Praying to Jesus?

Some Christians pray to Jesus, since some Bible verses indicate that Jesus intercedes for us.

Hebrews 7:25, "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God
through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."

or to the Spirit

Romans 8:26-27, "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not
know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with
groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind
of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with
God's will."

Yet, Jesus tells us that we should pray to "our Father"

Matthew 6:9"This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name, "

But, what I find very assuring about this is that Jesus tells us that we don't have to go through him, but because of him we may ask directly from the Father, because He loves us.

John 16:26-27, "In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."

No other faith gives such a personal picture of our Creator, that knows and loves us personally, that we may speak with Him. What a Wonderful Creator and Father we have!!!

Spiritual Battle

As I was reading through the bible recently, I ran across a couple verses that are pertinent to the battle we're in as Christians. I read these in the English Standard Version

Romans 7:21, "So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand."

Romans 8:7, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot."

As we strive to live out our lives, and bring about His glory, we are constantly faced with trials, and we should not be caught off-gaurd by forgetting that those who do not follow God, are hostile toward him. Yet, we are to live above reproach, and treat others with gentleness and respect.

Fruit of the Spirit

In Galatians 5:22-23, the Bible lists 9 characteristics that they call the fruit of the spirit. Using the NIV, I have found an easy way to remember these. They are listed in an easy order, 3 sets of 3, each with an increased number of syllables.

The first set, with 1 syllable: love, joy peace
The second with 2 syllables: patience, kindness, goodness
The last with 3 syllables: faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control

A couple other thoughts on this short passage and concept of the fruit of the Spirit. People can often get this backwords, thinking that if they work hard at showing these characteristics, they will gain the Holy Spirt. In reality, these things are the fruit of the Spirit, just as an apple is the fruit of an apple tree. If you have the Spirit, this fruit will grow in you. It may appear first, as a bud, then maybe an unripe fruit, but will eventually grow into a ripe, delicious fruit that others will enjoy.

The Banner: Understanding Islam

This month Rev. David Feddes wrote and article in the Banner (monthly magazine for the CRC denomination) titled, "Understanding Islam". I respect Rev. Feddes and consider him a brother in much of his preaching and doctrine. So, in commenting on his article I am generally adding to or providing more depth to what he is saying. He did a very good job for the short amount of space he had. There are a few small things that may mis-represent the situation or beliefs as I understand them from my study. His article can be found at http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1201. I will quote his article and add my comments after each.

"There are two main categoris of African American Muslims: black supremacists and mainstream Sunnis"

Based on his description, I'm assuming that he's talking about the Nation of Islam. Most, if not all, Muslims I know would not dream of categorizing the Nation of Islam as Muslim. Because of their overt and obvious denial of one of the central claims of Islam, that Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet. I don't think this is a wise association to make, as we would be equally offended if some Christian cult (e.g. Branch Davidians of Waco, TX) was considered part of Christianity.

"Both teach that idolatry, murder, adultery, stealing, lying, and abortion are wrong. Both agree that family ties, generosity to the poor, hard work, and honest business are good."

This is a good list, there's probably many more that could be added. One that is a blaring ommision is that homosexuality is wrong.

"Islam teaches that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel of Jesus are from God."

This is a statement that helps build bridges and find similarities, but I think mis-represents the real picture. For a more realistic picture you could add the phrase at the end of the sentence, "but were corrupted by humans."

A secondary issue that is eluded to here is the word, "God". While some may argue that "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God", Islam and Christianity are not referring to the same God. Not when you get down to His base charactistics, qualities, or actions. Allah in Islam, is not the same triune God of the Bible. Rev. Feddes brings this out in later paragraphs as well, but not as directly.

"People of Christian background who slide from biblical revelation into moral relativism, secularism, or religious pluralism could learn from Islam's clarity of conviction..."

Amen, brother Feddes! I believe this is a big reason for the attraction to and growth of Islam. People are getting tired of not having anything to hold on to, and Islam provides straight-forward 'absolutes'.

"Islam aspires to win hearts and shape nations. ... Don't underestimate the challenge."

