Just Perfect

On this day in history, 1739: English revivalist George Whitefield wrote in a letter: 'I am no friend to sinless perfection. I believe the existence (though not the dominion) of sin remains in the hearts of the greatest believers.'

I'm sure Whitefield was responding to John Wesley's "Plain Account of Christian Perfection." I have not read all of that article, so I don't even know if I agree with Wesley's stance. But the question is this: Can a Christian live without commiting any sin?

The doctrine found in Romans 7 (the second half of the chapter ;) is that there is a war between the flesh, which we still have, our old man, and the Spirit that is now living within us. Paul wrote about how even he still did the things that he didn't want to do, the things that he thought were wrong and that he would not allow. He did the things that he hated... So, it is very easy to say, with Whitefield, There is no such thing as Christian Perfection. And for all practical purposes, I think I would have to agree with you.

But, here's my question: 2 Peter 1:3-4 says that His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, and that we can be partakers of His divine nature. Galatians 5 says that if we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. What Paul is saying in Romans 7 is that at times, he wasn't walking in the Spirit.

When we walk in the Spirit, and God works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure, and we are able to bear the fruit of having the Holy Spirit of God in us -- Why can't we do that all the time? Could somebody do it for 20 seconds - Live completely perfect and sinless, walking in the Spirit, for 20 seconds? Is that possible? Could the Holy Spirit perfectly lead that person for 20 seconds? If so, of course the question goes, how about a minute? How about 5? 1/2 hour? A day? A week? A year?

Why not?

I refuse to teach this: You shouldn't expect to be sinless, you should just expect to sin less.

I think we need to live our lives sinlessly. I haven't been able to do that, but that MUST be what I am striving for. Complete perfection - not of my own power, but by the power of Him that hath made me partake of His divine nature.

Just a thought...

Lunch Time Thoughts

Originally, I started writing this blog so that when I am consumed at work with work, I would remember that whether I eat or drink, or whatsoever I do, I should do it all to the glory of God. By taking time out of my work day to write something about Him, or His word, it makes me refocus my perspective once again. Isn't it easy to walk in the flesh? Isn't it easy to be distracted by the cares of this world? But they ain't worth it (I know, that's bad English. "Ain't" is a contraction for "Am not" not "are not.")

Anyway, today's thought, in the midst of this busy day, is just a reminder to stay focused on God. To whom else shall we go? He has the words of life!

Ok, let me add a couple of interesting resources I have come across on the web that you may be interested in (whoever "you" may be).

• Steve Pawley's church, Antioch Bible Baptist Church, has a website up that I just found out about. It has a bunch of the preaching from the church. Some great stuff there.
• This month, there is another Free Audio book at ChristianAudio.com. The Resurrection by Tolstoy... I am not recommending the book as I honestly had never heard of it, but it's free :)
• I just think this one is cool - It's a scanned version of an 'original' 1611 Bible.
  
  

Limited Atonement - Calvinism

Ok, I finished READING the chapter on Limited Atonement. The doctrine of Limited Atontement is essentially that Christ's death on the cross secured the salvation of those only that were previously unconditionally elected - That when Christ died, God the Father's wrath was appeased for the sins of His elect. The reprobates, those that God was not going to save, did not receive any direct benefit from the work on the cross. Christ's blood did nothing for their sins.

This is considered by many to be the most controversial point of the system, and as a result there are many 4-point Calvinists. The problem is that the Bible on many occasions says that Christ died for the whole world. 1 John 2:2 is probably the most deifficult for the Calvinist where it says that Christ is the propitiation not just for "our" sins, but also for the sins of the "whole world." Here the definition of the world has to be meant to be referring to Gentiles, and not Jews only. There are many other verses that say that Christ died for the world, or that He is the Saviour of the wordld, etc.

Vance's suggestion is that the Calvinist misunderstands the work of the Atonement vs. the application of the atonement. He uses the illustration of the Passover (and, yes, Christ is our Passover), and explains tihat killing the Lamb was sufficient sacrifice for everyone, but that it had to be applied to the door for the house to be spared.

Calvinists would argue that if a person's sins (the non-elect) were atoned for at the cross, and then the person spent eternity in hell anyway, that would be double-jeopardy - they're paying for sins already paid for. But, like the Passover, it seems like sufficient payment was made (all the Calvinists say, Amen) yet it is not applied to a person's account until regeneration.

