Update

Well, I'm sorry I've not been posting in a while, there isn't a whole lot to update on. I had an e-mail back from Carolyn (the young Mennonite girl) but it basically said "well, we just define things differently than you do" and reaffirmed a belief in free-will with not a sign of a Bible verse anywhere, or any kind of answer to any of my questions, sadly. I read through John Owen's book "A Display of Arminianism" and I highly recommend it, apparently it was his first publication and one of his best as far as beauty of literature goes, he is also very vehement against this "idol" of free will that the Arminians had set up in his day. Anyway, the issue was on my heart so I wrote down what I think is a short summary and sent it to her. I just thought I'd share it for whoever would want to read and comment upon it. I've also been reviewing a book that the pastor here is writing on Revelation. He told me (from my e-mails) that I write very well (though I beg to differ on that point, especially in comparison with some!) and wanted me to review and correct what he had written so far. I think it's very good so far, a very good overview, gets to the main point of each passage so far, and is clean and easy to understand and I've enjoyed reading it. Aside from that though, not a whole lot has been happening aside from what I would call "ordinary."

Oh, aside from the happy fact that I got a letter today informing me that I was awarded a $2000 scholarship, for which I was VERY grateful! This is the one that I asked Mr. N to write a recommendation for, as well as an instructor of mine, I'm grateful to them as well and will thank them when I have the opportunity.

Here is the letter I wrote this last evening.

This is an issue that has been on my mind much as of late and I just wanted to try to quickly sum up what it is that I am trying to convey, and that is: that it is ALL of God and not of ourselves!

And thank God for that because though he makes salvation available to all, there are none who would accept it, "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Rom 3:11. We cannot change ourselves. "Free-will," which term cannot be found in the Bible, is something that I do believe that men have, in a sense as they make choices. We know the difference between right and wrong (Gen 3:22) yet, as Gen 6:5 says "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." And we can't change that! Jer 13:23 says "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." Those are pretty strong terms. Inasmuch as we are sinners, we can choose between this or that evil, only after we have been free from sin can we do what is pleasing unto God.

That it is of God that we believe is easily gathered from such verses as Mat 11:26,26 "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." It cannot be said that the wise and prudent (which are both commended in Proverbs interestingly) were too wise in their worldly wisdom to look at the foolishness of the Gospel, Jesus plainly thanks the Father for hiding it from them, and revealing the truth to babes. Joh 6:29 plainly tells us "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

Is it up to God to choose who will come unto him? Indeed! "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Joh 5:21. John 17 has Jesus' prayer for those whom the Father has given to him.

This is NECESSARY, because "we were dead in sins," Eph 2:5 as is said often of us, as being in bondage, spiritually dead to God, otherwise Eph 1:19,20 would make absolutely no sense "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places," The very same power that raised Jesus from the dead, is wrought also in us, that we may be saved. Did Jesus tell Lazarus to come forth if he chose to? No, but by mighty power brought the dead man forth. Interestingly, afterwards Jesus tells them to loose Lazarus, he couldn't have walked out himself because of the way they bound bodies in the Middle East, with the legs wrapped tightly together. But I'm getting off the subject.

Joh 12:38-40 "That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

Those are very strong words: "Could not so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. As has been the belief of nearly every Christian for the past 2000 years, men have no power to believe in themselves, it is merely of God's mere love and mercy that works in us to bring or draw us to himself. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Joh 6:44 That these are believers is made clear from the promise that he will raise him up at the last day.

Or how about Act 16:14 "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." Clearly God opened her heart so that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. If it was all up to her to hear and to choose, then why would God's work in her heart be necessary?

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Or "appointed" in other translations. They didn't believe first and were then appointed, they believed BECAUSE they were appointed, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" Eph 1:4. Those are very strong words and I honestly don't see how they can be ignored or circumvented.

God's Word is what must bind our consciences and mold our beliefs. If I can be shown that there some gross injustice I am doing to the words themselves, then I will gladly listen and learn. Until then however, I must go with what is the clearest in Scripture, and that is that men are unable to believe of themselves "John answered, 'A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.'" and all are equally deserving of death because they should believe in the Son of God and yet do not. "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil."

We are sinners and cannot change our behaviour, we shun the light and love the darkness. Thanks be to God that we "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:13, because such only believed in his name as the previous verse states. Had God not done so, we would have remained even as the rest of the world, in sin and wickedness, hating God. "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. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom 8:7,8

People often quote Rom 8:31 "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?" but for some reason neglect the preceeding verses which caused Paul the Apostle to burst out with this exclamation: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Those whom he predestined, or chose, he called to himself, justified them, and will glorify them (though so certain as to be spoken of as already accomplished, as when, at times, spoken of our sanctification).

