Posts Tagged ‘Augustine’

The Power of a Parent’s Faith (Sermon on Moses’ Parent’s Faith)

Posted: January 8, 2013 in Hebrews 11 Sermon, Sermons
Tags: , , , , ,
0

Charles Blondin was the French tightrope daredevil in the late 1800s who was the first to tightrope across the Niagara Falls. He made that treacherous trip 17 times in his life. He crossed Niagara Falls on a tightrope extended over 1000 feet at a height of 167 feet above the deadly falls. Each time he crossed, he was more dramatic. He crossed blindfolded, on stilts, pushing a wheelbarrow, and one time he stopped half way across cooked an omelet on a portable stove and then ate it.

On Sept 15th, 1860, Blondin performed his most amazing feat. Before he walked across the three inch manila rope, he asked the crowd of over 10,000 people, “Do you believe I can carry a person on my back across the rope?” The crowd shouted back, “Yes we believe you can!” Then Charles responded, “Who will volunteer?” And the crowd grew very, very silent.

Blondin pointed to a man in the crowd and said, “How about you?” The man replied, “Hardly, you don’t think I am going to risk my life do you?” The man turned, walked away and disappeared in the crowd. Charles pointed to another man, “How about you?” And that one man stepped out of the crowd and said, “I believe, in fact, I have no doubt at all.” Charles said, “Will you trust me?” The man replied, “I will!” The man climbed on Blondin’s back and the two proceeded across the rope.

Children wrapped their arms around their mothers’ legs; women peeked from behind their parasols and several fainthearted passed out. When the two reached the other side the crowd erupted in cheers and applause. The man on Blondin’s back was Harry Colcord, Blondin’s manager. Colcord knew how expert Blondin was and fully trusted him with his life.

Blondin asked his spectator crowd a very important question that you and I need to hear and answer: “Do you believe?” Did they believe when they enthusiastically shouted, “Yes we believe”? No! Only one out of over 10,000 believed when he separated himself from the unbelieving onlookers and actually acted and climbed on Blondin’s back.

Faith is not saying with great emotion, “I believe.” James says, “The demons also believe and tremble.” Faith is acting on what God’s Word says. James asks, “What does it profit, my brothers, though a man say he has faith, and have not works? Can that kind of faith save? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, ‘Depart in peace, be you warmed and filled’; notwithstanding you give them not those things which are needful to the body; what does it profit?” True Bible faith does not stand around with his hands in his pockets. Faith acts, gives, and volunteers.

Moses by faith acted on God’s Word. Thankfully Moses had parents who had faith in God. Faith is a family affair in Hebrews 11.

Enoch started walking with God after his baby boy was born in Hebrew 11:5-6. Noah won his family to the Lord in Hebrews 11:7. Jacob, as a grandparent, blessed his grandsons in Hebrews 11:21. Now we read about the sway of Moses’ parents had on him in Hebrews 11:23.

Moses’ life is divided up into three 40-year periods. Stephen in Acts 7, refers to all three of these stages in Moses’ life. These are actually three phases in the growth of Moses’ faith.

1. The first 40 years in Egypt were years of Preparation.

2. The next 40 years on the backside of a desert were years of Humiliation.

3. The last 40 years were back in Egypt leading Israel out of Egypt and were years of Moses’ Completion of God’s task.

I. The Years of Preparation (Hebrews 11:23-26)

A. The Parent’s Faith in Preparation

1. Moses first prepared in the School of Faith (Hebrews 11:23) (Stephen fills in some details)

Christian parents know God’s Word (Acts 7:17-19).

The parents of Moses knew according to Genesis 15:13, the 400 years of bondage in Egypt were almost up (Acts 7:6). The Pharaoh who knew not Joseph saw Israel’s growing population as a threat to national security and proposed a way to reduce their numbers. Kill the babies. It was in this genocide that Moses was born. In the Exodus account, only the mother is emphasize showing the great influence a godly, believing mother can exert on her children. Augustine writes about the Christian influence of his Christian mother, Monica. The Wesley brothers had Susanna. If you have a godly mother you need to thank God and her.

Christian parents see the potential in their children (Acts 7:20a).

Moses was beautiful to God. They had faith to see the potential in him. They by faith saw the mighty oak in the little acorn.

Christian parents train their children for God (Acts 7:20b-21) at home.

Moses’ parents disobeyed man in order to obey God. Pharaoh wanted all boys thrown in the sacred Nile to be eaten by the sacred crocodiles as an act of pagan worship to appease the gods. Then they made a paper ship and placed Moses in it near where Pharaoh’s daughter bathed each day so she could find him.

Older sister was there with her memorized lines. Billy Sunday said just as soon as Pharaoh’s daughter saw baby Moses that an angel gently pinched him so his whimpers would touch the heart of Pharaoh’s daughter. In the providence of God, Moses was trained by his believing mother. Moses never departed from what he learned at home at his godly mother’s knee.