My understanding (ignorant as it is) is that the work of the cross did not, in time, forgive the sins. But rather when a person comes to faith in Christ, that is when the sins are forgiven, and the atonement is applied. Even Calvinists would agree that a lost person that is one of God's elect, is the child of wrath until he is saved. If his sins were already forgiven at the time of the cross, then why would he be considered a child of wrath? And beyond that, if his sins were forgiven at the cross, then truly he has no sins from which he needs to repent. I'm sure there are answers for these kinds of questions, but to me, this does not fit with the clear testimony of Scripture on this particular point.

Anyway - those are my thoughts on this chapter - 2 to go!

30 miles

So, my 7 year old daughter and I went on a bike ride this past Saturday. We went along the canal from Elmgrove Road until we got to Wayneport Rd in Macedon. Then we went a couple more miles back west and ended up at Lollypop Farm. It was a great day spent with her.

We went about 6 miles and went to visit her cousins off Brooks Ave. She was quite disappointed when they weren't home. We got back on the path and went through Genesee Valley Park. Last week we had done the same, and there were a bunch of people at the park. We were both disappointed last time that we did not have any tracts with us... This time we were prepared so we brought a couple, unfortunately I only had 2, and when we got to the park, there was nobody around! I guess some event was taking place on the other side. Anyway, we decided to leave a tract on one of the tables that would eventually have somebody sitting there.

Anyway, we kept going, and it must have been somewhere around S. Clinton Ave or so when we came up to this man that was resting from his bike ride. Annabelle had said that she wanted to give out the last one, so I pointed him out to her, and she said great. We got closer, and she said - I want you to do it - I tried talking her into it, and she said, I'm too afraid. I found it ironic that at least she is honest in admitting what too many times is true for us, yet we try to give some other excuse. Anyway, we both started riding away slowly, when she said, AnywayI'm sure there will be more people that we can give it to... Pictures of the old man throwing starfish back in the water popped into my head. My response was, Yes, Annabelle, but what about this one. I went back and gave him a tract. He looked at it and said, This probably isn't my kind of reading, but Thanks... I pray it turns into his kind of reading.

Enough of the spiritual stuff... We got to one of the locks on the canal. And I had to stop and figure out what a lock was for again. After reading some of the signs around the place (giving different elevations, etc.) I think I explained it right to her :)

We kept going and saw a grandfather catch a huge fish (it was -----THIS----- big) in Pittsford. We stopped there too to get some candy from a gas station. By this time we started getting hungry, so we stopped when we got to Fairport to have some lunch. The waitress and the owner of the restaurant thought we were rather crazy for having ridden all the way out there! (It got Annabelle a free sucker though!) We walked around Fairport for a few minutes and got to see the bridge go up and down.

The ride continued for another little while, when finally we decided that it was time to call for a ride for someone to come pick us up. We got off the canal and stopped at a gas station to find out where we were. I borrowed the atlas there and gave Sarah a call. The girl working at the cash register thought we were crazy too. I wonder if they are right?

At that point we rode back and looked at some animals at Lollypop Farm for a few minutes while we were waiting. For some reason Sarah said that next time we have to ride to a certain point and then come back home. I don't know why she doesn't want to drive all the way out there again! Anyway, It was a great Saturday... Did I mention that my 7 year old girl rode her bike for 30 miles?!

GospelToItaly.com

Well, last night was Italy night at FBBC, and the food was great! I ate just enough to give me some strength...

Oh, and the presentation was decent too. That was a great video, wasn't it? By the way, if you missed the video, you can download it at http://www.gospeltoitaly.com/. Click on the Updates tab, and you will be able to download it. Go ahead, click on http://www.gospeltoitaly.com/. You see, my blog has linked to that website for a couple of months now, and many people have been referred to that site from my blog. First Bible goes and puts Italy on their home page, and now in like 2 weeks they have become the number one referrer. So, I just want to get back on top :)

Anyway, I have 2 other things that I almost used for today's post. I finished another chapter in my book, and on Saturday I had a fun day - read about them more in the next couple days.

So, Italy night... I'm just impressed with Michael & Erika. And I want to encourage everyone that reads to support them faithfully, prayerfully. And I mean that. You read about people that have prayed for something earnestly, and God provides miraculously. I know Michael has already experienced that in this early stage of deputation, but he needs us all to support him in prayer.

On that note, we need to be sure to keep all the missionaries in our prayers regularly. I say this to my chagrin. I have not been as faithful and fervant as I need to be as well. Even the missionary/apostle Paul asked for prayer on a number of occasions (Ephesians 6 and II Thessalonians 3 come to mind). The Barones are stepping up closer to the heat of the battle in this spiritual war, and we need to be sending in more protection at the hand of God.

