Did God really destroy ALL the people on the earth except Noah and his family?! Would a loving God do that? Did they deserve it? Listen to this teaching on Gen 6:1-7 to discover how to understand God's heart for his creation, our purpose and freedom, and his judgment.
We are studying through the book of Ephesians together as a church. This particular message includes teaching on predestination, but the main idea is that God has blessed us by adopting us. You can listen to it, download it, or subscribe in the teaching audio box in the right side bar.
I have heard and often reasoned myself for the necessity of the divinity of Christ for the efficacy of the atonement. If Jesus were merely a man, and not God, then he could not pay for the sins of all who come. At best a perfect man could replace one other. I have never really seen this reasoning in Scripture, though, before this morning:
“Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of this life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, For he will receive me.” Psalm 49:7-9, 15
"You, my God . . . are the most hidden from us and yet the most present amongst us, the most beautiful and yet the most strong, ever enduring and yet we cannot comprehend you. You are unchangeable and yet you change all things. You are never new, never old, and yet all things have new life from you. You are the unseen power that brings decline upon the proud. You are ever active, yet always at rest. You gather all things to yourself, though you suffer no need. . . . You grieve for wrong, but suffer no pain. You can be angry and serene. . . . You repay us what we deserve, and yet you owe nothing to any. . . . Can any man say enough when he speaks of you? Yet woe betide those who are silent about you!" - Augustine, Confessions, 1.4
"Theology is inseparable from spirituality. Theology is concerned not only with the Logos but also the Spirit who reveals and applies the wisdom of Christ to our hearts." - D. G. Bloesch, "Prayer," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 866.
I recently read again about "saints" in the Bible. What does it mean to be a saint? First, we move past the Roman Catholic understanding of a saint as an especially holy and officially recognized believer in the church. The Bible refers to all believers as saints. Paul wrote "to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (Rom 1:7). But what does saint mean? The word saint comes from a Latin word that refers to something sacred. It is used to translate the Greek words oi agioi, which is literally translated "the holy ones." To be holy, according to this Greek word, mean "dedicated to God, holy, sacred, i.e. reserved for God and God’s service" or "pure, perfect, worthy of God" (BDAG, 10-11).
So, what does it mean to be St. Matthew (not that I want anyone to call me that!)? It means that I am a holy one. It means I am set apart as one who is in a special relationship with God. I am one of "God's people." It also means that I am set apart for the purpose of serving him. This is who I am and this is my purpose. It strikes me now how weak and slavish that would sound to people who don't know him. But just remember, HE IS LIFE and HE IS LOVE. If that is what I am going to be forever bound to, then hook me up!
Since God is holy, in the pure and perfect sense, the purity of those who relate to and serve him is essential. Positionally, God has provided for my purity through the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. By faith and his grace, I am pure before him; I am cleansed and forgiven. That does not mean I live a pure life, but it means that I CAN. And if I do live a pure life then I am able to be more and more intimate with him and more and more useful to him (2 Tim 2:19-22).
Sometimes we don't live like we belong to God. We live like we belong to ourselves and are very happy to have God on our side. Sometimes we don't live like our all consuming purpose is to serve him. We are glad to have someone who will provide good advice and help as we go our own way. Living as his for him is a very different way of living. And that is what it means to be saints, holy ones, God's people.
I have had quite a few requests for a complete copy of my dissertation, The Authority of Church Elders in the New Testament. You can now download a pdf of the whole work here:
“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” 1 Cor 15:29
Here is a notoriously difficult verse. There are two reasons for its difficulty: 1) “There is no historical or biblical precedent for such baptism,” and (more importantly) 2) Paul mentions a clearly unbiblical practice “without apparent disapproval.”[1] Gordon Fee states that “at least forty different solutions have been suggested.” However, most of these propose interpretations that do not match the straightforward meaning: some are being baptized vicariously for those who have already died. Whatever they were actually doing (which Fee says cannot be known), “what is certain is how the text functions in the argument . . . those actions are a contradiction to the position that there is no resurrection of the dead (v. 12).”[2]
The very same week I began to study this passage, I also started reading Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates. The introduction includes a discussion of the persuasive strategies of Socrates. One strategy is called elenchus. “It is a tool for the exposure of problems with beliefs and inconsistencies in sets of beliefs rather than for demonstrating what is true and what is false.”[3] Based on observations of Paul’s argumentation and rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would use such a strategy. For the sake of this argument, Paul ignores the fact that being baptized for the dead is a bad idea and demonstrates that those who claim there is no resurrection have an inconsistent set of beliefs. This possibility is supported by Paul’s unusual use of third person (usually 2nd person in such a context, cf. v. 12) and its clear contrast to the first person in the next verse. He certainly keeps his distance from this practice. He goes on to demonstrate that his own actions only make sense if the dead are raised, and therefore are consistent with his claim about the resurrection (vv. 30-32).
Paul assumes that one’s worldview should be internally consistent. I’m sure than none of us want to contradict ourselves. Although we may have theological consistency, it is possible we have not thought through the implications of our faith for other parts of a worldview – economics, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc. It is not uncommon to find people with a biblical theology and an unbiblical political position. More to Paul’s point in this passage is the consistency of our faith and practice. Are our daily actions and lifestyle habits consistent with our professed faith? If not, it is appropriate to ask whether we believe it at all (James 2:18-26).
[2] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 763.
[3] Introduction to The Last Days of Socrates, xv.