Most Muslims are trained and can defend their faith better than most Christians. Any sincere interaction you have with Muslims will challenge you, but it can also help increase your faith and better understand why you believe what you do. Trust in God, and don't be afraid of a challenge.

"Sharpen your witness by studying more about Islam."

Ditto, I have studied and have taught about Muslim beliefs to other Christians in Sunday School and other presentations. I will be teaching again soon, to the Sunday School class at Peoria, IA. I'm looking forward to it.

Always remember, as Rev. Feddes stated in the article, that all people are made in God's image. Muslims are lost and need a loving neighbor to be used by God to lead them to the truth of the Bible and a loving Father.

It's a visual generation: myth or reality?

There's a interesting trend that has been going on in our churches for some time now. That is the trend for churches to use PowerPoint, pictures, and video in our worship services. It seems to go along with the trend toward contemporary music.

There is a common argument that supporters of that trend tend to use to justify or promote the movement in that direction. The argument goes something like this, "We live in a visual generation, our youth are drawn by videos and visual images. This is the way we can get through to them, this is the way they learn." This argument seems to hold some sway with many people to either accept it, or not know what else to say", because there seems to be some truth in it.

I think, wheather you are for or against this trend, this argument is a poor one, let me explain.

Let me first start with what everyone sees. Yes, we watch our youth and how they are drawn to or impacted by well-done videos or visual presentations of the gospel or Biblical concepts. I do not think anyone can deny the impact of these potentially posative visual experiences on our youth, they can be used (as with most other medium) for good.

However, the argument made is that this is a 'generational issue', meaning that our youth are different than us, that they are persuaded or drawn more by the visual than we were in the past. Is that true, or not? Then, because we assume it to be true, it shapes how we design and conduct our worship of God as a corporate body of the church.

When I first heard this argument, I was drawn in by it, because it seemed to have some truth, but as time went on and I heard others talk about it, I heard both the good that the youth found in it, but also the complaints about it from others. I also drew from my experiences teaching Sunday School. Let me tell you of those.

I taught on the creation/evolution twice, once based on a book (Refuting Evolution, by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati) and once based on the videos (The Answers Video series by Ken Ham). Here's what I noticed. The videos where easy for anyone to come in and get the basic concepts taught, it did open things up for a lot of questions and discussion about the issues. However, the book seemed to get people in deeper into the topic, when we reviewed the topic and had discussion in class after reading the book during the week, the questions seemed to have more depth and understanding. The class with the video had more consistent attendance, and more frequent visitors, because one could stop in and participate without any prior preparation or knowledge. The class with the book required and helped develop more depth of knowledge and understanding.

From this experience and others, I asked myself the question. Is this really a 'visual generation', or is something else going on. I reflected on how I learn. Even recently, I wanted to learn more about the Dead Sea Scrolls. If I try first to purchase and read an in-depth book on the topic, I tend to have a tougher time at it, however, if I start by attending a class or watching a video/DVD I get the big picture first. Once I get the big picture, I find that the video's are not enough, I need more information and depth to truly undersand it. Could a video provide that? Maybe, if it were a several hour/day long, however, a good book which explains concepts, and asks questions, and makes you think (and let's you pause long enough when you need to think) is the only way I've found to get the kind of depth that I want and need.

I also thought back to when I was in high school and college, I recognized that I 'learned better' from videos and visual presentations. But as I grew in my knowledge I went more and more away from that. The video lacks the depth of communication of many things.

I do not believe that this is a 'visual generation' because people of all time learn in the same ways, sometimes it's best from visuals, sometimes it's best from speaking, sometimes it's best from written word. This is not unique to 'this generation', however what is unique to this generation, is our tendency to do whatever it takes to cater to their style, whether or not it works. I think this is due to our fears that our youth will fall away from our faith in Jesus Christ and we're willing to do anything to make them happy so as to not drive them away.

Should we use videos to attract our youth, or adults, to Christ? or should we use speaking (preaching) and the written word (Bible) and biblically-base books? Videos may draw them in and get their attention, but in the end do not teach them depth. All they get is spiritual milk, they do not get the meat. Do we want to build a generation without depth? They will only fall away when they are exposed to other teaching or whim of doctrine. They will get blown away by the wind.

