A. C.U.R.E.

The famous (or infamous, depending on your view) theological acronym TULIP has for centuries served the Church well in summarizing the basic tenets of Calvinistic soteriology. It arose from the disputations the Arminian school of thought offered back in the 1600's. The Calvinists carried the day at the Synod of Dort (the house was stacked) and walked away from that debate with what became known as TULIP: the Arminians walked away ridiculed with nothing but the truth.

There have been some good offerings for a similar acronym for Arminian soteriology (like FACTS), but I have never found them satisfactory because I didn't feel they were clearly descriptive. So, for the ailment of inexactitude, I'd like to offer a cure.

A.= Absolute Inability: mankind is so incapacitated by spiritual death, that none are able to turn themselves to God apart from the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit.
C.= Conditional Election: God has chosen to save all who trust Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
U.= Unlimited Atonement: the blood of Christ was shed for the sins of the entire world, and anyone who will can avail themselves of its effects through faith.
R.= Resistable Grace: The Holy Spirit's efforts at graciously influencing the sinner can be resisted by the sinner.
E.= Extinguishable Faith: the faith that the Holy Spirit's gracious ministrations made possible can be lost or shipwrecked by the person who had believed at one time.

I think this is a little more clearly descriptive than the FACTS acronym, especially for those who believe in the possibility of apostasy (and it doesn't have to be shared with a toy convention). It sure would be nice to have something as communicative as TULIP among those of us who actually got our soteriology right!

The Olivet Discourse: Be Prepared

The paradox of certainty v. uncertainty in regard to Christ's Return has some practical implications for the serious believer. We know with certainty it’s coming, but don’t (and can't) know when, so how should we then live? We're not left without instructions on the subject from Christ in the Olivet Discourse, which, as it happened, served to bring that discourse to an end. So what was the final word on the word about the final? Simply, "be prepared."

In Matthew's account, Christ advises that uncertainty is the fuel of preparation. Because the Son of Man will be coming at a time it doesn't seem like he will, being prepared for his return at any time is the only wise, practical response--a point graphically reiterated in The Parable of the Ten Virgins. Christ spoke of a parabolic homeowner who, if he would have known in what part of the night the thief was coming, would have made sure he was awake to prevent it. Since we cannot know when Christ will return, we should be at least as conscientious as that homeowner (who had a better forecast in regard to the thief than is possible for us in regard to Christ) and be watching rather than sleeping.

Luke presents the most general application of all three accounts: pay attention (Koine: prosexete) reflexively to how you are living. We are not to live weighed down by the worries of ordinary life, especially, I would say, if drunkenness (or even just "buzziness") is the means of doing so. It is not a burden to live in Christ, but it is a burden to live for this world, and it lulls us to sleep in regards to spiritual truth. The only way to gain the upper hand, and not be trapped suddenly in the tribulation ("these things") to come, is to stay awake and pray that we can gain that upper hand.

Matthew and Mark, although different as to specifics, both use a similar parabolic example (cf. Luke 12:35-46) to get this message of practical import across. The thought is that we should take Christ seriously as Master over us and be doing what he told us to be doing when he gets back. Since we do not know when that may be, reason dictates that we always be doing what he asked. It appears the best preparation for the end of the age is to be obeying Christ as a lifestyle.

So what are you doing?

The Olivet Discourse: Persecution and Its Effects

The three accounts of the Olivet Discourse seem to have different takes on the persecution that is mentioned as a sign by Jesus (Matthew, Mark and Luke). After using birth pangs to metaphorically describe the progression of signs, Matthew's account has Jesus saying that "then" (Koine: tote) persecution will occur. Whereas Mark's account does not describe the persecution in terms of sequence in relation to the rest of the action, Luke's account has the persecution occurring before (pro) the birth pang signs. Is persecution, and all that is associated with it, to occur before or after the birth pangs?

The force of the "then" in Matthew's account is "at that time," rather than "afterwards"; therefore, Matthew is locating the beginning of persecution at the time of the things that had been mentioned before. Mark seems to be addressing the persecution as if it was occurring within the stream of events mentioned previously (false Christs, wars, earthquakes, famines, etc). Luke places the persecution as occuring before (at least) the terrors and the signs in the heavens (v. 11). So, there isn't really any difference, after all.

We are told that believers will be handed over (betrayed would be the implication from Mark 13:12 and Luke 21:16) to be afflicted (persecuted, as in NIV, is not as precise), and killed. Luke specifically (v.12) places this as occurring very early in the scheme of things, and in doing so, certainly emphasizes early Jewish opposition to Christianity (note: synagogues). However, that cannot be the exclusive scope of the persecution since kings and governors (plural) are also mentioned in the same phrase. Mark and Matthew are less specific, implying that persecution will be the case near the end or even throughout the period in question.

We are also told that believers will be hated (Matthew 24:9). The word refers to moral choice, i.e., picking one above others, and is the same word used to convey the same thought in Luke 14:26. The notion is that the world will like everything better than it likes Christians. This will be the case globally, in all nations. It serves as an interesting counterpoint to the gospel being preached in all nations (v 14).

Packed into the reference to “all nations” is a broad sense of elapsing time; for how long does it take to be hated in each and every one of the cultural/linguistic groups (Koine: "panton ton ethnon")? One has to become known to each and every one in order to be detested in each and every one. Therefore, to see this discourse merely in terms of Rome in the first century is a mistake. When this was written, there were boundaries and there were barbarians--it was known and understood that Rome did not include all of them. 