2. Moses was next prepared at the Secular University (7:22).

Moses was very likely being groomed to be the next Pharaoh. Pharaoh’s daughter, Hatsheput became Pharaoh for twenty years. Moses was trained at what has been called the Harvard of Ancient Egypt in chemistry (their knowledge about mummification still astounds us), math (their expertise in building the pyramids is still a wonder of the ancient world), history, leadership, legislation, and the military. In His providence, God used this secular education. Moses as a historian wrote the history of Israel in the first five books. As a statesman, he led 3 million Jews. As a legislator, he wrote the 613 laws of Israel’s constitution. As a general, he led Israel against enemy nations like the Amalikes.

Someone said, “Behind most men of faith there are parents of faith.”

B. The Child’s Faith in Preparation (Acts 7:23; Hebrews 11:24-26)

1. Moses refusal of faith (Hebrews 11:24-25)

Moses refused this important position of being possibly the next pharaoh (Hebrews 11:24) .The corporation you work for may offer the corner office on the top floor with a six-figure salary, but if it means sacrificing your family and involvement in your local church it is not worth it. Moses refused the wealth (Hebrews 11:25-26). The pleasures of sin in verse 25 are the treasures of Egypt in verse 26. Kent Hughes said the pleasures of sin are like a Chinese meal, no matter how much you eat, you are still hungry two hours later. Egypt was the wealthiest nation on earth. The gold plated tomb of King Tut discovered later revealed this. Jewish legend, according to Alexander McClaren, tells us of the very crown that was intended to be place on his Moses’ head. For this refusal of wealth to serve God, expect reproach.

2. Moses was reproached for his faith (Hebrews 11:26)

The same reproach Christ would receive from the religious but lost nation of Israel, Moses would suffer from the nation of Egypt. Dave Ramsey teaches to get out of debt you have to live like nobody lives so you can live like nobody lives. But you can also expect reproach when you are living off of beans and rice and rice and beans to get out of debt.

3. Moses could give up the vast treasures of Egypt because “he had respect unto the recompense of the reward” in eternity future.

Jesus instructed us how we can also allow the future to transform our living now to living for eternity: “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust does corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal” (Matthew 6:20).

Faith focuses on investing for the future i.e., eternity by sending our treasures on ahead. You can’t take it with you but you can send it on ahead when we invest our earthly treasures in God’s work.

Has Replacement Theology Bred Anti-Semitism as MacArthur Charges?

Posted: September 27, 2012 in End Time Events
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

This lecture/sermon was the third in a series after MacArthur preached Why Every Self-respecting Calvinist should be a Premillennialist at the 2007 Shepherd’s conference. Here is an excerpt:

“Augustine even likened the Jewish people to Cain, the first criminal recorded in biblical history who had murdered his own brother and merited death but instead had been condemned to wander unhappily ever after.” Augustine saw the Jewish people like Cain, alive but dispossessed, a perpetual wanderer.  “The Jews,” Augustine said, “might deserve to be eradicated for their crime, rejecting Christ, but Augustine preferred that they would be preserved as wandering witnesses until the end time.”  Witnesses to what happens when you reject the truth.  Augustine did suggest, however, that they would turn to Christ at the last judgment.  The canonical legislation of the church in the thirteenth century fully institutionalized the reprobate status of the Jew and the doctrine which the church called Servitus Judae Oram(???), the perpetual servitude of the Jews.  The Jews then had to be subordinate to Christians.  They could exercise no position of authority and Christian society had to be originally protected from contamination through living, eating, or engaging in any sexual relationship with a Jew.  That was church law.

The Lateran Council, thirteenth century, the year 1215, codified this to segregate the Jews.  And in the thirteenth century, the Lateran Council segregated the Jews by requiring them to wear distinguishing dress.  In Germanic lands they wore a conical hat and what they called a Jew-badge, usually a yellow disc sewn into their clothing whose color symbolized Judas betraying Christ for gold coins.  That’s what was done to them in Latin countries.  The effects of the badge required to be worn and the conical hat were to make the Jews more visible and vulnerable to attack which reduced their ability to travel.  And so they formed ghettos, twelve hundreds.  The German Reformation a few hundred years later under Luther’s guidance led to a very unfavorable direction for the Jews, seeded hatred sewn deep, Luther did nothing to remove it.  It eventually found its full flower in the Third Reich with Hitler.  And the German Protestants showed themselves amazingly receptive to Nazi anti-Semitism, it was so ingrained for so many centuries.  You can go back to the Council of Nicaea in 325, a council which was debating the nature of Christ, came up with the right understanding of the nature of Christ.  But in the documents of the Council of Nicaea, Jews are called “that odious people.”