Rom 8:38,39 "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Christ loves us because we love him? "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1Jo 4:10

Rom 5:8,9 "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." Clearly the "we" are Christians, since they have been justified, or declared to be righteous. As a "redeemer" Christ died for those he was to redeem, or else he was only a potential saviour and it could have been that no one had believed. The word redeemed means to buy back, ransomed, delivered from bondage (in this case, Satan). Christ is only a true saviour and a true redeemer if he actually did purchase his people, if he actually did die to save his chosen ones. A ransom denotes a very specific object, not that he put up a fund that people can dip into whenever they want. I agree that the worth of Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to cover the sins of a thousand worlds, yet this obviously doesn't happen because all do not believe. We have a saviour, not a potential saviour. Look up the instances of "ransom" in the Old Testament and it always deals with a specific person. Why then, when it is said that Jesus became a ransom for "many" that it is said that it is only a pool that people may dip into, like a scholarship fund?

Over 100 references in the New Testament alone calling us (believers) "chosen." Is this without significance? And does not God have a right to do so when all, by their own rejection, deserve the punishment of hell forever? Does not a man have a right to choose a wife and a woman to choose a husband? Would that be unjust to every other man or woman out there? Then why cannot God choose a bride for his Son, Christ? And most certainly it is to show his wonderful grace, "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 1Co 1:26-29

Instead of making me proud and boastful as some accuse, it makes me all the more to praise God and to realize that since he chooses what is considered poor in the eyes of the world, that I am nothing, I am (or was) worse than most people, yet because of his mercy, he chose me and brought me to himself. There is no cause to boast that I was more spiritual than anyone else, or that I chose Christ (Joh 15:16 "You did not choose me, but I chose you") but that he chose me, that I might bear fruit.

It's not merely a contention about words. If we cannot believe the plain sense of these words of Scripture then neither can we believe something such as Rom 3:24 "and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," as meaning that we are actually justified without works! I strongly believe that works cannot save anyone because "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent." Pro 21:27 And we are clearly born wicked: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psa 51:5

There is a multitude of other verses and the whole redemptive cloth is woven so tightly with this that if you take it out, the entirety of it falls and you wind up believing in salvation by works, a universal salvation, or some other untruth, if you take it to its natural consequences. If we cannot believe the Scripture upon this matter, then what can we believe? Surely this is not something that men would have conceived on their own, it is repugnant to men's belief in their own autonomy, yet may the Lord teach us and not we ourselves. May he humble us. I pray for humbleness too as I try to firmly but gently try to show what the Scriptures do indeed teach. If I am wrong, then please show me were I have failed. Please study the Scriptures and ask God to reveal what is true and what is false. And please know that this is meant out of respect and love and a desire to see a fellow sister to grow and to praise God for the glory due to him, all of it and not just a part, and I pray for that in myself as well for I come so short in so many ways. I'm not simply willing to share, but I am willing to listen and to be instructed as well, if your pastor, parents, or anyone you know has something which might show that I am incorrect, then by all means, I beg you to show it to me, that I might be able to walk in a way that is pleasing unto the Lord, and not merely to myself or to other men. Though I think that I could hardly be accused of trying to please people by supporting such a doctrine. "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. John 6:65,66 Many of the people following Christ turned away from him saying "this is a hard thing" because what he said. I expect nothing else. It is a hard thing, but oh how glorifying to God once you realize! All the more reason to ask God to use you as a tool to witness to others that he might use you to be the means to draw another one to himself! Those who say it depends on the will of men (and not of God like John 1:13 says) would have to say that when you witness, it is up to you to be persuasive and if you are not and turn them farther away, it is your fault. If you are the one who persuades people to come to Christ, then you have to take the blame for chasing people away, and that is a horrible burden to live with, knowing that by your incompetance you could damn someone forever. This is not the case though, for whom he foreknew, he predestined, and whom he predestined, he calls, and whom he calls, he justifies, and God's end will be accomplished, though it does not excuse us from preparing or preaching God's Word, may we pray to be used though!

It is largely because of this that the modern "cheap grace" movement has begun, we need to be persuasive as possible, play the music, play on emotions, get people to come forward and make a decision "NOW" before it is too late, to make them say the prayer. If it is up to men, then that's the way to go, but that's not what the Apostles did. "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Act 2:47
Why pray for relatives and friends, asking God to save their souls if we don't believe that he actually works in them? If we believe it is all of their own will that they choose or don't choose him? No, but I believe the Scriptures clearly teach that he must work in men, to regenerate them and make them sensitive to the things of God and make them so that they see the horribleness of their sin and desire to turn away from it and to believe on Christ. As natural man, we love those things and will not turn away, as God's new creations, we abhor those things and seek him. We may plant, water, and plough, but God ALONE gives the increase. I feel that this is brief, but I believe it to be true, Scriptural, and what is pleasing to God, if I be wrong then I ask please, to be shown, that I may correct myself, but you cannot correct or bend the Scriptures, every man who tries is broken upon them. Rather they must bend and correct us.

For His Kingdom,
L.

Life is Busy

Just a quick note on some things that are happening.