At that time (tote, again) many will fall (into a snare), which implies not so much apostasy as it does deceit, which is reinforced by the mention of false prophets. Associated with this fall is their betrayal (handing over) and detesting of one another. So, false prophets will arise and cause many believers to stray resulting in internecine detestation and betrayal. Anything in any age which foments hatred toward brothers or sisters in Christ is false absolutely, it's source will always prove to be devilish rather than from God. Listening to it will turn the persecuted into persecutors!

Through the multiplication of lawlessness or a lack of restraint (wickedness is not a good translation), love will be made cold. The voice of the verb is passive, and so refers to action that is being done unto the subject or is arising from the action of another. Therefore, the chilling believers referenced are not volitionally active, their love does not grow cold by choice, but chills as an effect of being exposed to the multiplication of lawlessness. The wear and tear of exposure to lawlessness is insidious and lethal.

What is shocking to me in all this is the use of the word “many” (Koine: polus). It refers to a whole bunch, to a great number. Jesus was saying that things will progress at the time in question in such a lawless fashion that the occurrence itself chills the love (agape) of many or most! It is possible, maybe even probable, for believers to fall into despair and lose hope in the face of lawlessness and to end up hating the lawless. What happens to the Great Commission, and Christlikeness, in such a circumstance?

Given such a description, one has to wonder if Jesus will find faith when he returns? Life lived in this age leading up to the coming of Christ will be an assault on our faith. There is a challenge to meet, there is an occasion to rise to, there is something to be proven, and it won't be done for us. But the one who bears under the assault to the end will be saved! 

According to the Olivet Discourse, then, persecution of those bearing the name of Christ will start in the midst of the signs stated in the first third of the address and will proceed until the end of the age. We know the entire span of the age is envisioned because disciples cannot be hated by all nations until all nations have been confronted by the gospel, and because we are told that those who endure to the end will be saved. Being hated is something all true Christians ought to anticipate throughout all time and everywhere, but when it comes our way, we can't let it turn us into a hater in response.

The Open Door to Heaven

"After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven..."      Rev 4:1 NASB

The Apostle John looked up after his visionary experience as an amanuensis, saw an opened door in the heavens and heard the now familiar voice of his visions calling to him, presumably, through it. We're not told what caught his attention first: the appearance of the opened door, or the voice beckoning him. It really doesn't matter. A new phase in his visionary experience was beginning, and its significance would soon be apparent.

The opened door in the heavens most readily signifies access to what normally would be inaccessible to mankind. In this particular instance that represents access to two things beyond human purview: 1) the throne room, or very presence, of God; and 2) the future. God has to open the door to the experience of either, or the heavens remain closed. So, even though it is not specifically mentioned in the text, that door had to have been opened by Jesus, a key bearer who opens what no one else can open or close.

Doors, opened or closed, serve a variety of roles in the Apocalypse, but the basic concept is the same regardless--doors represent a barrier only authority or power can open. There are doors only God can open (like the one in question), and there are doors that God does not (cannot?) open. That would seem an odd thing, a door barring God, but the Apocalypse represents such a thing existing. Jesus stands knocking, in that case, waiting for the invitee to open the door. The implication for monergism, perseverance, and the whole of Calvinism is troubling, to say the least.

"Come up here," though in the form of a command, was more along the lines of divine commentary and was specific to John (singular). It cannot be related to the Rapture, nor really, to anyone else's access to God or heaven, whether by prayer or other means. Immediately, John was transported beyond the door into the midst of whatever it was opened to reveal. The surroundings were obviously symbolic because God (the Father and the Spirit) were represented tangibly when they are actually incorporeal, and Jesus was represented as a lamb rather than the corporeal form he has taken.

The purpose of John's visionary translation was to find out what things take place after the things he had already been shown. Those things were contained in the opening vision of Christ and the Letters to the Seven Churches. It stands to reason, it seems to me, that this particular sequential characteristic undermines viewing the Letters as representing successive ages of the Church. Instead, the Letters, all of them together, must have had reference to something that could have been existent in the time of John and before the bulk of what is revealed as happening afterward according to the stated purpose of the command.

The Purpose of Discipline from God

When those Christians who do say it, say that God does not punish sin in our lifetimes (or really, at all for the believer), they do so reckoning upon the punishment for our sins Christ took upon himself. No condemnation remains for us to bear as a result. By that reckoning, anything painful experienced in this life which might appear punitive is either not coming from God or is not intended as a punishment. I must admit, there's much to commend in such a thought.

However, our thoughts about what God does or doesn't do must line up with each and every passage of scripture. Whereas it is certainly biblical to say that the Devil is seeking to bring us pain, it is not biblical at all to say that God won't or can't bring us things that are painful or punitive or both. We can say biblically that if God brings us to something painful, whether punitive or not, he does so for our own good and his grace is sufficient to bring us through it. To hold otherwise puts people who hold otherwise in the regrettable position of trying to make excuses for a theology that doesn't work in real life (unscriptural theology never does), or becoming incredibly self-absorbed trying to improve their faith to get a more desirable outcome.

"...have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons: “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him. For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives.” 

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness."               Hebrews 12:3-12 NASB

Why would a loving father discipline his children through hardship and suffering? I think we have to trust that there is no other way to get us to where he wants us to be. Ultimately, that is by his side in eternity, sharing in all that is in Christ. Between now and then, Christ is our example, suffering can be a teacher, and the humility that goes with it is a boon to faith.