Just a thought...

The saddest 10 days

40 days after Jesus resurrected from the grave, conquering sin, death and hell, we read in Acts 1 that He then ascended into Heaven where He sits even today at the right hand of God the Father, making intercession for us as our Great High Priest. Before He ascended into Heaven, and even before He was crucified, He had told His disciples that when He was gone, He would send the Comforter. This Comforter is the Holy Spirit. In Acts 1:8, He repeats the promise and gives them charge concerning it:

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

If you need a reminder about that Command "Ye shall be witnesses," (that is a command just like, Thou Shalt Not... only it's plural and positive, Ye Shall...) might I recommend reading: Looking Unto Jesus today. And for some more specifics, Dying Young would not be a bad read today too.

Jesus gives His disciples charge to stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came to them. He had promised this Holy Spirit earlier, that He would be their Comforter for Christ after He was to leave them. We know from Acts 2, that on the day of Pentecost, this Comforter came down upon the disciples, fulfilling the Lord's promise. From that day forward the Holy Spirit indwells those that put their faith in Christ's work on the cross. With Him, we have been sealed eternally - that have put our faith in Christ.

Ok, the preliminaries out of the way, here's today's thought: The day of Pentecost in Acts 2 was 50 days after the feast of firstfruits, which happens to be the day that Jesus rose from the dead. That means that after 40 days, Jesus ascended into Heaven, and then 10 days later the Comforter came. The title of my post is: The saddest 10 days.

The disciples had fellowship directly with Christ for 3 years. I imagine that the 3 days after His death were worse than these 10, but that's a different post - For 10 days, they were without Christ. For 10 days, they lived without the Holy Spirit inside of them. What a strange time it must have been. How many times in our lives do we end up walking around, even for 10 days, not realizing that we don't "have" Christ or the Holy Spirit with us? Yeah, I know... He's there, but we may have well left Him at home by the way we act.

For 10 days, these men were in limbo. Obeying Christ's command to wait. One observation is that this is when THEY replaced Judas' spot as one of the 12 Apostles - without Christ's presence, and without the Holy Spirit. They chose two men, and had the lots decide between the two. Am I the only one that thinks that the Apostle Paul was the man that God had planned to replace Judas?

The thought for the day is: what a sad 10 days it must have been for them without the presence of God that they had been accustomed to, or that they were about to experience. The challenge for the day (besides "Ye shall be witnesses"): Make sure that you're not walking around without the Holy Spirit. The worst way to make decisions is to make them on your own.

Just a thought...

KJV-Only Reason # 7

"What's up?" The smart-alec answer to that question is: The sky, or the ceiling. How do we know what that phrase means? Because we grew up hearing it, and heard other people's answer to it, and figured out that it means something like, "What's going on?"

"Here's the scoop:" When a person grows up with a language, they get to know the different nuiance's of that language that you wouldn't generally get taught in school. A simple example, "Coche" in Spanish. For all of you that took Spanish in school, you know that coche means car, right? Well, if you were in Guatemala, coche means pig. You don't learn that in school.

"Do you get the point?" The King James Translators lived in a different world. They grew up reading books instead of playing video games. They grew up with language teaching, and it wasn't just something they were taught in school and never used again. The details of the translators are told of some having read the entire Hebrew Bible by the age of 5. Now, I'm going to be realistic and say, most likely it was mother or father reading with the boy the Hebrew Bible. Because, at age 5, you've hardly been alive enough to do that, but the point is still made. Some of these men were considered Greek masters at the ages of like 14. What were the modern translators doing at 14? When it came time for the translators to translate the KJV, they would have recognized languages and their peculiaralities (is that a word?) for what they really meant.

Reason # 7: Because the translators of the KJV were more engrossed in the ancient languages than modern translators

The argument is made that the scholarship of the modern translators is greater than that of the KJV translators. I am not pretending to say that today's translators are stupid or ignorant, by any means. I am quite sure that they are well qualified to make good translations. Here's what I am willing to say (I could be wrong): When someone today says that the KJV translators mistranslated a verse, or that they made a mistake in a verse, I really have a hard time accepting that. If someone wants to say that what the English words meant back then, and today we would say... whatever. I'm ok with that. But to say that the translators just slipped up and put a negative in there when there shouldn't have been one - I just don't buy. And the best part: when somebody that has taken 4 years of Greek in seminary feels confident in trying to correct the KJV translators' choices on words... I find that laughable.