I'm still corresponding with Marijke, who has asked some questions about the Bible and related things. She agrees now that at least the ark would have been feasible (I showed her some statistics on it and some arguments) and I've introduced some geological reasons why the Bible and the Flood may indeed be true! She has a very sarcastic personality so it's hard to tell how much of an impact it makes, mostly I'm being there, trying to support through hard times and she seems really appreciative that someone would take the time to both speak to her, and pray for her (which she says has never happened before). I've given a gospel presentation but she still believes that a "god or goddess" would not condemn their children but would forgive them. It does all go back to a view of the depravity of man and how much of a terrible thing any kind of sin is in the sight of a thrice holy God. Hopefully I can keep pounding away and I'm praying for the Spirit to work in her life to convince and convert, for it is obvious that I can do nothing. It's a good reminder that I need to just keep going back to the Scriptures.

I haven't heard from J.J. real recently, but the last time I heard from her she was doing fine, apparently reading her Bible though not completely caught up and she had asked for more of Spurgeon's Morning and Evening devotionals. She was thankful that I was helping "keep her accountable." Though if that's the case, I'm doing a horrible job of it.

I've been working with my siblings on memorizing the Westminster Shorter Catechism, they are up to question 18 now (I'm generally trying to have them do one a day), though Kady hasn't been able to quite keep up. It's a chore sometimes to make sure everyone is on track and realizes what I'm going to test them on. And though I've stopped asking them all questions every night and have been going around, asking each a question in turn, it still takes a while. After they get the first 25 down well, then I'll move on and quiz them on the next 25, or that is how I am planning on doing it. Every day I take the supporting scriptures for the answer they are learning and read them, as well as explaining what the question and answer mean.

Personally, I'm attempting to memorize the Larger Catechism (since the shorter said it was for those of weaker capacity) but it's not just twice as long, I think it's about four times as long. I took two a day for a while but I'm slowing down and doing only one a day. I'm beginning to think that I may be one of those of the weaker capacity! I'm up to question 35 and shall be doing 36 tomorrow. I'm very appreciative of the exactness of the language they use and how every phrase certainly has a meaning to the whole answer. I'm kind of intimidated by some of the answers on the Ten Commandments however, because some of them are a long list of words (sins forbidden for example) and I'm not sure how I'm ever going to remember the order. And I'm already stumbling on some of the earlier ones I went through. It may take a while (approximately another five months) but I hope to eventually finish it. It's hard though because some of the questions are similar to the Shorter Catechism but not quite, so I'm almost learning two different versions, and on top of that, the one in my book and the one I printed out are slightly different in that the one I printed out (to carry in my shirt pocket) takes "promiseth" and turns it to "promises." I'd rather learn the old one I think. And then I'm not very good at memorizing I think, so I have to sit there for a while, which takes time from reading and studying ;)

I also just wrote a long e-mail to a young lady that I've had several classes with though I never really spoke much to except through e-mail. A Christian who attended Countryside Baptist and I believe I mentioned before. A very modest and nice young lady who definitely was different from the average college student. The e-mail converstations have been almost strictly about church and school and I found out that she was one of the Mennonite Brethren and she mentioned (I didn't) that apparently they were Armenian and she just recently said that they of course did believe that men didn't save themselves, but they have the power to choose (Mennonites come from Anabaptist roots apparently) so I posed some questions for her, wrote a little bit (haha) on freedom. Well, I'll include the main part of it I guess. I really did try to keep it down to a minimum at this point. I'm not going to force the issue so it's up to her to continue the discussion but if her past conduct is any indication then I think she will, because she truly does seem to be seeking to know and to love God and I've been surprised by some of the stands she took, which do not seem to be as a general rule, a part of what I would imagine to be her background.

And then I've sent a few e-mails (very long ones) back and forth with the Pastor of the Reformed (Southern) Baptist church here. When he spoke of the second commandment and how we make God out to be what he is not sometimes by only focusing on certain attributes, I sent him an e-mail and said something along the lines of isn't that what hymns do sometimes? They always focus on God's love and grace, but his Jesus Christ as a "friend" etc. and are irreverent to him (and I briefly mentioned some of what I had studied about the name of Jesus). He agreed with much of what I was saying and I don't know if I had any impact at all, but Sunday he spoke in the morning (about taking the Lord's name in vain" and mentioned how often we use the name Jesus irreverently and while he wasn't going to make a legalistic thing out of it, we should at least reverence him in our hearts and properly he is called the Christ, that is his title (which was almost exactly what I had said, I'm not going to be legalistic or say it should be any certain way, but the Lord Jesus does have titles that are properly ascribed to him). Then in the morning service he spoke on Colossians 3:16 which speaks of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. I had had a long discussion with him through e-mail on this and had said that while I didn't think that many people would be convicted of exlusive Psalmody, that I was saddened that there wasn't at least a third of Psalms sung. And I mentioned a lot of other things. Well, the pastor said Sunday, when he got to this part, that he felt it was indicative of "blended" worship, including the hymns of men, but he said also "but look, it does say to sing the Psalms and it is clear that this is the book of Psalms. Where are they in our singing today? We need to be doing this." He also said that many of the hymns in the Baptist Hymnal were not reverant of God but were very irreverent and wrong. It was more than I had hoped for and I was so very thankful for this! I don't know if my discussions had any influence at all or if it would have taken place had I not been brought to speak to him on this matter but I am thankful it did! He had borrowed my Psalter and I am very hopeful that we'll begin singing some of the Psalms soon. Since next Sunday he'll be speaking on the fourth commandment, the Sabbath, I am also writing him on that subject and sharing some quotes. I am very grateful that he takes time to listen to me and to write me back with his own views and learnings. I hope I don't "overstay" that welcome though, because I do tend to write a lot, though I try to keep it down to a minimum.