The bottom line in all this is understanding the reasons our forgiving God might use punitive measures in our lifetimes. Let's be clear, God's corrections mean legitimacy and life and are never without purpose. God uses corrective discipline so we do not go off the deep end and lose all we had in Christ. If punishment from God comes to believers, it comes not to write them off but to preserve them.

There's no reason to walk about shivering in fearful anticipation, looking over our shoulder expecting divine retribution for some misstep to overtake us and ruin our lives. God is not like that, he walks softly among us. But understand this: if you're on a path that could lead to your destruction as a believer, God is not above making an effort to stop you in your tracks and correct your course with a big stick.

Does God Punish Sin During Our Lifetimes?

Such a question arises because of the cross. There, Jesus took the punishment for the sins of the world to himself and suffered it completely, so what place is left for punishment of sin elsewhere? And yet, despite the universality of the atonement, the scriptures teach that Hades and the Lake of Fire are still in play for some sinners--namely all who do not trust in Christ. So the cross, despite its inclusiveness, does not effectively keep God from ultimately punishing at least some of the sin for which it was suffered.

If the cross, despite its universality and eternal consequence, does not prevent God from punishing some sin ultimately (i.e that of unbelievers), why would anyone suspect that the cross would automatically wipe out punitive measures from God temporally? Certainly, with regard to the unbelieving there can be no question. The cross does nothing for the unbelieving, now or later. If they are "uncovered" for eternity, they are absolutely "uncovered" now, but what about believers?

If one adhered to the Once-Saved-Always-Saved theory, there would be some reason to think that God does not punish the believer for sin in the now. If the cross crossed out sin and punishment for eternity, and our eternal situation is locked in now (as it is according to that doctrine), then there could be no basis for punishment either then or now. OSAS seems to me to logically entail God-Does-Not-Punish-Sin-Now. The problem, however, is that both concepts can be demonstrably proven false according to Bible.

I've presented one way the Bible does that in regard to OSAS, but let me say that it is also readily apparent from the texts used for that purpose that Christ clearly promises punishment in this life for those in his church who are sinning against him. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is transparently clear on the subject as well, though it is often conveniently ignored by many in my theological circles. What else can be made of other biblical instructions, such as Hebrews 12:4-13, or promises, such as Revelation 3:19? Suffice it to say, to hold that God will not punitively discipline the believer in this life is to hold unscriptural doctrine.

Of course, one can disbelieve OSAS and still believe that God does not punish sin within a believer's lifetime, or believe OSAS and yet believe that God can punish sin in the present. In either case, one would merely hold one biblical error rather than two (although if one believes the latter, any punishment in the present would be superfluous at best and capricious at worst). That God may overlook sin in the present and does not operate in a tit-for-tat manner in disciplining believers in no way, shape, or form undermines the general premise: God can, God has and God may well punish a believer for sinning during the believer's lifetime.

That a swat in the here and now doesn't translate into an eternal bath in the Lake of Fire should be seen as encouraging, not as a means of discounting the promise of discipline in our lifetimes. 

Once Saved, Not Always Saved

As addressed in the Apocalypse, the churches at Ephesus and Thyatira were such that apart from Christ's penetrating gaze below the surface, they would look to be fantastic churches. But Christ found fault with the believers there, and not of a minor nature. The churches at Ephesus and Thyatira were threatened with eternal loss (though veiled in figurative language) because of what Christ saw. I would think these threatening statements would go a long way toward destroying the conception of once-saved-always-saved.

In the case of the Church at Sardis or Laodicea, even though neither church had much to commend them for, the threat to ultimate salvation was as clear, maybe even clearer. There were in those congregations folk who were just not persisting in the obedience of faith. That is not a situation Christ is willing to overlook. What I infer from this is that true faith can become the sort that isn't, and if it isn't, it holds no weight in the eyes of him who matters.

Who would argue that the letters are not written to what Christ considered genuine churches? What he could commend in them he did, what he couldn't, he sought to amend. The assumption seems to have been that the members of these churches were part of the kingdom, but that their status as such was in danger. Those considered presently part of the body of Christ by Christ could end up not retaining that status if repentance was not forthcoming. Their status could be considered Once-Saved-Not-Necessarily-Saved-Thereafter, it seems to me.

If Adam and Eve, pristinely, immaculately made by God, can fall from belief into estrangement with God and sin, then anyone with less wholeness (i.e. all the rest of us, even the born-again) can fall too. If those born-again would fall, they'd be just as lost as Adam and Eve and the host born to them afterwards. If humans as perfect as they can be this side of eternity fell from a state that was deemed "good" in God's sight into unbelief and separation from God, then why would anyone in Christ think he or she could not?

How Does Apostasy Occur?

"For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."   Romans 3:28 NIV 

Justified, in regard to the verse above, means to be declared righteous or acceptable to God. Guilty humans at trial under a magnifying glass in a cosmic court need a verdict of "not guilty" in order to be freed from the consequences of sin. Without being justified by God they will be bound over to judgment, which in a cosmic context, unfortunately, can only be cosmically ultimate. For someone actually guilty (as are all humans before God) there can be no escape in such a court on the basis of technicalities, obfuscation, ignorance, prejudice or character (i.e. good works).

Faith, as used in the above verse and as generally understood as "saving faith", is an apprehension of who Jesus is and what he has done which moves a person to trust Christ as his or her savior and follow Christ as his or her leader. As long as a person has faith that Jesus came from God, died for his or her sins, rose bodily from the dead victorious over sin and death, and is his or her Lord, that person is justified without the possibility of change in status. However, if such faith is lost or reversed, then so too is the condition for justification, and hence salvation, and the result is apostasy or falling away. We can lose our salvation, therefore, if we lose our faith.