This attitude stuck and it stuck throughout the Middle Ages.  They were mostly resented, hated and often killed.  In the fourteenth century, Jewish books were burned.  At the end of the thirteenth century they were expelled from England by Edward I and allowed to come back 350 years later under Cromwell.  In 1144 in Norwich, England, the Jews were charged with killing their babies to drain the blood to use in the Matsos, the unleavened bread of Passover.  Of course in the sixteenth century, the time of the Reformation pervasive anti-Jewish attitudes pervaded in Europe.  Hikel(?)  Overman writing in a book, The Roots of Anti-Semitismsays, “Hatred of the Jews was not an invention of the sixteenth century, it was an inherited assumption.”  And sad to say, the Reformation didn’t change it.  Sixteen forty-eight, the Ukranian Jews were butchered and it is a strange and sad thing to say that in the last sermon that Luther preached before he died, he called for all Jews to be driven out of Germany.  He was fighting on another front, never really got around to dealing with that issue which was so ingrained in the culture.  This…this led to this Amillennial Replacement Theology and it became so ingrained.  Interesting further study that Barry Horner points out, the CRC, which is the Christian Reformed Church, Dutch Reformed Calvinism, squelched all pre-millennialism.  And interestingly enough, they…they would not tolerate anybody believing in a future kingdom for Israel.  Anybody who did was placed under investigation.  You could find that in their own history.  They actually went so far as to forbid preaching or discussing premillennialism.

Wystricks(??)says in his book, Anti-Semitism, The Longest Hatred, “The Augustinian theology reinforced the notion of the Jews as a wandering, homeless, rejected and accursed people who were incurably cardinal, blind to spiritual meaning, perfidious, faithless, and apostate, their crime being one of cosmic proportions merited permanent exile and subordination to Christianity.”  One writer, W.J. Greer writing in the most…in the momentous event, said, “The power of Augustine is best seen in the fact that he removed the ghost of premillennialism so effectively that for centuries the subject was practically ignored.”

Now this actually continues to be an issue today.  In our modern world, our tolerant world, a world that embraces everybody and everything, there is still this subjective sort of impositional pre-suppositional anti-Judaism, if not anti-Semitism, not necessarily racist but this anti-Judaism mentality.  Melanie Philips, a Jewish columnist for The London Daily Mail, wrote a really amazing article about the Anglican Church hostility toward Israel.  This is some of which she said, “The church’s hostility has nothing to do with Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians.” And she wrote this after she went to a conference of the Anglicans discussing Israel and the Palestinians, the current situation.  This is what she wrote, “The church’s hostility has nothing to do with Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians, this was merely an excuse.  The real reason for the growing antipathy was the ancient hatred of Jews rooted deep in Christian theology and now widespread once again, a doctrine,” she wrote, “going back to the early church fathers, suppressed after the Holocaust, has been revised under the influence of the Middle Eastern conflict.  This doctrine is called…this is a Jewish writer…Replacement Theology.  In essence it says that the Jews have been replaced by the Christians in God’s favor and so all God’s promises to the Jews, including the land of Israel, have been inherited by Christianity.”  That is Replacement theology.

You can go to websites like Christian Zionism.org, and other websites and find many Anglican leaders that are pro-Palestinian, think Israel has absolutely no right to the land.  Christian anti-Judaism is strong in the U.K., very strong, much to the delight of the two million Muslims that now live there.  It’s interesting to find the quote/unquote Anglican church taking their view of Israel.  One writer, Colin Chapman, an Anglican who wroteWhose Promised Land?, question mark, says, “Israel is responsible for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”  He is supported, by the way, by such notable scholars as N.T. Wright who says, “Israel doesn’t mean an ethnic people, but it means a worldwide family.”  To support his own view, Chapman says, “The Old Testament is not the inerrant Word of God, it is simply a very ethno-centric interpretation of Israelitish history.”

This is the charge in MacArthur’s in Why Every Calvinist Should be a Premillennialist, Part 3.

Has Covenant Theology Been Divisive?

Posted: September 20, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
8

There are some disturbing consequences to Replacement Theology according to MacArthur. MacArthur quotes Barry Horner in his Future Israel:

“The wrong perception of Israel and the Jews by so called Christians has produced consequences of horrific proportions during the history of the church. Such a shameful legacy perpetrated during the illustrious Reformation and onwards remains undiminished, largely unconfessed and still prevalent in substantial degrees up to the present within a Calvinistic Reformed and Sovereign Grace environment.” What he is saying is that while we are being told we ought to apologize as a nation for the early attitude in America manifest in slavery toward African‐American people, we ought to start apologizing to the Jews for the way the American [and European] Church has treated them with its replacement theology.

MacArthur argues, as well as others, that Replacement Theology started with Augustine and resulted in anti-Semitic attitudes:

Augustine, the North African church father who came up with this idea (Replacement Theology), established this idea that the church was the new [Spiritual] Israel. During the thirteenth century, the church established Replacement theology as canonical law. It became the official dogma of the church. Let me give you a little bit of this history written by Robert Wistrich: “Augustine even likened the Jewish people to Cain, the first criminal recorded in biblical history who had murdered his own brother and merited death but instead had been condemned to wander unhappily ever after.” [Likewise] Augustine saw the Jewish people to be like Cain, alive but dispossessed, a perpetual wanderer. “The Jews,” Augustine said, “might deserve to be eradicated for their crime of rejecting Christ, but he preferred that they should be preserved as wandering witnesses until the end time,” that is witnesses to what happens when you reject the truth.