So that, in addition to my own reading and studies, is what keeps me busy. Each of these e-mails requires a bit of study to prepare because I don't want to be saying something without support. In addition to that, I WANT to do some blog posts. I'll try to keep it regularly updated ;)




Here is part of the e-mail I sent to the Mennonite girl:

Let me start out by asking what it means to have freedom of the will? For example, I would think that every Christian would say God is a free agent, meaning that he can do as he pleases. But this freedom is confined to his nature. We say that God is infinitely free, yet does God sin? Such a thought is abhorrent, God CANNOT sin because sinning is not a part of his nature.

A woman who is always benevolent and is kindly, will act according to her character. If a small child appears shivering on her doorstep, she has "freedom" so to speak, to take that child, feed it, and make it warm etc. She COULD have left it out in the cold, but her character wouldn't allow it.

One more example, think of a man who is a miser and always hoards money. When a certain situation comes up, he has the "freedom" to either give away his money or to keep it for himself. It's a pretty good bet that, according to his character, he will hoard it like he always has. People do act according to their character or nature, thus their free will often can be predicted.

I'll get in to more detail (Lord willing) but what I am in full support of is called Augustinianism by some, not because Augustine was the first to come up with the doctrine, but because he was one of the early church fathers who stood by that position and expounded upon it when it came under attack, I am very confident that it is the same doctrine that Paul the Apostle speaks of as well. It boils down to what you believe in the depravity of man. Armenians (as a general rule) hold that man's will did not fall. My questions for you (again, should you be willing to continue this discussion, it's up to you) would be:

What do you believe of the fall, and do men inherit a corrupt nature from Adam? Assuredly we are all guilty, since we all sinned in Adam (Rom 5:12, 19).

What is the nature of this corruption? I believe that men are born with a sin nature (Eph 2:4,5) and that this nature means that they are dead in sin and unable to do any good (Rom 3:11, 5:14). We were by nature "Children of wrath" and act according to that nature. A book for example is unable to keep itself in the air, it falls downward according to its nature. It is only when God's hand pulls the sinner up that the book can come up, otherwise it acts according to its nature.

Another question, what does "dead" mean? (Rom 4:17, 5:15, Eph 2:1-5)
In fact, I'd urge you to read through Ephesians 2:1-10 very carefully and note how salvation by grace through faith is stressed, and the ordering of the Greek makes it clear that even faith is included in this "gift" (verse 8).
He quickens those who are by nature children of wrath, why do they need to be quickened (Which Webster defines as "Made alive; revived; vivified; reinvigorated.")? Because they are dead is the apparent answer. Even when we were dead, he quickened us (verse 5). And it's not a result of works lest any man should boast.

Here is a final question led from the former:
Since you believe that men have the right to choose or reject Christ, why do some reject or choose him? Are the ones who choose him better than those who do not? Are they more spiritual? Some have said that it is because the Spirit "woos" people and certain people listen to this wooing and others do not. But that still doesn't correct the problem because this would mean that some are more in tune with the wooing than others.

Finally, I'd ask you to consider Jesus' words in 6:63-65, the Spirit gives life, and no man can come to Him unless the Father draws him (back up in verse 44). Also note that it was because of these sayings (that Jesus said no man could come to Him unless the Father draws him) that his disciples (not necessarily the twelve) were grumbling and He said "do you take offense at this?" It is offensive to men, but our doctrine cannot be founded upon what we think or feel is or is not, but what the Bible teaches.

I think perhaps I went further into the subject than I'd intended to at first. I really do hope that it's not a subject you'd shy from or think I'm attacking you upon. I sincerely hope that each of us can grow through a discussion and I'd like to hear your thoughts to these questions I've posed and I'm certainly willing to answer a question you'd like to pose to myself or explain something which I may have not made clear, or to go into more detail (because I've barely begun I admit).

Diggin' in the Dirt

I decided that I had better do another post, though most likely a short(er) one than normal, if there is such a thing as normal in my writing!

Well, life goes on around here. This past week the Reformed Baptist church had a Grace Conference, or revival, as usually it is called, though not a revival in the old-fashioned, Jonathan Edwards sense, more of a spurring on to good works, to encourage people in their faith and to strengthen their walk and foundation. They had two preachers come in, both of whom were elderly gentlemen who had been preaching for over 50 years. The pastor here said that we had over 100 years of experience there!