We should use video sparingly, only where it conveys more information than can be conveyed by words (written or spoken). It may seem harder at first, but will help develop better thinking and reasoning skills.

Is it a visual generation? No


Let's build a generation who can think and has a depth to their faith. One who can defend their faith, not one who will abandon ship when the first storm comes along.

Is the Leviathan a crocodile?

We read about the Leviathan in Job 41, with a good description. Yet, many bibles and commentaries suggest that the Leviathan could be a crocodile. Well, I don't buy it. Let's look first at the scripture passages that talk about the Leviathan and see what they say:


First, read Job 41 in it's whole, here are some highlighted verses that don't seem to even remotely describe a crocodile.

Job 41

12 "I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form.

Would a crocodile be described with a "graceful form"?

18 His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.

Several references to breathing fire, flashes of light, flames, sparks, smoke. This is not just a passing note, but something significant about the Leviathan. It doesn't describe a crocodile.

24 His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone.

The crocodile's chest and belly are made of smooth scales. They are soft, not rock-hard.

30 His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.

The crocodile's chest and belly are made of smooth scales. They are soft, not rock-hard.

Psalms 104:25-26, "There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number— living things both large and small. There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there."

Do crocodiles live in the sea? No, they live in "grassy swamps and slow-moving rivers", not anywhere the ships go.

Isaiah 27:1, "Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent;"

Have you ever seen a coiled crocodile?

Just taking a surface look at the scriptures description of the leviathan give ample reason to reject the idea that it is a crocodile. What do you think?

Prophet, Priest, and King

My pastor gave a sermon recently which gave some very simple and useful descriptions of these three offices that we serve as Christians. I just thought I'd share those with others on my blog.

Prophet: A man who stands between God and the people and gives God's words to the people. This could be giving God's word through the Bible or revelation.

Priest: A man who stands between God and the people and speaks on behalf of the people. This could be through intercessory prayer for others.

King: A man who rules over others with authority. This could be in a number of contexts including authority over their family or work or leadership in thier church or community.

Beyond Tolerance

Our society promotes a sense of tolerance for each other, tolerance for those who are different than us or different than the norm. Often conservative Christians react negatively to the 'tolerance trend', because it tends to promote tolerance for others, but not tolerance toward Christians. I'd like to propose a different way for Christians to look at tolerance.

Tolerance is a lower standard.

The secular world tends to think they are taking the high road when promoting tolerance. It's certainly a higher ideal than hate. Maybe we even think that hate is the opposite of tolerance, but it's not. As it seems to play out, tolerance is organized apathy. In other words, the effect of the ideal of tolerance is to tolerate everything, which is in essence to not really care about anything. This is simple apathy; hardly a higher standard.

On a spectrum of caring and not caring, tolerance is at the bottom of the scale. Two other ideals at the other end of te caring scale are hate and love. Both show a great amount of engagement or interest; one negative, one positive. We certainly want to avoid the strong engagement of hate, but we should strive toward the higher ideal of caring and love.

Love is a higher standard.

Love shows that someone cares enough to act and to act on the behalf of another. Tolerance shows that one doesn't really care; you can do what you want even if it will seriously harm you. Love does more than let you do what you want, it laughs together, it helps each other, it encourages, it challenges, it protects! I could go on, but you get the idea.

Let's live to a higher standard, rather than buying into the artificial standard of tolerance.

Salvation Issue: Some Basics

Continued from "Is it a ‘salvation issue’?"

As we explore the 'Salvation Issue' topic some more, let's talk about some things that I don't mean, and don't want to imply.

Depth of Understanding
I do not mean to say that if you don’t understand an aspect of salvation or the Bible that you aren’t saved. No-one has an instant understanding of Christianity and Salvation as soon as they accept Christ. This is a process and one can have an uninformed or less mature view of issues in the Bible and doctrine without risking their salvation. It is a learning process and you do not need to be fully mature, to be fully saved. There are not degrees of being ‘saved’ or ‘lost’, you are either ‘saved’ or not. However, there do appear to be degrees of reward for those who are saved, and degrees of punishment for the lost.