The influence of Augustine is also referred by others: Wistrich [further] says in his book, Anti‐ Semitism, The Longest Hatred,

“The Augustinian theology reinforced the notion of the Jews as a wandering, homeless, rejected and accursed people who were incurably carnal, blind to spiritual meaning, perfidious, faithless, and apostate. Their crime being one of cosmic proportions, merited permanent exile and subordination to Christianity.” One writer W.J. Grier, writing in the The Momentous Event, said, “The power of Augustine is best seen in the fact that he removed the ghost of premillennialism so effectively that for centuries the subject was practically ignored.”

MacArthur cites the Lateran Council (the Fourth Lateran of Council 1215) as another example:

The Lateran Council of the thirteenth century, in the year 1215, codified this segregation of the Jews. And further this Lateran Council segregated the Jews by requiring them to wear distinguishing dress. In Germanic lands they wore a conical hat and what they called a Jew‐ badge, usually a yellow disc sewn onto their clothing with the color symbolizing Judas’ betrayal of Christ for gold coins. That is what was done to them in Latin countries. These effects, of the badge that was required to be worn and the conical hat, were to make the Jews more visible and vulnerable to attack which [in turn] reduced their ability to travel. And so they were placed in ghettos during the twelve hundreds. The German Reformation a few hundred years later, under Luther’s guidance, led to a very unfavorable direction for the Jews, that is the seeding of hatred that was sewn deep, and Luther did nothing to remove it. It eventually found its full flower in the Third Reich with Hitler. And the German Protestants showed themselves amazingly receptive to Nazi anti‐Semitism, it having become so ingrained for many, many centuries. You can go back to the Council of Nicaea in 325, a council which was debating the person of Christ and came up with the right understanding of his divine and human nature. But in the documents of [that same] Council of Nicaea, Jews are called “that odious people.”

MacArthur gives current examples of this result of Replacement Theology:

Now this actually continues to be an issue today. In our modern world, our tolerant world, a world that embraces everybody and everything, there is still this subjective sort of impositional, presuppositional anti‐Judaism, if not anti‐ Semitism, not necessarily racist but this anti‐Judaism mentality. Melanie Philips, a Jewish columnist for the London Daily Mail, wrote a really amazing article about the hostility within the Anglican Church toward Israel. This is some of which she said:

“The church’s hostility has nothing to do with Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians.” And she wrote this after she went to a conference [in which] Anglicans were discussing Israel and [its relationship with] the Palestinians, the current situation. This is what she wrote, “The church’s hostility has nothing to do with Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians, this was merely an excuse. The real reason for the growing antipathy was the ancient hatred of Jews rooted deep in Christian theology and now widespread once again, a doctrine,” she wrote, “going back to the early church fathers, suppressed after the Holocaust, [that] has been revised under the influence of the Middle Eastern conflict. This doctrine is called this is a Jewish writer, Replacement Theology. In essence it says that the Jews have been replaced by the Christians in God’s favor and so all God’s promises to the Jews, including the land of Israel, have been inherited by Christianity.” That is Replacement theology.

You can go to websites like Christian‐ zionism.org, and other websites and find many Anglican leaders who are pro‐ Palestinian, and think Israel has absolutely no [biblical] right to the land. Christian anti‐Judaism is strong in the U.K., very strong, much to the delight of the two million Muslims that now live there. It is interesting to find the view that the Anglican church takes concerning Israel. One writer, Colin Chapman, an Anglican who wrote Whose Promised Land? says, “Israel is responsible for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.” He is supported, by the way, by such notable scholars as N.T. Wright who says, “Israel doesn’t mean an ethnic people, but it means a worldwide family.” To support his own view, Chapman says, “The Old Testament is not the inerrant Word of God, it is simply a very ethno‐centric interpretation of Israelitish history.”

Has Replacement Theology been divisive? Has Replacement Theology caused a rife in the church between God’s people and God’s Elect? It sounds like Covenant Theology has been divisive not dispensationalism.