It was encouraging. The first Sunday, after the singing of a hymn (that is one thing I think I'm honestly never going to look at the same again) one of the men got up to preach and said he was going to preach on something else, but after singing about grace, he felt led to do a sermon upon that. It was a very good impromptu sermon, from Acts 15:11, full of the sovereign grace of God in election and he made quite a few good points. The second man got up to preach and said he should have known better than to have come with a prepared sermon with Jimmy preaching before him, so he delivered a sermon on some of the more practical purposes of grace in a Christian's daily walk and living in Christ, about sanctification. He had a shoulder in a sling (since he had had surgery upon it recently) and he was in bad shape after that so he preached no more during the next three days. There was one part in his sermon that I found a bit unfounded and that was when (while talking of sanctification) he went on a little side trail, pointing his finger and glaring at everyone while saying "you smokers, you beer drinkers, you dippers, you need to stop and live in Christ!" Which yes, addiction is a sin, and drunkenness is as well (perhaps that was his point) and I don't mind if people choose not to drink alcohol (I don't myself), I still don't agree with those who say that any kind of alcohol is a sin, it simply isn't biblical. Anyway, rabbit trail.

There were four days total like this where we gathered in the evenings and for the most part it was encouraging and I was glad to see solid teaching. There was one time however where Pastor Jimmy said something about how he felt that in Revelation that the bride was composed of those who were members of churches and he said "I'm glad that I'm a member of one of Christ's churches." That just sounded funny to me so the following evening I asked him about it and he did tell me that he thought that only people who were members of one of the churches would be part of the bride, the rest of God's elect and the "believers" of the Old Testament would just be guests. He said he used to believe that only members would be in heaven at all but that this would make baptism necessary to salvation and he didn't agree with that. When it came to a question of terminology I asked if he thought the bride would be what some would call the invisible church. He told me that he didn't like that term at all, that in the New Testament, church always meant the local body of believers, those members. He thought that the bride was composed of those saved members and that the rest of the elect in the world would be part of the guests at the marriage supper.

I completely disagree with his statements on the subject though. I do believe that the Old Testament believers were saved even as we are, by grace through faith and that they would be only guests and not part of Christ's redeemed seems to me to be quite fallacious. Then as to terminology, and the church well......

Peter was told by Christ that "on this rock I will build my church." I suppose it could be taken to mean the church of Jerusalem but that seems to be stretching the text.
Ephesians 1:22-23 says
"And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all."
And if that wasn't clear enough, there is the long passage in Ephesians 5:23-32

"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

Which very, very clearly equates Christ's body with both His bride and His Church. Now it is true that the Bible does make many, many references to local churches, that is why to clarify, our Christian vocabulary has taken the terms "Invisible Church" and "Visible Church" to distinguish the two. And are we not all members of one body? So to say that there are the elect that are part of the bride, and some of the elect that are not seems to be completely unscriptural and I was surprised that he should think that way, he is quite an educated man, much more familiar with the Bible than I could hope to be, and has held positions in seminaries and even as head of a Bible College I believe. I was very thankful for the knowledge that he shared over those days yet this is one issue where I can't see why he would choose that ground.

Although it could largely be the Southern Baptist influence. We were told by one man who used to be a Baptist Minister - though he told me that he never studied Greek or Hebrew and took about 30 hours total and most of those were just general education classes and then he was offered a position and he took it. He has grown much since then and I don't think he enjoys the memory at all. - Anyway, he said that the Southern Baptists (at least where he was at) believed that you had to be baptized and a member of a Souther Baptist church or you were not saved. I don't think that all Southern Baptist churches are that way, nor this reformed one here, though I still see a large influence in the area of that. They always say "We Baptists believe in God's grace" etc. There is a very strong affinity to their denomination, to the point of danger sometimes. One man was talking about the church in Jerusalem two Wednesday nights ago and accidentally said "the First Baptist Church in Jerusalem, oops, I mean the first evangelical church." But I thought it aptly summed up what the feeling seems to be sometimes. I just think it's amusing because they seem to think that the Baptist denomination has been the only true one all these years, their confession of faith is drawn word for word (with a couple of changes in several sections) from the Westminster Confession, they speak of the grand old hymns they sing (most written between 1850 and 1950), in comparison with what I've been reading lately, that just seems like it was yesterday! :) I'm not trying to put them down, it just seems funny to me sometimes. I'm more sure than ever that I want to be familiar with church history and the preceeding fathers, to learn from their mistakes and triumphs and to know more about my own heritage, of which I am woefully ignorant myself, though learning.

I enjoyed a discussion with the Pastor, though e-mail on Psalmody however and he has borrowed my Psalter and tape and boy am I missing it! It's been a week and a half now and though I'm sure he'll return it soon, I may have to ask for it back anyway because there have been several times when I have very much wanted to use it. That's definitely one thing I'm looking forward to when I get back (D.V.) to Stillwater, because for the most part, I don't have many people to share them with. The pastor is really into a group called iGraceMusic.com and they rewrite old hymns to new music. I don't know much about it but it is much richer in theology than the songs of today.