Works, as spoken about in that verse, are actions of mind or body which accrue toward the worker's justification. In this instance, they are specified to be in the context of the law, i.e. the Mosaic Code. However, works of the law cannot possibly effect justification because: 1) good works have no power to erase or nullify bad works; 2) even the works of law associated with sacrifices intended to remit sins cannot undo the sin nature of the sinner, which has him or her in sin, virtually, before the last whiff of smoke has dissipated; and 3) it is impossible for the blood of animals to cleanse a guilty human conscience. [How could they? Neither party (God or the sinner) has any "skin in the game."]

Since salvation is not founded upon nor attributable to works then neither can a loss of salvation be the result of such. Our works, in themselves, good or evil, do not have the power to engage, alter or to unravel what Jesus Christ has already done on the cross and in rising from the grave. Whereas keeping a clean conscience is a boon to faith, keeping or not keeping a clean conscience can neither keep one saved nor cause him or her to lose salvation. Sin, though it doubtless arises out of some sort of unbelief, cannot be the source of apostasy anymore than it is the source of salvation; otherwise, virtually every Christian would eventually apostatize.

Apostasy is departing from the faith. It starts with some disappointment or disillusionment with Christ and ends with one abandoning the trust he or she has in who Christ is and what he has done. If one does not trust in Christ as the Son of God, nor rely upon his death and resurrection for justification before God, that one cannot possibly be saved so long as he or she remains in such unbelief. It matters not that he or she believed at one time or even that he or she was baptized.

Sin is not and never can be the cause of apostasy!  Faith is what effects justification, and a departure from faith is the only thing that could effect a loss of salvation.  

Indestructible Souls and Irresistible Grace

"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."     Genesis 2:7 (NASB)

The breath of God is a precious thing.

God's breath imparts that something that makes a human soul, that makes one a person. Not that every person animated by that breath is the person of God, but it is God's breath that infuses all of the capacities of soul that personhood builds on and without which there would be no person. It communicates those characteristics of personhood that are analogous to God's personhood. That breath is spirit, and more than anything else in all creation represents something directly emanated from God's being. 

Think about that: something within humans that makes them persons represents a direct input from the person of God. Some repercussions of that astounding fact are easily enough perceived--humans exercise choice (freewill), are creative (even to the extant of bringing something out of nothing), love, and... wait for it... humans are eternal. Once God invested his own breath in humanity, the persons that result have an essence that will never pass away. What an astonishing thought!

God's breath may exist eternally, but that does not translate into those infused by that breath living eternally. Breath that is separated from God does not respire, it does not go out and come in (as it were). God's breath must be actively with God, in tune with God, in contact with and in the presence of God to live. Cut off from God, separated, it merely exists. It projects some measure of its capacity for personhood, but it is dark, really, lifeless.

In order for one in whom God has breathed the breath of life to live, he or she must walk in agreement with God; however, even God cannot make creatures who possess his image but who do not exercise creaturely freedom thereby. His image makes such freedom necessary and irresistible grace impossible. Creatures made in God's image, by the capacity of choice in that nature, must freely choose agreement with God. That is an action of faith (i.e. trustful reliance) without which it is impossible to please God--faith is what it takes for free creatures to live in agreement with God.

Whereas it is very true that God loves everyone he's made, those made in his image with the capacity of choice have no future without faith. The Gordian knot is that no one born since the Fall of Man can make that choice of faith unless the Spirit has enabled him or her. However, if the enablement was such that one was rewired to make that choice without the possibility of not making it, that one would cease being in the image of God. The breath that confers such is indestructible, so it is impossible for the grace that underlies enablement to be irresistible and enablement to be a guarantee.

A Letter to the Rapture-Ready Church

In the message Jesus sent to the church in Philadelphia, we see one of only two purely positive messages of those he sent to the seven churches. Although the deeds of the Philadelphians are known by him, no correction ensues and no threat follows, only a hopeful promise. Taken together, I think the commendations and rebukes in the Letters to the Churches demonstrate that works do make a difference in how Christ reacts to those who are known by his name. We can infer, thereby, that grace is not something that ignores evidence that reveals that a heart has faith in name only (see James 2:14-26).

For those whose faith is true, Jesus promises to use his key authority to their benefit. He gives a two-fold metric to understand his judgment in the matter: 1) the faithful guard (in the sense that they observe or keep) his word, and 2) the faithful do not deny (disavow or repudiate) his name. In the case of the Philadelphians, both are done in spite of the lack of great ability (dunamis). For the non-charismatic that would probably be taken another way, but for those of us who are charismatic, we could see this as referring to a relative lack of miraculous, spiritual power. Perhaps that is encouraging news to those living in an age where our affirmation for fabulous signs and wonders far outstrips their actual occurrence.

The open door cannot refer to opportunities for gospel work (as so many commentators aver), for that would be a far too pedestrian use of Jesus' keys--particularly since the benefactors experience a lack of power as well as opposition in this world. The open door, therefore, must refer to something in regard to which Christ has unique authority (since none can close what he opens by it). Since these letters have been filled with so many warnings about the things of Christ being closed off to some, context would demand (it seems to me), to see this in regard to all that Christ has been promising by his authority in the midst of these letters. What others written to are shut out from, the Philadelphians are allowed in to.