MacArthur’s point is that Calvinists believe in unconditional election and God has elected Israel and given Israel unconditional and irrevocable promises that He must keep. Just as God will not cast off His church because of her disobedience as seen in Romans 8:28 ff neither will He cast off his elect nation because their disobedience. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 is the primary example:

There is in [this] one passage the answer to Replacement Theology. God is not going to cast off Israel even for what they have done. And listen to this, the New Covenant was given through Jeremiah at a time when Israel’s disobedience was so severe that they were punished by God. They were under divine punishment, under divine judgment at the very time this covenant was given to them. Jeremiah is what kind of prophet? He is a weeping prophet, weeping over Israel’s judgment, the captivity. The New Covenant is not a reward for their faithfulness, it is given in spite of their unfaithfulness. God says there will be a day when I will change their hearts sovereignly and I will be their God and they shall be My people. “And they shall not teach again,”verse 34, “each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me,’ the whole nation, ‘from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.’” There is a word for this; it is salvation! This is the promise of salvation to Israel. This is the promise to them of a seed, the promise to them of a land, the promise to them of a Kingdom, the promise to them of a King, but they cannot have any of it unless it is God who saves them. And He will, and He will not change His plan anymore than He will allow the fixed order of His creation to be altered. And when that [New] Covenant comes [to Israel], He will write His Law on the inside.

Are Both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism Recent in Origin?

Posted: September 18, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6

R. C. Sproul who is a Covenant theologian charged dispensationalism with historical recency and therefore invalid as a theology: “Dispensationalism theology is a ‘Johnny come lately’ on the scene of historic Christian thought” (Theology Night with guest Dr. Sinclair Ferguson).

1. My first response to this statement is that it is true that Dispensationalism was not early as a system of theology. But there are evidences of early concepts that later developed into the system of dispensationalism. Charles Ryrie quotes these early truths of dispensationalism by Justin Martyr (110-165) and Irenaeus (130-200). Ryrie also quotes the theologian Covenant theologians usually reference, Augustine. Fifth century Augustine wrote: “The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God” (To Marcellinus, CXXXVIII, 5, 7). None of these men were dispensationalists, but held to some of the principles that later were part of the theology of dispensationalism. If that seems to be a weak defense listen to John Murray, who restricted the term covenant theology to “the more fully developed covenant theology of the seventeenth century” (The Covenant of Grace, London: Tyndale, 1954, 3).

Covenant theologians like George Ladd have falsely stated that dispensationalism originated with John Darby in the 1800’s: “Dispensationalism has had such wide influence that it must be called a movement—had its source with Darby” (Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, 49).

There is evidence that dispensationalism as a system originated, like Covenant theology, in the seventeenth with Pierre Poiret. “The first person on record to develop a genuine dispensational scheme in a systematic fashion was the French philosopher Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)” (Renald Showers). Poiret published The Divine Economy in 1687. His view of the ages is both premillennial and dispensational.

Here is seven-fold schemes which Poiret referred each of which was made up of a  “period or dispensation.”

I. Infancy—to the Deluge

II. Childhood—to Moses

III. Adolescence—-to the prophets

IV. Youth—to the coming of Christ

V. Manhood—“some time after that”

VI. Old Age—“the time of man’s decay”

VII. Renovation of all things—The Millennium

John Edwards (1637-1716) and Issac Watts (1674-1748) also had dispensational systems. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) did much to systematize and popularize dispensationalism. But dispensationalism as a system did not originate with Darby as is mostly argued.

Even if dispensationalism had originated with Darby that is not a valid argument to discredit the system. Neither was Covenant theology developed until the seventeenth century. Cornelius Van Til, who is a covenant theologian admitted: “The idea of covenant theology has only in modern times been broadly conceived” “(Covenant Theology” in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955, 1:306). Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) is usually credited with systematizing covenant theology in his published work in 1648. Westminster Confession in 1647 referred to a covenant of works and grace.

What is ironic is that the same recency of history argument was leveled against the Reformation doctrines (most of the opponents of dispensationalism are Reformed). Here is John Calvin’s rebuttal: “First, by calling it ‘new’ they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty. . . .That it has lain long unknown and buried is the fault of man’s impiety. Now when it is restored to us by God’s goodness, its claims to antiquity ought to be admitted at least by right of recovery” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, London: Wolfe & Harison, 1561, 4).

History is not test of a doctrine’s validity but the Scripture. The question is not, “Is it historical, but is it Biblical?” James Bear, a covenant theologian agreed, “Doctrines may be new and yet not untrue” (Dispensationalism and the Covenant of Grace, Richmond: Union Seminary Review, 1938, 4).

2. My next response to Sproul’s statement is that the history of doctrine has been a process. Ryrie refers to James Orr’s The Progress of Dogma which shows that the major doctrines have chronologically developed. A study of the history of doctrinal disputes and church councils shows that these were responses to heresy:

1) Bibliology and Montanus in (170) who believed in additional revelations.

2) Modalism of Sabellius was the next doctrinal conflict in the early 200s.

3) The deity of Christ was settled at The Council of Nicea n 325. Arianism was rejected.

4) The deity of the Holy Spirit was determined at The Council of Constantinople in 381.

5) Original sin was correctly stated at The Council of Ephesus in 431. Pelagius’ false view of original sin condemned.

6) The doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone was restored by the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s.

Ryrie observes that, “the systematizing of dispensationalism is recent should not be surprising. It would not be unexpected that a subject whose primary distinctions have to do with eschatology should not have been systematized until eschatology began to be refined seriously by the church. . . .Undoubtedly the recency of systematic eschatology partly accounts for the relative recency of systematic dispensationalism” (Dispensationalism, 80).