Aside from those things, I've been keeping busy reading, memorizing, helping my siblings to memorize, reading to them, and working of course! Today we were digging a trench on our property to put a water line up to the corrals, about half a mile up the road. It was rather hot but since we weren't doing much digging (the tractor with the trencher was doing the brunt of the work) it wasn't too bad. But when I had to reach down into the trench to work with the pipe or clean out some part, the sweat on my arms combined with the dirt to make a nice layer of mud all over my arms, which is kind of gross. So.... that's it for tonight. I'm going to get some other things done!

The Lord's Day

Hebrews 4:9
"So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God."

It was while reading Pink's commentary on Hebrews that I came across a very interesting statement that he made, he made the case that this is somewhat of a side remark in the middle of the passage, which is speaking of the heavenly rest (or eternal Sabbath) which awaits believers. This was based partially around the word "remains" which I wanted to do a small word study on. The word is the greek word Apoleipo, and means "to leave, leave behind, abandon, left, remains." While this might not seem like anything special at first glance, lets take a look at the other examples of where this is used in the New Testament.

2Ti 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

2Ti 4:20 Erastus remained at Corinth, and I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus.

Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--

The word is translated "left" in each of these passages and from the context of each passage we would be very confident in asserting that it means, passively to leave something, in other words, it stays there. It's not something that is looked for in the future (i.e. "there is still going to be") but something which has been left.

That the passage (Heb 4:1-11) as a whole refers to a future rest I have no doubt, but from this one word, I would agree with Pink in that this sentence appears to be an interjection, interrupting from the future look of things to something that is "left behind" for us, remaining for now. The following is a long quote but I feel it is well worth the reading. He (Pink) says:

"It needs to be most carefully observed that in this verse the Holy Spirit employs an entirely different word for "rest" than what he had used in Heb_4:1, Heb_4:3-5, Heb_4:8. There the Greek word is rightly rendered "rest," but here it is "sabbatismos" ....
"The purpose of the Holy Spirit in employing this term here is not difficult to discover. He was writing to Hebrews, Jews who had professed to become Christians, to have trusted in the Lord Jesus. Their profession of faith involved them in sore trials at the hands of their unbelieving brethren. They denounced them as apostates from the faith of their fathers. They disowned them as the "people of God." But as we have said the apostle here reassures them that now only believers in Christ had any title to be numbered among "the people of God." Having renounced Judaism for Christ the question of the "Sabbath" must also have exercised them deeply. Here the apostle sets their minds at rest. A suitable point in his epistle had now been reached when this could be brought in: he was speaking of "rest," so he informs them that under Christianity also, "there remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God." The specific reference in the "therefore" is to what he had said in Heb_4:4 : God did rest on the seventh day from all His works, there]ore as believers in Christ are the "people of God" they must rest too.
"There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God." The reference is not to something future, but to what is present. The Greek verb (in its passive form) is never rendered by any other English equivalent than "remaineth." It occurs again in Heb_10:26. The word "remain" signifies "to be left after others have withdrawn, to continue unchanged." Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God: "There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping." Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling." Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Heb_4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament scriptures.....
"'It appears to me that it is the rest of Christ from His works, which is compared with the rest of God from His works in creation.' (Dr. John Owen).
"The reference to Christ in Heb_4:10 (remember the section begins at Heb_3:1 and concludes with Heb_4:14-16) completes the positive side of the apostle’s proof of His superiority over Joshua. In Heb_4:8 he had pointed out that Joshua did not lead Israel into the perfect rest of God; now he affirms that Christ, our Apostle, has entered it, and His entrance is the pledge and proof that His people shall — "whither the Forerunner is for us entered" (Heb_6:20). But more: what is said of Christ in Heb_4:10 clinches our interpretation of Heb_4:9 and gives beautiful completeness to what is there said: "There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping to the people of God. For He that is entered into His rest, He also hath ceased from his own works, as God from His."
"Thus, the Holy Spirit here teaches us to view Christ’s rest from his work of Redemption as parallel with God’s work in creation. They are spoken of as parallel in this respect: the relation which each "work" has to the keeping of a Sabbath! The opening "for" of Heb_4:10 shows that what follows furnishes a reason why God’s people, now, must keep the Sabbath. That reason invests the Sabbath with a fuller meaning than it had in Old Testament times. It is now not only a memorial of God’s work of creation, and a recognition of the Creator as our Proprietor, but it is also an emblem of the rest which Christ entered as an eternal memorial of His finished work; and inasmuch as Christ ended His work and entered upon His "rest" by rising again on the first day of the week, we are thereby notified that the Christian’s six work-days must run from Monday to Saturday, and that his Sabbath must be observed on Sunday. This is confirmed by the additional fact that the New Testament shows that after the crucifixion of Christ the first day of the week was the one set apart for Divine worship. May the Lord bless what has been before us."