It is implied in Christ's message to their church, that the faithful Philadelphians were taking some kind of flak from the so-called Synogogue of Satan. That, along with the reference to the Key of David, puts a markedly Jewish spin on this message. That emphasis does not make much sense to me on the basis of anything that occurred in history since the Apocalypse's writing, nor in terms of a framework of historical epochs as some try to apply to these letters. The detail must be significant nonetheless. It is ironic that those of that persuasion (Judaizers, perhaps) were the ones in fact, who will find themselves ostracized by the one who has the Davidic key.

Admittedly, this is an apparent stretch, but this could be referring to a revival of Jewish resistance to the spread of Christianity among the Jews which would occur near the time of the Rapture. We are seeing something akin to that in our own day in the continuing efforts being made in Israel to quell proselytizing among the Jewish population, particularly by Messianic Jews. If so, it will prove to be merely a last ditch effort that will be overwhelmed by the turn of events at the Rapture and God's subsequent redemptive turn toward Israel. I think that could reasonably be described in the terms of the message: "I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you."

Despite that, and whatever other trials they had to get through, the Philadelphians kept Jesus' word of perseverance. The thought conveyed is waiting patiently under command, like the person asked to stay behind for a straggler when the youth group heads out to an event. That Jesus' command to endure (as recorded elsewhere) has eschatological implications cannot be denied--the reference in this letter in conjunction with the promise of escape (rapture) can only underscore the end-times emphasis. What context, other than the end-times, is there for the all-inclusive, global trial mentioned? 

It is very difficult to find a context historically which could have justifiably the description of a "global trial" applied to it. The words used to convey the notion of global testing (tou peirasmou [the testing] and peirasai [to test]) are somewhat ambivalent in meaning. They can refer to temptation (as in an enticement), or to trial (as in an assaying pressure), or to both at the same time. The use of the definite article (tou) is supportive in understanding this phrase as referring to a specific testing or temptation, rather than to testing or temptation in general; i.e. the trial. What is in mind in this message, it seems to me, is a singular kind of testing, the scope and nature of which is such that it will leave no doubt that it is occurring when it does occur.

The test will come upon all the inhabited earth to try those that dwell there. Whereas it is possible to see this as an idiomatic reference to the Roman Empire, I see this more along the lines of a Hebraism (e.g. Exodus 8:21) or just straightforwardly referring to the entire world (as does the word's usage in Acts 17:31 or Hebrews 1:6). The inclusivity of the statement means that anyone on earth at that time will experience the trial, at least in some fashion. One would have to not be living on earth to be kept [out] from such a trial, which I think is the best reading of the promise contained: "I also will keep you from the hour of testing..."

Whereas Chapter 7 of the Apocalypse (and Chapter 12 too) does demonstrate that it is possible to live through the trial on earth protected by God in the midst of it, it also reveals (as does Chapter 12) that for the largest proportion of believers, escape means removal from the scene. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 describes the escape in as great a detail as we have in all of scripture. Taken together the picture clarifies. A trial, so significant and singular in nature as to be unmistakable, will come upon the entire earth, but those believers, Philadelphian in character, will be kept from that trial by God taking them out from the earth. Rapture!

It is clear to me that the Church in Philadelphia is ultimately a symbol for the church extant and ready when the end comes with its trial of trials. Since it is my belief that the churches which were sent these messages are contemporaneous and representative of different types of the whole, all the churches will be there at the end. However, it is to the church in Philadelphia--the ready church--that promise rather than warning is issued. Those that embrace the promise of removal and overcome get to be with God always, like pillars in his Temple. But even though the letter to the church in Philadelphia is particularly a message to the end-times Church, its message would have been inspirational to any church at any time being stretched by the need to endure under pressure.

A Letter to the Protestant Church, Part II

Continuing with our look at the Letter to the Church at Sardis...

Jesus' command to the Sardisians to remember is similar to his command to the Twelve concerning the Lord's Supper. In that case the subject of recall was Christ himself, in this case it is what the Sardisians had embraced (received) and understood (heard) as believers. This is not the first time a NT writer used recalling that which had been experienced by believers as a means of correction. It seems that Christians forget what they've seen and heard, and which elicited and strengthened their faith in Christ at their own peril.

Instead, the Sardisians were told to guard (keep, watch over) what they had embraced and heard. Finishing one's work certainly progresses toward that end, but it also means revisiting, checking up on, remembering the things by which we stood and continue to stand in faith. The celebration of Communion can help with this, so long as it isn't seen as making the bread and wine instill some spiritual benefit of themselves, rather than being a means of remembering the Lord and what he's done to save us.

The Christians of Sardis needed to change their minds about and attitudes toward (repent) what they had already heard and known. It is my sense that human nature has a ready appetite for the fresh, that we are more intrigued by the new rather than what we have already been exposed to. We can be dismissive and even disdainful toward what was once fresh but is no longer on the cutting edge. Disregard for the foundational and worthy of continued attention can not only lead to works going astray but also faith going dry.

"Wake up!" Jesus commanded the Sardisians. Really, watchfulness is the practical outcome of wakefulness which seems to be the point Christ was making--pay attention to your ongoing faith walk with Jesus. The mention of his surprise appearance catching them unaware is reminiscent of the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Whereas there, sleeping per se was not cast in an irredeemable light (as it is here), the force there and here is the faithless lack of attention and concern some have toward what they have and are expecting in Christ.