Sermon: Disciple Making Disciples (Acts 9:10-19)

Posted: July 15, 2012 in Sermons in Acts
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Every one of us, sometime during our school years, learned the story of Isaac Newton’s famous discovery. You may remember the story. Newton was sitting under an apple tree one afternoon, and a ripe apple fell from one of the limbs and hit him on the head. At that moment, Isaac Newton discovered the need for Excedrin! No, he discovered the Law of Gravity.

Few of us learned, however, that if it were not for another scientist named Edmund Halley, the world might never have learned of Newton. In fact, it was Halley who:

• challenged and mentored Newton through his original ideas;

• corrected  Newton’s mathematical errors;

• coaxed the hesitant Newton to put his discoveries into writing;

• edited and supervised Newton’s publications;

• even financed Newton’s first edition.

Historians call it one of the most selfless examples in the annals of science. Newton began almost immediately, to reap the rewards of scientific prominence and prestige, while Halley withdrew into the shadows and received little credit. One biographical statement about Halley said that he did not care who got the credit, his mission in life was to simply advance the cause of science. In fact, the only reason we even know the name of Halley is because of the comet that was named for him. Halley calculated that the comet would appear every seventy-six years and then, would disappear once again into the vast heavens.

Our study today, resembles the story of Edmund Halley. It is the story of a man who launched the prominent career of another man and then, disappeared from sight. His name was Ananias, and his brief appearance occurs in the book of Acts, chapter 9. Like the comet and its discoverer, he appeared for just a moment and then, withdrew into the shadows of history, never to be heard from again (Stephen Davey in a sermon on Acts 9:10-19).

Ananias was Saul’s first friend after his Damascus road conversion. Paul had what every new believer needs: another Christian who is mature to help him/her get started. Ananias was that person. What Stephen was to Paul before his conversion, Ananias was after his conversion. Not only does the sinner need someone to lead him to Christ, but the new convert needs someone to help him grow in Christ.

Ananias discipled Paul or at least started the discipling process. Ananias teaches us that disciples disciple.

1. To Disciple another believer, we first must be a Disciple of Christ (Acts19:10-16)

Ananias is called a disciple in Acts 9:10. Luke’s favorite description of believers in Acts is “disciple.” Luke uses different names: 9:2 “of the way” 9:13 “saints” 9:14 “all that call on your name” 9:30 “brethren.” More frequently, however, Luke calls believers “disciples” as in 9:1, 10, 19, 25, 26, 36, 38.

Before Jesus ascended back to Heaven He gave the church His Great Commission in Matthew 28-19-20. The command in the Great Commission is “Make Disciples.” So what does a disciple look like?

A. A disciple loves God’s Word (Acts 22:12a).

Twenty years after his encounter with Ananias, Paul will recall what Ananias did for him right after his conversion. In Paul’s testimony before a Jewish mob, Paul described Ananias as “a devout man according to the law.” Ananias was like the blessed man in Psalm 1 who “delights in the law of the Lord and his law does he meditate day and night.” Are you delighting in God’s Word day and night?

B. A disciple has a good testimony (Acts 22:12b).

When your name is mentioned, what do people think? The Ananias of 9:10 was better than the Ananias of chapter five. The Judas of 9:11 is better than the Judas who betrayed Christ. The Saul in chapter 9:11 is better than the OT Saul. When your name is mentioned, will it be associated with the Ananias of Acts 5 or Acts 9? With the Judas who was a religious hypocrite or the Judas of Acts 9? With Saul of the OT about whom we are not sure if he were a believer or the Saul of Acts 9?

C. A disciple fellowships with God (Acts 9:10-16).

We can’t fulfill the Great Commission of Jesus in Matthew in 28 to make disciples without first fulfilling the Great Command of Jesus in Matthew 22 to love God with all our heart. In 9:10-16, Ananias shows his love for God.

1) To fellowship a believer must be surrendered “Behold, I am here, Lord.”

Ananias and the Lord were on speaking terms and Ananias was surrendered to do God’s will. Abraham with his son Isaac on the altar and his knife outstretched responded when God called him with “Here am I.” Have you spoke these words of surrender to God? 

2) To fellowship a believer must be led as Ananias is in 9:11-12.

God led Philip to the Ethiopian in 8:26. God leads Ananias to Saul in 9:11-12. God knew this was a difficult task for Ananias. So the Lord gave Ananias a clue of Saul’s conversion with the words “behold, he prays.” For the first time Saul the Pharisee who prayed in public to be heard of men (Matthew 6:5) prayed in private to be heard of the Lord. Paul would later instruct us to “pray when you pray” (Ephesians 6:18).

To whom this past week did God lead you to take out for a meal or to meet with in order to disciple?

3) To fellowship a believer sometimes struggles as in 9:13-14.