This is something that has been laid on my heart lately. I think that every Christian would agree that we are still under the moral law of God, Jesus upheld the Ten Commandments when he said:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt 22:37-39)

He did not come to abolish the law, every person in the world, Christians especially, are not to murder, bear false witness, take the Lord's name in vain etc. This also applies to the Sabbath. While it is true that as Christians do not have the rituals that the Judaizers had heaped upon themselves unscripturally - or that Christians ought to keep in particular the seventh day holy - as Pink aptly pointed out above, we do indeed have a day of rest, one day in seven, for the worship of God and this is looking ahead to the consummation of that rest, the entering into the eternal Sabbath and in honour of Christ resting from his work once he had risen from the dead and secured our resurrection.

I say this because there are some who would say that we are not under the Old Testament law, that there is no specific New Testament command to observe a Sabbath day. To this we would reply that there is also no New Testament command not to make idols. Because of the absence and no express command or hint to the opposite, we must consider the moral law (i.e. the Ten Commandments and the like) to be still in effect. As ever, it is still the law of God. Some would claim that passages such as Colossians 2:16, which says

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. "

refer to the passing away of the Sabbath. However, this is a plural form of Sabbath. Barnes says:

"Greek, “of the Sabbaths.” The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called."

The plural form of "Sabbath" is used only one other place and that is understandable when you read the verse, in Acts 17:2
"And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,"
because it is speaking of more than one. This particular verse is not talking about the Sabbath however, the seventh day, or so it would seem. Even if it was however, the object of this is the rituals and sacrifices, which we all do agree have passed away, they were (as the next verse intimates) a shadoe of things to come. The Sabbath itself was instituted by God at the creation though, and is different from the sacrificial system. Interestingly, the same wording for this verse ("feasts, new moons, Sabbaths") occurs in these Old Testament passages:

1Ch_23:31 and whenever burnt offerings were offered to the LORD on Sabbaths, new moons and feast days, according to the number required of them, regularly before the LORD.
2Ch_2:4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the LORD my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the LORD our God, as ordained forever for Israel.
2Ch_31:3 The contribution of the king from his own possessions was for the burnt offerings: the burnt offerings of morning and evening, and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the appointed feasts, as it is written in the Law of the LORD.
Eze_45:17 It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.
Hos_2:11 And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts.

It appears to refer to the ceremonies, celebrations, and sacrificial system as a whole. But even if it was referring to the Sabbath, I agree whole-heartedly that we do not have the rituals and laws that the Judaizers had heaped upon themselves, because as the next verse intimates, they were only a shadow. John MacArthur holds this view of Col 2:16 and says
"The weekly celebration of the seventh day, which pictures God's rest from creation. The NT clearly teaches that Christians are not required to keep it."

I agree so far as he goes, in that we do not keep the seventh day, but as for keeping a Sabbath, a holy day unto the Lord, I firmly believe that there is no cessation from the command of God to obverve a day in seven, changed to the first day of the week in honour of Christ. I do not know Dr MacArthur's personal views on the subject since these words do not give enough information, but I agree as far as he takes it, in regards to the specific Jewish customs and celebration of the seventh day.

Another verse that has been cited in opposition to the Sabbath continuing is Romans 14:5
"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

Though there is no indication that this is in reference to the Sabbath. One person esteems all days alike some say is a reference that "every day" is a Sabbath day. To this we would answer that according to the text, it isn't condemning one or the other view, and there are a number of examples of the gathering of believers on the first day of the week.
1Co 16:1-2 Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.

Yes, every day is a day unto the Lord, but this is not a higher calling than was made to the Old Testament believers, e.g. Deu 6:5
"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

How can there be a higher mandate than that? To love God with all of your being. God's requirements have not changed in the slightest, what has changed is that he helps us, by His Spirit to fulfill that calling.

Hodge says:
"If we hold fast the fundamental principle of our Protestant faith and freedom 'that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice,' we must be able to plead express divine authority for the religious observance of the Lord's Day, or allow every man so to keep it or not as he sees fit. To his own master he stands or falls; to Him alone is he accountable for the use which he makes of his Christian liberty. But as no man is at liberty to steal or not to steal as he sees fit, so all 'English speaking' Christians with one voice say, he is not at liberty to sanctify or profane the Sabbath, as he sees fit. He is bound by the primal and immutable law given at the creation, to keep one day in seven holy to the Lord."
Hodge's Systematic Theology, Vol 3, pg 334

Our Christian liberty is a marvelous thing, but it isn't a liberty to do as we please, but a liberty to obey God and to serve him. It's a liberty from our own previous enslavement to sin, a liberty unto life and in serving our risen Lord. We can't choose to worship God as we choose, but we should worship Him as he tells us to, in obedience, as sons and no longer slaves to sin.