As in any church, not everyone part of the congregation is truly part of the Church of the First-born. Some walk unsoiled (in this case, that is equivalent to unsleeping) and will be at the banquet when the Son of Man returns, some will not. Regardless, the action, one way or the other, is not attributed to Christ but to the one wearing the garment. If one keeps his garment unsoiled (perhaps that is the only proper garment for the occasion), he will thus have white garments, akin to Christ's and appropriate for eternity.

Take special notice to the typical use of white here. This treatment is consistent with the other symbolic uses of "white" throughout the scripture, but especially that in the Apocalypse. White is always associated with the good and right, never with the evil and unrighteous. Which, incidentally, is the reason the White Horse cannot be interpreted as evil (i.e. as representative of the Antichrist), but only as good (e.g. the Church turned loose on the Great Commission).

That one can have one's name "unwritten" or erased is a slam-dunk destruction of the Once-Saved-Always-Saved doctrine. As is clear from this letter, one whose name was written in the Book of Life can have that name erased from the Book of Life. Since that book is the instrumentality of final judgment later in the Apocalypse, the message is all too clear. There is a possibility that those who would have been saved eternally at one time in their lives, can at a subsequent time lose that status: the saved can become the unsaved.

Since we are saved by grace through faith, the consideration above would seem to indicate that the faith in question is something in the purview of the believer rather than God. There is in the believer that responsibility in regards to faith which is his or hers and dependent upon him or her to execute and maintain. God will not believe for the believer, the believer, ultimately, must do that for his or her self (despite their need for God's enabling assistance). For those that make the good confession of faith before men, Christ will confess them as his at the end before God and the angels.

A Letter to the Struggling Church, Part II

In his letter to the Angel of the church in Smyrna within the Apocalypse, the Lord Jesus Christ comforts a body of believers that are getting it handed to them on three fronts. They are suffering tribulation and poverty, they are suffering human opposition and persecution, and they are being acted against by the Devil himself. Rather than any of those conditions being used as evidence that the church needed correction, rebuke, or instructions about getting it right, Christ speaks empathetically concerning them with encouragement. A similar observation could be made in the case of the church in Philadelphia.

Apparently being a suffering, struggling church was not a mark of disfavor or disobedience.

Jesus' approach strikes a discordant note with much of what is offered as appropriate church evaluation today. Now, when finance, influence and size of constituency mean so much, churches are measured on the scales of name recognition, market infiltration, traffic through the door, and cash flow. Is it possible that we are judging church differently critically than does Christ? We would have no trouble saying no if this modern approach actually made disciples, but then, has anyone ever had a felt need for repentance!

The church in Smyrna was experiencing tribulation--the situation of being between a rock and a hard place without viable alternatives. They were in poverty as well. The combination of being without and having no way out is very distressing indeed. Perhaps we hope that such a condition would never be visited upon faithful Christians, but that is exactly the condition these faithful Christians were in. Christ was fully aware of it, and yet he neither rebuked them for being in it nor promised them that he would alter it.

The church in Smyrna was subjected to blasphemy from those who said they were Jews but were not. It seems to me that this blasphemy would have been twofold: folk were reviling Christ, and they were reviling those in Christ. I don't like being subjected to abusive language, and it makes me cringe when I hear some one so much as using the Lord's name in vain, so it is evident to me that more than sticks and stones can cause injury. That the source was Jews not believing in their own messiah puts me in mind of the some of the rot that comes out of Sam Harris or Sigmund Freud.

The church in Smyrna was about to be attacked by the Devil himself. Whether or not the Devil was going to use physical prison or spiritual prison is hard to tell. Christians have been thrown in jail at times, that much has precedent in history--was it the Devil? Maybe. Could the Devil spiritually hem Christians in and set "guards" on them? I think so. Regardless, Jesus' counsel was to not fear what was about to be suffered. That may be easier said than done, but it is the necessity of faith, even today.

There is much speculation about the nature of the 10 days tribulation. The suggestion that it refers to Polycarp and a long since elapsed historical period is much bantied about. Even though periods of time throughout the Apocalypse tend to be literal (according to my interpretation), the seven churches are representative and symbolic. Therefore, all that this needs to be understood as communicating is that at some point, churches like that in Smyrna are bound to experience momentary, intense periods (ten days) of oppression instigated by the Devil.

What does a suffering church need to know? Well, beyond not interpreting their suffering as the disfavor of Christ or the misapplication of methodology, the suffering, struggling church must recognize that enduring suffering is part of being faithful to Christ. There is a crown of life awaiting for those who do endure, so be faithful unto death. Those who overcome will be eternally blessed.

Part I

Only Jesus Lives

Only God lives. Nothing else has this quality in and of itself. Everything other than God borrows its derivative existence from him, regardless of whether it may be animate or inanimate. Therefore, no being other than God has any claim to personal life (i.e a right to live) or personal rights (i.e. it's my life, I can do with it as I want). We have not made ourselves and we do not exist by and of independent animus.

In the grand scheme of things, only that which is precisely within God's will, that is in agreement in thought and deed with him, can possibly live. If anything in opposition to him had the ability to maintain itself in such, that would prove that evil was actually in God, since ultimately only God is. That which is in opposition to God, cannot do so eternally, but only temporarily and only because there is purpose in it for a season. Evil is a vanishing mist.

Among those in flesh and bones, only Jesus lived precisely in God's will. He never strayed from that line, and never will. It is his chief demonstration of divinity, and it is backed-up by his resurrection from the dead. So among those in flesh and bones, only Jesus has life and knows how to live.