Apparently Ananias did not catch clue and thinks it necessary to inform the Lord of the dangerous situation he has heard from the refugees from Jerusalem. The Lord patiently listens and then clearly relieves Ananias’ fears in the news of Saul’s conversion in 9:15-16.

2. Once we are Disciples of Christ then we can be Disciplers of Believers (Acts 9:17-19)

A. Disciplers Identify with people (Acts 9:17).

Believers who spend time with God are led to minister to people. How can we minister to people or make disciples?

1. By welcoming them to the family of God or our church family.

Ananias, as we would say, shook Saul’s hand or gave him a hug. Have you ever been to an unfriendly, cold church? I hear over and over again from visitors that our church is a friendly church.

2. By forgiving one another. Ananias called Saul “Brother” not “Persecutor.”

Saul had persecuted perhaps friends and family members of Ananias. But Ananias knew Saul had been forgiven by God so he is willing to forgive. We forgive others because we have been forgiven.

3. By helping people physically and spiritually.

Ananias helped Saul receive his physical sight first and then be filled with the Holy Spirit. So often serving people’s material and physical needs is the gateway to serving them spiritually.

Our Hospitality Committee performed this ministry this past week when one of our members pasted away. The son said if he lived closer he would attend this church. Our Family Care ministry also performed this ministry this week. Two different Family Care leaders contacted me about their members. They are ministering physically and spiritually.

B. Disciplers identify believers with the church (Acts 9:18).  

1. Once a person is saved the NT pattern is to be baptized and join the church as first seen on the first day of the church in 2:41.

Ananias ministered to Saul not being an apostle or deacon like Philip in chapter 8. This ministry is for every member, not just leaders and elected officers.

2. After you are baptized and join the church, what do you do? Eat!

That is what 9:19a says. Christians like to be with Christians. Look at the example that Jesus left. Turn back a few pages to John 21:6-14. Jesus grilled fish for His disciples. I loved grilled salmon wrapped in grapes leaves at Green Valley Grille. I doubt Jesus grilled salmon, but you know what ever He grilled was good. But this was the 3rd time Jesus had appeared to His disciples as a group after His resurrection.

Jesus met with two disciples on the road to Emmaus right after His resurrection and ate with them (Luke 24:30). Jesus met with His disciples as a group on the first Easter Sunday when Thomas was not present and ate with them (Luke 24:42). He ate “broiled fish and honeycomb.” Jesus met with His disciples one week later when Thomas was present and eating is not mentioned (John 20:24). Maybe it is just assumed they were eating. Jesus met with His disciples for the third time and grilled fish for them (John 21:12).

Ananias helped Paul make new Christian friends. John in First John is teaching believers how to have assurance of salvation or as John says “Know” you are a believer (5:13). How can you know you are a believer? There are three tests:

1) You believe that Jesus is the Son of God (5:1a, 5). Doctrinal Test.

2) You love God’s people (5:1b). Social Test.

3) You obey God’s Word (5:2). Moral Test.

Ananias got Paul involved in a small group (Acts 9:19b). It was not enough just to join the church. Paul needed to get in a small group to build relationships and friendships. Even Jesus had 12 men He associated with for three years. Paul from this point will surround himself with a group of disciples. We need each other.

3. Disciples identify believers with God’s work (Acts 9:15-16).

What Jesus informed Ananias about Paul in Acts 9:15-16, Ananias does tell him in 22:14-15.

Believers have been chosen by God. Paul you will be rejected by men because of your witness, but you have not been rejected by God. All believers have been chosen by God according to Jesus in John 15:16.

Jill Morgan, the daughter-in-law of G. Campbell Morgan, wrote in her book, A MAN OF THE WORD, “In 1888 my father-in-law was rejected for the ministry. Morgan was seeking entrance into the Wesleyan ministry in 1888. He had passed his written exam but faced the test of giving a trial sermon in front of a panel. When the results were released, Morgan had been rejected. He wired to his father the one word, “Rejected,” and sat down to write in his diary: “Very dark everything seems. Still, He knoweth best.” Quickly came the reply: “Rejected on earth. Accepted in heaven. Dad.” (Source unknown). As G. Campbell Morgan went on to prove, rejection on earth is often of little consequence in heaven.

“Ananias the obscure, never heard of before or since, the first example of a historical pattern that great ambassadors for Christ, however much prepared in other ways, are brought to their vocation by unimportant agents. Augustine hears a child’s voice repeat, ‘Take up and read!’ John Wesley listens to an anonymous Moravian reading Luther; D. L. Moody, wrapping up shoes in a store, pauses for a few words from his Sunday School teacher; Charles Haddon Spurgeon, sheltering from a snowstorm, hears a workingman in a snowbound minister’s pulpit” (John Pollock. The Man Who Shook the World, Wheaton: Victor Books, 1973, 22).