Ignorance or Rejection
I do not mean that all who hold non-belief or non-agreement are treated the same. Consider the example set in Luke 12:47-48, where the the informed person who rejects is punished more than the uninformed person. Also consider, Luke 10:1-12 where Jesus commissions the 72 disciples. He instructs them in cities that do not receive them to shake the dust from their sandals, it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town that rejects His disciples. Being informed of God's will and rejecting it deserves the worst punishment, yet rejecting His will while uninformed still brings punishment, just not as severe.

See also Proverbs 21:2, “All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart.” We often think we know best, but God is always right and proves us wrong. It is essential for us to seek God’s will by listening to and studying his Word, communicating with him in prayer, and following the Spirit’s leading.

Salvation by Faith, not by Works
Some may object to salvation through faith by citing James 2:24, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." You really have to look at the whole passage and the context. For me this basically comes down whether or not your faith is alive or it’s dead. Abraham’s faith was proven to be alive through his actions (or works) not an empty statement that he ‘had faith’. However, we look at the example of the thief on the cross next to Jesus in Luke 23:43, Jesus says to him, "...today you will be with me in paradise." Jesus doesn't put conditions of works or deeds on this criminal.

Also consider the faith chapter, Hebrews 11. The basic pattern introducing each person of faith and indicating their actions… “By faith" the person did something. Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

You do not lose your salvation every time you sin, likewise you do not gain salvation by doing enough good deeds. Your deeds do not provide salvation, but they are evidence of the faith that you do have (though not perfectly). We can say we believe anything, but we act on what we really believe.

Is it a ‘salvation issue’?

As I discuss issues with others, or hear discussions and debates, it frequently comes up that “it’s not a salvation issue.” This statement really bugs me, not because it’s not true, but because it’s often abused. Let’s take a closer look at this.

Original Intent
I have not investigated the origin and first use of this phrase, or who first coined it. But, I can imagine what it’s original noble intent may have been: to save friends from endless arguments that would undermine their otherwise good relationship. If this were the only way it was used, then I applaud it for keeping peace and living peaceably with our ‘brothers.’ Another way to put this that may be familiar to some is ‘agreement in the majors, grace in the minors.’ In other words, if we’re going to let something get between us, don’t let it be something small.

Typical Abuse (i.e. playing the salvation card)
Too often, the way I see it used is more of a lazy way out of a meaningful discussion. Most people tend to invoke the salvation card too soon, before they dig in deep enough to know if it's an important issue or not. Most difficult issues cannot be worked out and fully explored in a single discussion, yet we tend to either get tired of the discussion, or get backed into a corner or can't figure out how to get our point across and want to end it before we have to give up.

We can't engage in honest discussion if we come in dogmatic about our position and all it's aspects. It is sometimes difficult to really listen to another's view and seek to understand it. Yet, when we undestand the other's view more fully, we can more effectively and peacefully respond to it with engaging questions. We must seek to understand, then to be understood.

My assessment is that sincere people use the phrase sincerely, but it's real effect ends up being, "I'm tired of talking about this, let's quit and talk about somethng else." It's a polite way of saying, "I'm done." Let's quit abusing it and say what we really mean.

Proper Use: What Is a Salvation issue?
So what is a ‘salvation issue’? What this is implied to mean is, "are you going to be saved or not saved based on how you understand or answer this question?" When you put it that way, you narrow it down quite a bit, the net effect being, people always answer "no" to the original question, "is it a salvation issue?"

So what is this narrow definition of "what is a salvation issue?" The very narrowest answer to that question can be found in Ephesians 2:8, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”, or really digging deeper we get to core of Christianity in the resurrection in 2 Corinthians 15:17, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”

Therefore, it is implied, that nothing else is a salvation issue; not baptism, not homosexuality, not abortion, not creation/evolution, not music style, not war, not sexuality, not pornography, not polygamy, not Bible translation, etc…

So, if we change the meaning of "Is it a salvation issue?" to mean, "What is essential to understand your salvation?" we can get a better assessment of if it is important or not. What do you think are the core, essentials of salvation and it's proper understanding?

Pass the buck on poverty

Wow, I received the Barna Update this week on the topic of Helping the Poor, here http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=273. Let me note a few items from that article.