For any other being made in the image of God, life can only exist in being in Jesus. This "being in Jesus" is not merely a positional or theoretical conception, but an actual and active participation in his Spirit. The one in Jesus is recast in his image, and thereafter walks as he walks. His atonement may have been the means of getting a sinner out of death, but only living and walking in him, like him, can sustain life.

As Jesus is flesh and bones with the person of God dwelling in him, those that will live are flesh and bones with God's Spirit living in them. As he, humbled in the form of flesh, lived agreeably with his heavenly Father, so to will those that live walk humbly in their flesh agreeably with the Spirit of God. To have Jesus within is to live, to be without Jesus is death, because only Jesus lives.

A Letter to the Evangelical Church

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: ‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent. Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.’"       Revelation 2:1-7 NASB

I know this is not a letter to the Evangelical Church (particularly in America), but it could be. Look at the commendation: deeds, toil, perseverance, intolerance of evil men, assaying those who claim to be apostles and finding those who are false, and stamina for Christ's name. This is written to a good church, a believing church, a righteous church, or so it seemed. This is written to what could be what many of us consider the evangelical church today.

And yet there was serious fault to be found in this church--serious enough to threaten its qualification as a church (lampstand). Removing a lampstand from its place is tantamount to no longer considering that body a true church of Christ. Could the Evangelical church truly be under such a threat, a clear threat to salvation itself, all the while believing in the gospel of grace? Yes, because there is a qualitative necessity within faith (see James 2:19-20 for instance) that determines whether or not it passes muster as faith. Just believing the right things is not, evidently, a sufficient concept of saving faith.

Christ, speaking through John here, identifies one such quality as the love that should naturally (or supernaturally) arise in one when that one has true faith in Christ. First love is not meant to convey a sentimental, romantic notion but a pure and unsullied one. Love is an uncallous thing and it should persevere as such as long as does the faith which gives it rise. This is not a principle new to this letter for John states as much throughout the bulk his first epistle. One just does not have the necessary quality of faith to be saved if one does not love Christ and the those in Christ sincerely as a result of having faith.

If that seems at odds with the Once-Saved-Always-Saved mantra of so much of evangelicalism, or the easy-believism acceptance of virtually anything and everything under the banner of grace, welcome to the matrix. There is a reckoning coming for those who rely on something they deem as acceptable that Christ does not. If you're convicted that might describe you, repent. Overcomers get a feast that lasts forever.

Minding Our T's and Clues

The description of the natural man in the Bible is that man is dead because of Adam's transgression. It's not that we are all being held responsible for Adam's sin (i.e. punished), but that his sin happened before we came along and so it's effects (death) were handed down to us. Just as I am American because my distant progenitors decided to leave Ireland and Germany and settle in America and raise a family, so I am a sinner because Adam and Eve sinned and then had children.

The dead beget the dead. It's not like each of us would not have done as Adam did given the chance (he was the prototypical human). We were in his loins, we are as he was. That point is moot, however, because Adam did sin and did so before he had progeny. As a result, all that he could pass on was what he had--death, separation from God, and curse.

It should be noted that after the Fall, Adam's will was still intact and functioning. He was making choices, plotting direction, demonstrating creativity. If anything, those aspects of his personhood may actually have been accentuated. He even had conversations with God. Apparently, the Fall did not turn him into a zombie automaton serving only Satan and sin. I don't see any of the individuals highlighted in the OT demonstrating such a characteristic. Sinners, yes: satanic automatons incapable of hearing and responding to God when he spoke, NO!

Despite that, the Calvinistic concept of depravity (the condition of natural man) is vigorous and all too thorough. According to that reckoning, mankind has been so affected by Adam's sin as to be entirely corrupt and absolutely incapable of any good in regard to God. Man is incapable of searching for God, finding God, responding to God, trusting God, or walking according to his precepts. Man is dead in sin with no residual ability or capacity for anything spiritual.

Under such a reckoning, a divine imposition of grace is necessary for man to even so much as respond to God with faith. Regeneration, for all intents and purposes, must precede faith, and once initiated is irresistible and infallible. It seems to me that this approach has one being saved to believe rather than being saved because one believes.

In Arminianism, the concept of depravity is vigorous and thorough as well. By its reckoning, mankind has been so affected by Adam's sin as to be thoroughly corrupt and absolutely incapable of any untainted good. Man is incapable of searching for God, finding God, or walking according to his precepts. Man is dead in sin, separated from God, corrupt, and therefore incapable of truly having faith in God.

But under such a reckoning, a divine interjection of grace is all that is necessary for mankind is to respond to God with faith. Arminians, generally, see the word of God as containing such an affect. Upon hearing the word of God, the natural man is enabled to respond to God. A response is not infallibly certain, but it is absolutely impossible apart from the grace that enables it.

The chief difference in those two views of man's utter depravity comes into focus when considering the solution either envisions for the problem. Calvinism posits an imposed grace and regeneration (rebirth) as the solution: the sinner is made a saint by divine fiat. Arminianism posits an enabling grace which allows the sinner to respond to God with faith, which in turn is followed by God making the former sinner a new creature (rebirth). In either case, the solution for man's incapacity is divine.