Interpretation Principle of a Single Meaning, Part 1

Posted: June 11, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
3

The Single Meaning Principle is stated well in the words of Bernard Ramm, “Interpretation is one, application is many” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 113). In chapter three “Bible Interpretation—Then and Now” Zuck surveys the different methods of interpretation throughout church history. The different approaches are literal, allegorical, traditional, and rationalistic, and subjective. What separates all the approaches from the literal i.e., the grammatical-historical interpretation is the rejection of authorial intent or one interpretation of Scripture. Zuck quotes Bernard Ramm’s evaluation of Augustine’s teaching: “Scripture has more than one meaning and therefore the allegorical method is proper.” Zuck gives an example of Augustine’s allegorical interpretations: “In his allegorizing Augustine taught that the four rivers in Genesis 2:10-14 are four cardinal virtues and that in the Fall the fig leaves represent hypocrisy and the skin covering is morality (3:7, 21). Noah’s drunkenness (Gen. 9:20-23) represents Christ in His suffering and death. The teeth of Shulamite in Song of Songs 4:2 speak of the church ‘tearing men away from heresy.’” These far out interpretations are obviously not what the original authors of Scripture meant when they wrote to their ancient audiences. Did Moses have Christ in mind when he wrote of Noah’s sin of drunkenness? No!

The emphasis in interpretation has shifted from what the text says to what the interpreter thinks or feels the text says. The epicenter in hermeneutics is no longer the one objective meaning of the text but the various and sundry subjective meanings of the interpreters.

This is clearly a departure from the classic hermeneutical theoreticians of the past. In his classic on hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry in chapter 6, “The Grammatico-Historical Sense”, defined the single meaning principle: “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have but one signification in one and the same connection.” Then Milton issued this warning and prophecy in 1883: “The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutic, 205). Evangelicalism is adrift on the sea of uncertainity today in hermeneutics.

I began this post with a quote from another classic on hermeneutics. Here are the follow up statements of Ramm’s great line: “Interpretation is one, application is many. This means that there is only one meaning to a passage of Scripture which is determined by careful study.” In my next post tomorrow, I will review Robert Thomas’ chapter “The Principle of Single Meaning” in his Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus The Old and cite today’s theological heavy weights who have abandoned the single meaning principle.

Leadership Law of E. F. Hutton: Law #5 (Part One)

Posted: April 28, 2009 in Leadership
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

The Law of E. F. Hutton says, “When the real leader speaks, people listen.” If you want to get something started in your organization to whom do you go? That person is the E. F. Hutton or the real leader. Or, if you want to get something stopped in your organization to whom do you go? That person is the actual mover and shaker whether he or she has the title or not. For example, Nehemiah knew Artaxerxes was the man of influence in his life and work. Nehemiah wisely built a relationship with him and showed him respect. Consequently, Nehemiah was able to influence his E. F. Hutton to grant him permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and accomplish God’s will. Maxwell says if you want to know who the leader is in your meeting, follow the eyes of the group to identify the E. F. Hutton.

 

How can I be the E. F. Hutton that people listen to when I speak? How can I influence through my communication? Realize first, Maxwell says, you are the message. If people do not respect the messenger, they will not listen to his message. Listen to the reason Paul gave for the effectiveness of his preaching to the Thessalonians: “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in  much assurance; as you know what manner of men we were among you for your sake” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). Because they respected Paul they responded to his words. Maxwell gives the following practical suggestions for the Law of E. F. Hutton to be lived out.

 

Your level of Confidence sends a message.

 

Confidence comes from preparation. The writer of Ecclesiastes wisely said, “If the iron be blunt, and he does not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct” (Ecclesiastes 10:10). Abraham Lincoln once admitted: “If I had only eight hours to cut down a tree, I would spend two hours sharpening my axe.” Time spent in preparation is not wasted time. Your confidence ultimately comes from the Lord who called you and His Word. Again listen to Paul describe why God used him at Thessalonica: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when you received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually works also in you that believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Confidence also comes from experience. So prepare well for each message and keep at it.

 

Your level of Character sends a message.

 

Aristotle, in the first book on public speech entitled Rhetoric, stressed the importance of character or ethos in persuasion. Augustine, who wrote the first book on Homiletics, Concerning Christian Doctrine, likewise emphasized the importance of the preacher’s character if his ecclesiastical rhetoric was to persuade. Spurgeon in his Lectures to my Students” wrote a chapter entitled, “Take heed to thyself.”  The same is true in the secular businesses. Leadership authors, Kouzes and Posner in their book Credibility give the result of 25 years of extensive leadership surveys. They write “No matter where we have conducted our studies—regardless of country, geographical region, or type of organization—the most important leadership attribute since we began our research in 1981 has always been honesty” (pages 14-15).

 

Paul writing to a young leader advised: “Let no man despise your youth; but be an example of the believers in word, manner of living, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity…Take heed unto yourself, and unto doctrine; continue in them, for in so doing this you will both save yourself, and them that hear you” (1 Timothy 4:12-16).