• 72% consider poverty to be one of the most serious social problems facing the United States today, yet...
• 64% consider it to be the government's responsibility, and...
• only 18% consider it to be an individual responsibility, and...
• only 4% consider it to be the church's responsibility.

A few comments or observations:

Why do many 'pass the buck' to the government?

It appears that the government has taken away a responsibility which was largely the church's before. With factors like this, is there any wonder why churches have less and less influence?

Synod Removes 'Male' as Requirement for Office and Allows Women as Delegates

The Synod 2007 of the CRC met recently and reported their major decisions at http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=192. One of the decisions includes removing the word 'male' as a requirement for office, allowing women to serve in church 'office' and as delegates to Synod. In their report they also note that they make the provision for those who disagree. While they may think they are providing for others who disagree, the provision is a simple kick in the teeth.

The provision, as reported, allows "delegates to classis or synod who believe that including women delegates is in violation of the Word of God may record their protest on the appropriate credentials." Let me make a comparison to illustrate the absurdity of this provision.

Let's say that you are a Christian doctor who believes that the Word of God rejects abortion as the killing of a human. However, at a Christian hospital, the recent decision was made to allow abortions to be performed. Also, all doctors must attend the 'surgery' of an abortion, but may register their protest when signing in to attend.

Any doctor who truly believes that abortion is the killing of a human life, would not be able to attend the 'surgery', but would/should do everything in their power to stop the murder. They could not merely stand by in protest while they watched the brutal murder.

If this report accurately reflects the full decision of Synod 2007, you should see an exodus of many churches and Christians from the CRC, at least those who hold to their convictions.

Genesis 1 says nothing about time?

I heard a sermon by a pastor last year on Genesis 1. He stated in the sermon that Genesis 1 says nothing about time. At that statement a member of the church yelled out 'Amen!'

Whether you believe in a young earth or an old earth, this statement is ludicrous and an outright lie. For humor's sake, I repeat the text of Genesis 1 (NIV) [copied from http://www.biblegateway.com/] and have underlined things which I think say something about time, and italicized those that indicate time in the form of past tense. You read it, and be the judge.


Genesis 1

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.



If the rest of Genesis says nothing about time, why have many scholars through time engaged in 'biblical chronology'? Why do archaeologists try to make links with their digs and artifacts with the events of Genesis (whether to 'prove' or 'disprove')?

Regardless of your beliefs, the Bible is rooted in history and real events. History is time and we either take God at his word both spiritually, and historically (i.e. time/space) or we don't. If you are a Bible believer, you cannot deny the time elements in Genesis.

Myth: Jesus lay down his life and took it up again?

This is a common belief and phrase among Christians. In some sense, it is true, consider John 10:18. John 10 indicates that Jesus had the authority, but did Jesus raise himself? If you consider the God (as the Trinity) then it is true, otherwise it appears to be a myth.

Actually, every reference in the New Testament to Jesus resurrection is either neutral, or states that the Father raised him (not that Jesus raised himself). So really this means that Jesus had the power to lay down his life, but God the Father raised him.

Read these scripture verses and decide for yourself: Act 2:24, 32; Acts 3:15, 26; Acts 4:10; Acts 5:30; Acts 10:40; Acts 13:30; Romans 6:4; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 15:15; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:15-23; Colossians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Peter 1:21

This actually reinforces a better understanding of salvation and the gospel message. Let me explain: If the wages of sin are death and we’ve all sinned, we all deserve death. (that’s the bad news) The good news is that Jesus loved us and died for our sins. In order for him to die for us, he had to live a sinless life, otherwise he would also deserve death. Because he didn’t sin, he didn’t deserve death, thus it was an overt action that he lay down his life and paid for our sin. He took on a punishment that he didn’t deserve.

If he could simply take up his life again this weakens the gospel. It would be like a lizard saying go ahead cut off my tail, I can just grow another one; it’s meaningless. But if Jesus didn’t have the power to take up his life, it is a meaningful action. Why is it important that God the Father raised Jesus? When God the Father (the judge of all) raised Jesus, he showed that he accepted Jesus payment for our sins. --Romans 4:25, “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” He also "declared [Him] to be the Son of God...by the resurrection from the dead." --Romans 1:4

He accepts Jesus sacrifice and penalty, and turns over all authority as judge to him. --Ephesians 1:15-23

Deep-in-the-bones Belonging

I read in The Banner recently a short article encouraging us to consider participation in the Lord's Supper by all baptized members. The article can be found here.

