thing to do. The presence or absence of an instantaneous miracle of healing does not determine the validity of the prayer and anointing.

Cessationism vs Continuationism
But the instructions given the church DeWaay references in James 5:13-20 or Jesus' commission to the apostles in Mark 16:15-20, are also seen by some as a healing mandate that guarantees physical healing in the name and power of the Lord.

To properly interpret these passages we need to determine if miraculous gifts are for today, or if they were meant primarily to authenticate the message of Jesus and the apostles? Can miracles still happen today? Are there people with the gift of healing, or are "gifts of healings" still available to the body of Christ? These questions reflect a longstanding debate among Christians and theologians: the issue of continuationism vs. cessationism. In other words, are all the spiritual gifts, including healing, prophecy and tongues, still active in the body of Christ today or have they ceased to function because their purpose was fulfilled? Is there some middle ground? The answers to these questions affects one's understanding of these passages and are relevant to our study on healing.

What's your doctrine of suffering?
Another subject of immense relevance to our topic is suffering. The view one takes of sufferings of believers in this life affects how one approaches healing. If one's theology demands that the sign of God's blessing is earthly healing and prosperity, then the suffering produced by sickness will likely be viewed as beneath Christian privilege and/or demonic attack that must be rebuked.

Accordingly, as we continue our critique of popular healing doctrine, we will address these important, related issues. Then I will attempt to sum it all up with practical, Scriptural application. However, I think I will continue pursuing these objectives in the next article in our series.

May the Lord by His Spirit grace believers to understand this vital topic and bring us all to sound, balanced and biblical conclusions.


Below, please find articles I have found helpful as I've studied and thought about sickness, healing and how they relate to believers in Christ. Some of these are written from a cessationistic viewpoint, but not all. One need not be a cessationist to object to the popular teaching on healing.

Further Resources for Study
Physical Healing and the Atonement- Is it Always God's Will to Heal Now? by Bob DeWaay

Sickness by J.C. Ryle

Miraculous Healing by Henry Frost

Is Healing in the Atonement? by David W. Cloud (NOTE: I don't agree with Cloud's view of Calvinism, but think he presents strong evidence against the charismatic healing in the atonement doctrine and also exposes how so many of these healers could not do the healings they claimed, even for themselves).

CESSATIONISM, "THE GIFTS OF HEALINGS," AND DIVINE HEALING by Richard L. Mayhue (PDF file)

Does God Still Heal by John MacArthur

Healing in the Atonement by Sam Harper

Does God Always Heal? by Elliot Miller(PDF file)

Tags: healing in the atonement, healing, faith healing critique, sickness and healing, Todd Bentley, faith healers, sick Christians

Gentle Conversation about Calvinism?

Well, as always on various sites around the Christian blogosphere, there are interesting debates taking place. Unfortunately, theological discussions can often turn ugly, uncivil and unbecoming in their witness to an unbelieving world. I think of the unfortunate Silva/Abanes controversy, in which one blogger accused the other of writing a libelous article about him, and instigated actions that eventually had the ISP remove the offending blog off the Internet (though the blog has now returned under another web host). Abanes, a writer who frequently addresses controversial topics in Christianity, and Silva, a pastor-teacher whose blog is known for taking strong stands against heresy in the church, might actually agree on many things. But it seems to me that they are so sharply divided over whether Rick Warren and his teachings are a boon to the church or a horrible deception, that a certain animosity developed between them, leading to the extreme situation. I hadn't written on the whole controversy because I didn't want to get dragged into debate on the whole topic of whether Abanes was justified in taking the actions he did, or whether Silva was correct is saying that Abanes' actions were uncalled for and set a bad precedent for freedom of speech on the Internet. But suffice to say that part of the issue is perhaps, that we Christians must learn to better frame our opinions; to present them in a way that doesn't unnecessarily antagonize.

For example, the challenging issue of whether man has "free will" to choose God, a topic that is often part of contentious Arminianism versus Calvinism debates, is being discussed over at Parchment and Pen. C. Michael Patton recently posted an article that presents a Calvinistic approach to the topic, titled What do You Mean By "Free Will", which in turn launched a stimulating yet polite conversation (which I'm involved in).

Like the conversations at Theologica, the online community Patton created, comments at his Parchment and Pen blog tend to be, for the most part, respectful, though passions do get intense. Patton, an advocate for an irenic approach to theological discussion, does a good job of leading by example in this, managing to keep the conversation civil and gracious most of the time. He teaches this style of theological interaction through The Theology Program he established, and has also written on this topic, most recently in articles titled, Theological Conversation to the Glory Shame of God and What Part of Gentleness and Respect don’t You We Understand?.

Given that conversations around the blogosphere, in religious forums and in theological communities often degenerate into mean-spirited arguments in which no one is listening to one another (this certainly does not reflect well on Christianity), Patton's observations and suggestions are both timely and helpful.

Getting back to Calvinism, Phil Johnson has a series of excellent articles he's written sometime back but now has re-posted at Grace to You, on Why I Am a Calvinist. In these articles Mr. Johnson, though making a strong argument, strikes a conciliatory tone. A gentle Calvinist- who would have thunk it?

P.S. I am working on the follow-up article in the healing article series, and will post it as soon as possible.

Tags: irenic theology, free will debate, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Silva vs Abanes, Calvinism, C. Michael Patton, Phil Johnson