Let me take a moment to cite a little bit from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter twenty-one and section seven and eight in particular:
7. "As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him (Exo_20:8, Exo_20:10, Exo_20:11; Isa_56:2, Isa_56:4, Isa_56:6, Isa_56:7): which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week (Gen_2:2, Gen_2:3; Act_20:7; 1Co_16:1, 1Co_16:2), which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day (Rev_1:10), and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath (Exo_20:8, Exo_20:10, with Mat_5:17, Mat_5:18)."
8. "This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments, and recreations (Exo_20:8; Exo_16:23, Exo_16:25, Exo_16:26, Exo_16:29, Exo_16:30; Exo_31:15-17; Neh_13:15-22; Isa_58:13), but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy (Isa_58:13; Mat_12:1-13)."

Which of course is not to be regarded as Scripture itself as far as authority, but is a very good summary in my opinion. The RPCNA Testimony places alongside this these words:
"God promises rich blessings for keeping the Lord's Day holy. Isa_56:2-7; Isa_58:13-14; Mar_2:27;"

And that comes down the the conclusion of my study, that the Lord's Day (as it is indeed properly called, I have made the mistake of saying ".... spending my Sunday....") and it is a blessing to treat it as such! As Mark 2:27 says, the Sabbath was made for man, it is an enjoyment because of rest and fellowship with God and blessings are promised to those that keep it, Isaiah 58:14 promises "then you shall take delight in the Lord." The Lord is our inheritance, our joy, the very object of our devotion! I have been convicted the last few years that I need to treat it more like the Lord's Day and less like my own, not begrudgingly, but willingly and joyfully, rendering unto the Lord only a portion of what he has given to me, and relishing the time to learn all I can about him (through reading and study) and communion with him. On that note however, the rewards given to me are beyond what I had imagined, this last year has been the largest in terms of spiritual growth (by far) that I have ever experienced. I realize that it is the work of the Spirit to work in men's hearts and I am simply stating the case how I see it, and because I don't see why people shouldn't revel in the Lord and having a whole day devoted to him, even more so than the others. Not only do I believe it is a biblical mandate to keep the Sabbath, instituted from Creation, but I believe that it should be a delight to the Lord and spent in a manner that is pleasing to him rather than pleasing to our own selves. It isn't merely another day for ourselves, but it is special in that we can set it aside, more fully than any other, to God. Ideally would all days be spent in this manner. In closing, allow me to quote from Albert Barnes, whom I don't agree with all the time but who made some very searching statements on this matter:

"(2) heaven will be like a Sabbath. The best description of it is to say it is “an eternal Sabbath.” Take the Sabbath on earth when best observed, and extend the idea to eternity, and let there be separated all idea of imperfection from its observance, and that would be heaven. The Sabbath is holy; so is heaven. It is a period of worship; so is heaven. It is for praise and for the contemplation of heavenly truth; so is heaven. The Sabbath is appointed that we may lay aside worldly cares and anxieties for a little season here; heaven that we may lay them aside forever.
(3) the Sabbath here should be like heaven. It is designed to be its type and emblem. So far as the circumstances of the case will allow, it should be just like heaven. There should be the same employments; the same joys; the same communion with God. One of the best rules for employing the Sabbath aright is, to think what heaven will be, and then to endeavor to spend it in the same way. One day in seven at least should remind us of what heaven is to be; and that day may be, and should be, the most happy of the seven.
(4) they who do not love the Sabbath on earth, are not prepared for heaven. If it is to them a day of tediousness; if its hours move heavily; if they have no delight in its sacred employments, what would an eternity of such days be? How would they be passed? Nothing can be clearer than that if we have no such happiness in a season of holy rest, and in holy employments here, we are wholly unprepared for heaven. To the Christian it is the subject of the highest joy in anticipation that heaven is to be “one long unbroken” sabbath - an eternity of successive Sabbath hours. But what to a sinner could be a more repulsive and gloomy prospect than such an eternal Sabbath?
(5) if this be so, then what a melancholy view is furnished as to the actual preparation of the great mass of people for heaven! How is the Sabbath now spent? In idleness; in business; in traveling; in hunting and fishing; in light reading and conversation; in sleep; in visiting; in riding, walking, lounging, “ennui;” - in revelry and dissipation; in any and every way “except the right way;” in every way except in holy communion with God. What would the race be if once transported to heaven as they are! What a prospect would it be to this multitude to have to spend “an eternity” which would be but a prolongation of the Sabbath of holiness!
(6) let those who love the Sabbath rejoice in the prospect of eternal rest in heaven. In our labor let us look to that world where wearisome toil is unknown; in our afflictions, let us look to that world where tears never fall; and when our hearts are pained by the violation of the Sabbath all around us, let us look to that blessed world where such violation will cease forever. It is not far distant. A few steps will bring us there. Of any Christian it may be said that perhaps his next Sabbath will be spent in heaven - near the throne of God.
- A. Barnes

I hope this short and most inadequate study has been enough to whet one's appetite to search the matter out for his or herself, and that it has been an encouragement and a blessing to you as you grow in your walk with Christ.