In the article they suggest a simple approach for every congregation to discuss and consider the issue:

1. Host a congregational discussion
2. Address the topic in a Church Ed class
3. Distribute a devotional booklet
4. Re-examine the role of Profession of Faith
5. Practice charity and patience

In expanding on each suggestion the author makes points that support the expanded practice, so it doesn't really suggest an unbiased consideration of the question (not that this was the goal, as was stated early in the article).

I think there are two major problems with this suggested approach, both have to do with authority.


#1 In the CRC, who has the authority to make these decisions?

Reformed church polity for the CRCNA "is presbyterian: that is, system of leadership by elders (presbyters) who represent Christ in his church." Therefore, it is the elders who make these kind of decisions, not the congregation as this proposed method of examination appears to indicate. This proposed approach, puts the discussion in the hands of the congregation, including "3-year-olds to the adults". While the author may still assert and agree that the elders make the decisions, this is not indicated in the article at all. The phrase, "Perception is reality" comes to mind, even if this was not his intent, that is how it is perceived.


#2 Where is the Biblical authority?

Again, we must ask about this article, "where is the authority?" Is it in the congregation and their interpretation, or is it in the Bible, our revelation of God and His will? While the author suggests looking at some passages, and he does not suggest a major step of examining scripture as a whole on what it says about the Lord's Supper. He just suggests we examine "the meaning of baptism, the Passover, and how Jesus transformed the Passover into a communion meal" He doesn't suggest looking at the meaning of communion, or 1 Corinthian 11 quoted in the formulary for the Lord's Supper.

In either case this article suggests (intentional or not) that the congregation guide the decision on this matter, an approach that simply puts 'man' in charge, rather than God. If we hold congregational discussions to guide our decisions, we are making 'man' the authority and we can continue to make any decision, based on any 'interpretation' we want, based on the most persuasive argument at the time. This is basic secular humanism and denies the Reformed church polity that states that Jesus Christ is the only head and ruler of the church.

I suggest a key step before any of these other steps are considered. Step 0: Examine the scriptures regarding the topic. Pull together the elders and/or those gifted in Biblical study to first examine God's revelation to us about the practice of communion, with an eye specifically related to children participating.

If I get time, I may make a stab at this in a later post. What scriptures do you see pertaining to this topic? I'd be interested to hear from you.

My time has not come

As I was reading the Bible this morning I ran across John 7 and was reminded of a friend who talked to me a few months ago about this passage. He had a discussion with someone else who couldn't trust the bible because one Bible had verse 8 with the word 'yet' and one without it. But, is that a reason not to trust the Bible?

Here is verse 8, with the word in question highlighted: "You go to the Feast. I am not yet going upto this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come."

Just on the surface, including or not including the 'yet' does not change the meaning. 'Yet' is a word indicating time, (not whether or not Jesus was going, but when), and the later part of the sentence clarifies that in stating the "right time" has not yet come.

The footnotes on this verse do indicate that some earlier manuscripts do include 'yet' and some don't, so it's no surpise that we have different Bible translations that include or don't include the word.

If you wanted to spend a little more time evaluating this you could look at the context of this verse, the surrounding verses are completely consistent with this. You can look at John 7.

In verse 6, he again states "the right time for me has not yet come". Verse 9 says, "Having said this, he stayed in Galilee." indicating that he meant what he said, it wasn't his time. Verse 10 reinforces the time issue by saying "after his brothers left", (captain obvious says 'after' is a word indicating time). It also tells that "he went also" and his purpose in delaying his time was to go "in secret."

Introduction

Hi, welcome to the Nufey blog. I plan on posting a variet of topics and random thoughts. Many will be tentative thoughts that I'd like to explore, but not definite statements, posting them and getting your response will help me refine or change my ideas. Either way, we'll give it a try and see how it shapes up over time.