A Summary of Theological Positions Regarding the Spiritual State of Natural Man

Calvinism: God imposes saving faith upon the depraved he chooses to save

Arminianism: God enables the depraved who hear the Gospel to respond with saving faith

Semipelagianism: God savingly helps those who use their ability turn to him in faith

Pelagianism: Man can turn to Christ on his own and appropriate salvation

The Pelagian (semi included) approaches to man's status and ability fly in the face of Jesus words: "no one can come to me unless the Fathers draws them." In maintaining mankind's freewill, they deny the innate inability of natural mankind to initiate a relationship with God through faith (depravity). This, despite the Word clearly teaching that faith comes by hearing the word of God. One does not have to posit intact spiritual abilities in natural man (i.e. little or no affect from the Fall) against what the Word says in order to sustain natural man's freewill.

Where the Calvinistic conception of depravity fails is that the record of scripture shows, readily and repeatedly, that natural man can respond to God when he or his word comes upon them. Sinners are not so "dead" as to be beyond hearing God if he actively approaches near enough, and they are not so quickened in doing so as to be above rejecting him.

Arminians Cannot Logically Adopt Perseverance

If grace is resistible and election is conditional, as Arminians claim, then there remains no basis for positing perseverance of the saints.

Calvinists can claim perseverance because it logically proceeds from unconditional election and irresistible grace. An apparent apostate would, in fact, be one who wasn't actually elect and therefore never saved in the first place. Though an Arminian would rightly oppose the Calvinist position on the matter, some Arminians claim something theologically similar to perseverance but founded, it seems to me, upon regeneration rather than election and irresistible grace. 

To maintain such a view, a "once saved, always saved" Arminian has to posit a transition in God's governance of the believer along the lines that God initiated salvation according to Arminian principles (freedom and grace), but after rebirth continued salvation according to Calvinistic principles (determinism). Though a biblical mechanism for such a shift could be postulated on the basis of texts like Philippians 1:6, or John 6:39, there is no way to harmonize such a conception with the book of Hebrews or other passages warning that all is lost if one ceases to persevere in faith.

From God's perspective (either looking back from the end or seeing all at once), there is no issue. Of everyone who is finally and eternally saved it will be the case that they will have made it because of God's efforts to preserve them. For everyone who made a turn toward God, or even came to know him intimately, but ceased to believe in Christ and repudiated him, it will be the case that they fell irretrievably because of their own freedom to believe or not believe. If Adam was free and could fall from a state of perfection in relationship with God, anyone can fall from a similar state.

That God loses none of those he foreknew does not mean he will not lose some of those he knew along the way.

If it is intrinsic to God's will that mankind be free (as any Arminian would attest), then on what basis would a shift to Calvinistic precepts for the saved be justified? It seems to me, any such basis would have to be established by ignoring some scripture on its face in order to emphasize other passages of scripture. What would drive that? Emotion? Comfort? Make no mistake, any such effort thoroughly undermines the Arminian conceptions of soteriology in the first place. If one knows that God's grace is resistible, then one cannot posit a perseverance that isn't.

Even the Lame Can Limp Into Glory

Continuing with the subject of Divine Healing, with a review of some pertinent scripture verses: Isaiah 53:3-5; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10; Romans 8:10-11; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 9:1-3; Luke 10:1-12; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 12; Matthew 9:28-30; Mark 9:23-24; Mark 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; James 5:14-20; Revelation 22:1-3

We can certainly be grateful for the manifold blessings that God grants us in this life. Even a partial list is impressive: sins forgiven, reconciliation with God, regeneration, participation in the work of God, answers to prayer, provision, healing. The list is partial, but so is the receipt of these blessings while we're in these mortal coils born of Adam's race. In this life, we're only capable of receiving the earnest (i.e. down payment) of our inheritance in Christ. Nothing comes to us perfectly or completely, because what is mortal must be put off before what is immortal, or perfect, can be put on.

This proves true for the Spirit of God, for our knowledge of God, for our faith in God, and for those bodily blessings made possible by Christ's death and resurrection. While in these dying frames, we live in the realm of the partial awaiting the day of the complete. Divine health is no exception to this rule! It has always been thus for the redeemed of God on fallen earth, and it will be so until the day we are raised to meet Christ in the air.

Look at those who have gone before: Paul had physical problems; Timothy had physical problems; Jacob had physical problems; David had physical problems. All of them had the same gracious Father we have, who granted them the same kinds of promises and benefits we depend upon. How can we avoid the same experience of bodily health they faced? If faith is the key, as I've claimed it is, which of us would seriously put our faith up against any of theirs?

We cannot avoid the thing (death itself) that more than anything else proves that this is not place of ultimate fulfillment. If death is unavoidable, then so is what comes as a result of it. Should we not walk in humility as we humbly accept what God will do for us while we are here? God can do virtually anything, that's certainly true, but how often, really, does he replace a detached limb, or separate a set of conjoined twins, or fuse a severed spine?

I have no doubt that there is an account of each of these kinds of conditions being miraculously healed somewhere at some time. Why not, is anything impossible with God? I see no reason not to believe that, should the Holy Spirit inspire the gift, any one of us could participate in such wonders being done today. That, however, is a far cry from saying we are guaranteed such results here and now, in this age where everything and everyone still dies.

Personally, I look in faith for the blessing of Moses and Caleb to be mine. Yet, in that pursuit I also know that a refusal to accept reality is not the same as faith, that bearing false testimony is not the same as confession, and that nothing in life is a reason to give up on God. So please, dear readers, don't settle for less than God's grace and faith provides, but understand this: even blind with only one arm to raise in praise, we can still limp into glory.

Addendum: A great post on this subject by a Southern Baptist missionary.